The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Time for an independent voice for science > Comments

Time for an independent voice for science : Comments

By Julian Cribb, published 12/4/2011

Australian governments have been slowly strangling science and it is time the victim stood up for itself.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Ludwig
>So how could it be done with true independence from government, or from the vest interests of its funders in general?

I can't ever be done independently of the vested interests who fund it.

The best that we can hope for is that it is funded voluntarily, and that in making things better for those who fund it, it makes things better for society in general. But that cannot be done by government funding.

You are only exemplifying the view I described: the idea that human beings are a form of noxious pest, a plague, a cancer, and that science should be an instrument of government to implement all restrictions on people's freedoms that such a world-view aspires to, as if people were bacteria in a laboratory flask controlled by "scientists". It's a grotesque vision which hopes for total control of society by government, to be planned by the presumptive selflessness and wisdom of technicians - all for the greater good of course. It is an anti-human view, that human use of natural resources is morally bad, and so therefore is human freedom and families and enjoyment, all of which require the use of natural resources.

Yet even its own advocates decry the incompetence and corruption of governments. It is an unfalsifiable view that's *not* based in science, it's based on fifth-hand Malthusian and Marxian nonsense that just keeps popping up, despite of all rational disproof, in the halls of *government-funded* academe which is absolutely drenched in the *unscientific* superstition that we would all be better off if government centrally directed the lands, the waters, the seas, the sky, the clouds, all primary industry, all secondary industry, all tertiary industry, and families, and childcare, and education, and transport, and housing, and interst rates, and communications, and problem gamblers, and personal relationships, and sexuality, and you name it.

It is a credulous, ascetic, irrational, freedom-hating, tyrannical orthodoxy; to appeal to it in the name of science is truly perverse.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 10:55:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julian, the western world is currently experiencing a period of unprecedented criticism of scientists and academia, I doubt Australia immune from this.

What is being presented to the public is a great deal of division, contentious issues and partiality. It would be reasonable to suggest that research and academic commentary are influenced in some way by industry funding, political influence (funding) and ideology.

Some might also suggest that these influences are necessary and acceptable in order to sustain financial viability, which means that dreaded word, compromise.

There are no doubt other sections of Australian science that are heading for the “Dark Ages of political neglect and disfavor”. Presumably these sections have little influence from industrial, political or ideological sources and therefore have less funding?

In the end it is often public perception that influences politicians and public perception is not good currently. Science and academia have recently and continue to inflict much self harm. A good starting point for the “reformation” might be to start repairing the public credibility issues.

Perhaps it would be more correct for you to say that our governments, industries and partisan academia, through the directing of their funding, are indeed strangling some areas of science. Could it be a case of he who pays the Piper, calls the tune? Providing of course, that academia continues to be willing to compromise
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 11:07:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who funded Newton, Hooke and their ilk?

These days we see funding from various eco groups, who all amazingly get exactly the doom laden reports and papers they want. These same organization then turn on any contrary research in the most vile manner.

So it's not just government funding that produces biased results and a fraternity of like minded followers, all obediently following the familiar line to the trough.

There's no easy answer, but there seems to be resentment from the scientific community that their work and reputations are not what they used to be.

Scientists will produce pretty well what is expected of them to win further funding, no surprise there since they have mortgages as well.

Perhaps we need to go back to the model that without a private sponser, or self funding, you can't be an objective scientist.

That's the reality isn't it, that the world is waking up to the fact that all scientific endeavor is by it's very funding, biased.

So be suspicious, or indeed skeptical of all science now, since the motivation and rewards are not the noble values we would like them to be.
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 11:25:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hume is correct, or at least much closer to the mark than Julian. This business about government funding of science has been kicked around internationally for some time.

One radical position is that there should be no government funding of research at all, which is too extreme for my taste, but if government is to fund science it has every right to inquire as to its purpose.

For example, is CSIRO meant to act as an over-arching research body for industry and agriculture? If so, why isn't industry paying for it? What are the cost-benefit ratios? If its purpose is theoretical research why not give more research money to universities and be done with the additional organisational costs?

The very last people to ask these questions, let alone answer them, is scientists. To argue that they are completely disinterested, independent advice-givers is complete nonsense. They will simply fight their own corner.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 11:26:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We need a bit of history in all of this. There was virtually no funding of science by government (save for the CSIRO) until after the second world war, and not until 1965 were there any research grants for academics. The money flow into these endeavours has gone up and it has gone down. The NHMRC did very well when Prime Minister Fraser acquired legionnaire's disease. The ARC did well when John Dawkins put all the funding schemes together. Research into 'climate change' has done well more recently.

But anyone who has been part of 'science and government' knows that there is no 'ideal' or natural level of funding for research. The direction, both proportionately and absolutely, is either up or down.

Those who think it ought to be need to ask themselves why it is that governments have lost confidence in the science establishment (if that is the cause).

And if science funding is to keep going up, what is to be jettisoned from the budget?
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 11:32:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear. In the second last paragraph I meant to write 'Those who think it should be up need...'
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 11:34:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy