How can we really know if the data is "essentially sound" when contradictory data was filtered out (discussed in the emails) and the original data was destroyed?

That's what is so annoying about this issue. We're accepting a conclusion and then justifying any manipulation of the input data so long as it's supportive of the outcome.

The world is flat, let's kill anybody that provides evidence to the contrary.

It's hard to say it's available when they DESTROYED much of it. At least, the conflicting data was destroyed after it was altered to filter out data that didn't support the theory.

One of the shocking things about the emails was the open dialog about the conflicting data, the filtering of it, and subsequent discussion of hiding any record of it via deletion of the emails!

The leaked communication, the content, and the attempts to delete them before they were found all indicate there was an attempt to cover up problems with the data. The problem now is that so many in the scientific community are vested in this process as a result of the funding competition, there's little room to trust at this point.

The ONLY way to have credibility is to make all the data available. However, now that we know they'll play games with the data I fear now that all we'll see is people more careful about laundering their data before releasing it.

To apply it to everyday life, how can the spouse of someone who has betrayed them ever really trust them again? These guys didn't even kiss us first, and they're free to continue doing what they've been doing again!

Oh, he's as qualified as anyone else in the administration.

Perhaps we both fail comprehension. It said "Paid Blog", not commercial advertisement. No doubt Pepsi was doing it for PR reasons. I did miss the point that no scientists would be posting ... a shame. However, it's still a method of having dialog with the company, even if not directly with their researchers.

The assumption that the dictators in charge have a clue remains to be seen. It didn't work out so well with the USSR, which destroyed its major export market via environmental destruction and created perpetual 3rd world living conditions via political vs. practical decision making.

Perhaps the Chinese learned the lesson, or perhaps it'll take a little while for the corruption to set in.

Usually our dilly-dally system leads to some unpleasant economic conditions, but we usually rise back out of them as we realize we can't afford to let the idiots wander aimlessly about in Washington ... although I'll admit I haven't seen too many signs of that of late :).

I wouldn't say he was contradicting himself. He said "... still not talking anything remotely practical ...", that does not mean it can never work, just that we're not there yet.

He then says it might be practical someday, perhaps wanting to make it clear he's not opposed to researching it and being hopeful it'll become practical someday.

Simple physics says it'll never replace chemically powered high speed aircraft. So he was right there. Of course, you just decided it was "irrelevant" for some reason. I personally believe the "irrelevant" response is irrelevant.

I developed custom manufacturing tracking systems until the market died (between ongoing 50 year exodus from the US and "Enterprise Solutions") and I tended to store the data in to sets for two reasons.

First, data retrieval for the end-user was faster in the live system if old data were kept elsewhere. Second, it made daily backups of 24/7 systems easier because there was less data to copy.

The "live" system kept recent data (for some companies that was measured in weeks, for others months). The "Archive" system kept it for years (often legally required). Data would be moved from the live to archival system if the last time it had been touched exceeded some time limit we set AND the data wasn't related to some material still sitting on a shelf or moving through the production process.

I doubt I would have abandoned the model despite the speed/storage improvements made over the years.

Taking money from Pepsi would hardly have been selling out. Pepsi certainly wanted to bring a dialog to the blog site, a dialog that works two ways.

The assumption is that the visitors to the site would not recognize the "Pepsi Blog" as, well, a Pepsi blog. I imagine Pepsi would get an earful from visitors to the site and the scientists might even get some good ideas from the visitors - something a good producer wants from the marketplace.

You don't think Pepsi would be thrilled to find a way to produce a marketable product that also appealed to the anti-fructose crowd?

God forbid a dialog between Pepsi researchers, other science types, and consumers might actually promote better understanding and new ideas.

People will produce products others will buy. Perhaps an actual dialog in an environment like that might produce alternative ideas for marketable products.

I happen to like Pepsi Max and drink it, knowing the sodium is not best. I don't buy the artificial sweetener argument, so I'm okay with that. I partake of other products that use "High fructose corn syrup", which is really just a step away from sugar - big deal.

I also run 10 miles three or four times a week, even in these 90 degree temperatures - which allows me to enjoy some of these high-calorie items without turning into a blimp.

HFCS and high calorie foods are less the problem than the fact we have a nation of couch potatoes who are NOT burning enough calories while consuming large quantities of these products. I blame the consumer for not thinking about what they are putting in their bodies, not the manufacturer who fulfills customer demand.

Absolutely not! Let's not have a private company provide a way for a web site to pay for, expand, or improve its services because the ignorant masses might not understand that the postings made by employees of a corporation on a blog sure to be covered with the corporate logo will possibly be biased.

Scientific bias would be a completely new experience wouldn't it? I mean, there were never scientists who believed we were the center of the universe, the center of the solar system, living on a big flat planet, or who systematically covered up inconvenient weather data. Heck no, we gotta keep it pure baby!

So, any scientist working on anything which produces something the rest of us are willing to pay money for is to be silenced? Whatever the researchers posted would be open to review by other participants and could be commented upon. An actual dialog would do both sides some good, as they could both gain a better understanding of an alternative view and possibly incorporate that into future product development (or dispel myths and other false information). But heck yeah, lets jump up and down and force anyone we might not agree with into the closet so nobody could ever hear what they have to say. It's becoming the American way.

Umm, it was the liberal Democrat who went running to the government to order information disclosure at the figurative point of a gun.

This barely intelligible rant with false allegations and straw men from left to far left gets a score of five for insightful? Sheesh.

A person gives up an incredible amount of privacy but their life hardly becomes an open book for fishing expeditions.

In this case, the web site was out there for the world to see, but it seems to me it's up to the media or competing campaigns to capture what they think is useful information, not demand the other campaign provide it.

A candidate is not yet an elected official and not subject to open-records or FOIA rules. Not to mention, I'd think it's unrealistic to ask ANYONE to provide old web site data. I'd hate to have to provide historical snapshots of websites I operate. I probably could in many cases, but why should I be expected to?

Frankly, if I were Reid's campaign I'd be embarrassed to admit I was so inept as to not have collected all that information when it was out there.