Is cannabis addictive ??? was Re: Poitical abuses...

Ursula Keuper-Bennett howzit at
Fri Nov 8 08:00:53 EST 1996

In article <328270BF.60AE at>,
   Nigel Foden <n.foden at> wrote:
>Dr E. Buxbaum wrote:

>Scientific work is 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. 

   Nigel Foden <n.foden at> wrote:

>Also remember that sometimes, a paper may be biased in its outlook to 
>reflect the political mood of the time.

As a layperson, I found the above statements interesting.  Dr. Buxbaum 
appears to be voicing how the best research is done and the best papers 
written ("best" meaning recognized by others in the field as work that 
demonstrates strong science principles and integrity.)

But I don't think there is much doubt that what Mr. Foden says is also 
true.  That papers can be biased and reflect the political mood.  

Both these statements got me thinking.  Here it is.  I figure if 
scientific work is "90% perspiration and 10% inspiration" then it can't 
be  biased in its outlook and reflect the political mood of the time, 

I mean to some extent a researcher is affected by his time (if nothing 
else limited to the present knowledge of his discipline) no matter what 
--but the best try and be aware of it.

So here is my question.  A paper that is "biased" and/or "reflects the 
political mood of the time" must have been written by a researcher who 
was doing more inspirating than perspirating.

Ignoring the poor grammar, is that a decent conclusion?

                       ^                  Ursula Keuper-Bennett
                      0 0                 Mississauga, Ontario
             /V^\     I I    /^V\         Email: howzit at
           /V     Turtle Trax    V\

            PLEASE SUPPORT Green Turtle Fibropapilloma RESEARCH

More information about the Cellbiol mailing list