At a point not doing requisite science moves one closer and closer to 
unscientific pothunters. We don’t need that. State of the art requirements 
and I mean beyond presence or albescence research designs would not create 
any grey areas. The scientific high ground must be maintained. As science 
progresses so should reporting and analysis. From what I see in average 
reports this has not happened. It needs to. no excuse for it not to be If we 
as professionals want to be given priority in life to access. It is like my 
doctor-he needs to be current or not at all. Seeing archeological reports 
little changed after 30 some years casts a great shadow.

Conrad Bladey
Peasant
Professional Archeologist

-----Original Message----- 
From: geoff carver
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ethics question

Not just firms; also state services cutting budgets, cutting staff. Parks
Canada provides a good, recent example. Also a few interesting cases here in
Germany.

-----Original Message-----


I suspect that attitude has developed, though, by firms being asked to cut
budgets to a bare minimum. When the governing agencies and clients are
strapped for cash, that's naturally going to affect how the work is done and
it doesn't usually leave much room for deeper research. It's unfortunate in
my opinion, as it severely limits the types of research that are funded in
this realm. I always appreciate firms who use their own funds to do
additional research on the side and present their findings at conferences,
etc. It's not always easy to make that happen.