Research Collecting Dollars Vs Research Finding Answers To Questions That Matter
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
For the most part the answers you get are dependent on the questions you ask. Through my recent experiences with various research activities of Nevada’s system of higher education I’ve been able to gain a little more insight into the difference of research that is driven by people needing to figure important things out and research that is more oriented to collecting funds to justify a predetermined outcome.
From the get-go, the University System’s involvement in the Walker River Basin project was wired to accomplish the second approach described above. While some of the research findings have relevancy to better understanding details of water dynamics in the Walker system, the purpose for the project was to get federal dollars that couldn’t be used to acquire water or land used for acquiring water. The research exploration was a cover to make the University System’s involvement plausible and justifiable. A portion of the “research” was also about developing a worthwhile shopping lists of what water to go after to assist in the acquisition project.
Having taken exception to the purpose of the project, I also think it important to give the devils their due, recognizing the positive outcomes resulting from a couple of the research projects. In particular, the economic model developed for Nevada use which provides some very important practical “what if” evaluations has been extremely useful in making the case for changes to the regulations of the interruptible irrigation rate structure. Potentially, alternative crop research might offer useful information as well.
Nevada agricultural producers have recently been given the opportunity to participate in a research project of sort, seeking their response to a rather extensive survey in regard to climate change. The project is a joint effort of the University of Nevada - Reno, University of Nevada - Las Vegas and the Desert Research Institute. Under the auspices of wanting to “understand the point of view of rural Nevadans” the questions posed and the information sought are extremely limiting to make sure those who respond give answers that the “scientists” want to receive. This includes the question – “Briefly, assuming you believe in climate change, what do you think causes it?” No where do those responding have any opportunity to share a perspective outside of the constraints of “believing in climate change”. The degree to which they use their survey to promote the concept that science is based on the expert opinions of scientists is also noteworthy.
From a comparison point of view, I was able to be involved in just completing a review of several research proposals dealing with request for funding from the Nevada Arid Rangeland Initiative. Here the focus of the proposals were oriented to considering the very practical needs of real-life resource management matters. Their quest was to find answers to problems that people don’t need to prompted to assume exist as opposed to attempting to create the impression of legitimacy of an invented problem.
The difference between the two research approaches seems pretty obvious from the answers either being sought or the desired results being prompted.
For the most part the answers you get are dependent on the questions you ask. Through my recent experiences with various research activities of Nevada’s system of higher education I’ve been able to gain a little more insight into the difference of research that is driven by people needing to figure important things out and research that is more oriented to collecting funds to justify a predetermined outcome.
From the get-go, the University System’s involvement in the Walker River Basin project was wired to accomplish the second approach described above. While some of the research findings have relevancy to better understanding details of water dynamics in the Walker system, the purpose for the project was to get federal dollars that couldn’t be used to acquire water or land used for acquiring water. The research exploration was a cover to make the University System’s involvement plausible and justifiable. A portion of the “research” was also about developing a worthwhile shopping lists of what water to go after to assist in the acquisition project.
Having taken exception to the purpose of the project, I also think it important to give the devils their due, recognizing the positive outcomes resulting from a couple of the research projects. In particular, the economic model developed for Nevada use which provides some very important practical “what if” evaluations has been extremely useful in making the case for changes to the regulations of the interruptible irrigation rate structure. Potentially, alternative crop research might offer useful information as well.
Nevada agricultural producers have recently been given the opportunity to participate in a research project of sort, seeking their response to a rather extensive survey in regard to climate change. The project is a joint effort of the University of Nevada - Reno, University of Nevada - Las Vegas and the Desert Research Institute. Under the auspices of wanting to “understand the point of view of rural Nevadans” the questions posed and the information sought are extremely limiting to make sure those who respond give answers that the “scientists” want to receive. This includes the question – “Briefly, assuming you believe in climate change, what do you think causes it?” No where do those responding have any opportunity to share a perspective outside of the constraints of “believing in climate change”. The degree to which they use their survey to promote the concept that science is based on the expert opinions of scientists is also noteworthy.
From a comparison point of view, I was able to be involved in just completing a review of several research proposals dealing with request for funding from the Nevada Arid Rangeland Initiative. Here the focus of the proposals were oriented to considering the very practical needs of real-life resource management matters. Their quest was to find answers to problems that people don’t need to prompted to assume exist as opposed to attempting to create the impression of legitimacy of an invented problem.
The difference between the two research approaches seems pretty obvious from the answers either being sought or the desired results being prompted.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 1/9/2010 9:00 AM 
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Agricultural Research University of Nevada Research
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Agricultural Research University of Nevada Research
Well, Doug, I have to say your constant railing against the reality of global warming goes against both empirical evidence and more definitive, in-depth, scientific research on the subject. California and Nevada are in severe drought. The DRI's question, as phrased, is valid. I would like to see agriculture survive, and thrive, in Nevada. However, the Walker River Paiute tribe depend on the lake for revenue from tourism, and traditional fishing (aquaculture). Their claims on the water are just as valid as those of farmers and ranchers. Concentrating our efforts on resolution rather than conflict, might be a better alternative. For instance, Israel has long struggled with severe water shortages. They turned to drip irrigation to water crops. Are Nevada farmers doing this? Ranchers need to provide their cattle with water to drink, however, do they have covered troughs or tanks that dispense water when needed, or do they have open tanks and troughs that allow a lot of evaporation. Do the towns like Fallon, Fernley, and Yerington have tertiary sewage treatment, allowing a lot of water to be used twice before it's evaporated? Tertiary treated sewage could be used to water cattle or irrigate crops. It's supposed to be potable for humans, too, but that would be a very hard sell. Anyway, Nevada is in a very tough place with this drought. It isn't a government conspiracy. So, what are the solutions, Doug?
Reply to this
The Nevada Field Office of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) was not consulted on this survey project nor did we provide any assistance with list building or mailing. This blog is the first I have heard of it. Thanks for keeping us informed.
Reply to this