more on Academy of P.C. Sciences - New York Times

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David P. Reed" <[email protected]>
Date: September 27, 2006 9:58:27 PM GMT+02:00
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Academy of P.C. Sciences - New York Times

I'm interested after googling: where is the evidence that "barring"  
occurred in letting this contract?  Citations would help the skeptics  
among us.

In particular, did Congress request NSF to let a contract to parties  
with builtin conflicts of interest resulting from their employment?

Or is the "barring" just slang for ensuring that science is not  
perverted by special interests?


David Farber wrote:
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Ed Gerck <[email protected]>
> Date: September 26, 2006 6:03:32 PM EDT
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [IP] Academy of P.C. Sciences - New York Times
>
> David Farber wrote:
>> I never thought the academy was cynical enough to publish a  
>> political tract like “Beyond Bias and Barriers,” the new report on  
>> discrimination against female scientists and engineers.
>
> That's the same thing that was done in the US with Internet voting
> by the NSF, where Internet voting companies were barred from
> participate -- because they are vendors. So, the scientists that were
> leading the field and had actual experience had no voice, while those
> who could only speculate and were coincident with the desired result
> were left  to call the shots. Guilty as charged.
>
> Google David Cheney and that NSF-supported fly-by-night operation
> that was called the Internet Policy Institute.
>
> Regards,
> Ed Gerck
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as [email protected]
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/
>