Slashdot Mirror
Politicizing Science
An anonymous reader writes: "The Washington Post has a story about the government's efforts to remove independent scientific review boards and replace them with officials that match the views of administration. This includes careless elimination of life-saving safety regulations in gene-therapy to help specific business interests and hiring based on political views such as stem cell research and cloning. Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
Of course, research has to be political, even many ppl here on slashdot won't agree.
By political, you mean for example the fact that some things are not agreeable to work on such as human cloning.
And I think the budget decisions on how much money is granted to a research branch is political
The main question, here, is how much should it be politized and if you trust yourpoliticians.
The right way to fix the problem may not be to give them less power, but to have politicians you trust.
I am a European, but is the real question : do you trust Bush government on defining Science ? Would you trust Nader ?
Um, the article actually talks about regulation of genetic tests...
You've misunderstood. There are two questions here:
Item 1 is obviously best assessed by independant scientists, because it can be measured relatively objectively and requires scientific skill. Point 2 is unsuitable for independant scientists for a number of reasons. Firstly, what is the objective of funding research in the first place? Is it to advance knowledge for its own sake, or to solve specific problems that are facing civilization?
Unfortunately the vast majority of people have no understanding of science or its principles.
And secondly, what is considered acceptable subject matter for research by the taxpayer? Scientists often forget that it's the "unwashed masses" who foot the bill for their expensive toys. No matter what scientists think are the benefits - and no matter how skillful their rhetoric - if the general public doesn't want to fund research into XXX, then those scientists should not receive a penny of taxpayer's money.
This is illustrated in the matter of stem cell research. There are undoubtedly benefits to such research, and the scientists from point 1 would be happy for it, from the perspective of pure science. But it's up to the people in point 2 - on whose behalf the research is being done - to make the decision. If the scientists disagree, well, they should find their own funding.
Interestly enough, there is a Guardian inteview with Christoper Reeve in todays issue in which he makes a number of passionate and obviously, very personal, points about stem cell research and the need for separation between Church and State. The interview can be read here
3 585,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,79
One of many excellent quotes is,
"We've had a severe violation of the separation of church and state in the handling of what to do about this emerging technology. Imagine if developing a polio vaccine had been a controversial issue," he says. "There are religious groups - the Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe - who think it's a sin to have a blood transfusion. What if the president for some reason decided to listen to them, instead of to the Catholics, which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research? Where would we be with blood transfusions?"
It's an interesting read, not only for his political comments but also to see his determination to fight back when many would have given up.
Whoops! Contradicting yourself there ol' son. /.
EITHER the truth is just not clear OR scientists can reasonably be chosen based on your already knowing what conclusion they'll reach.
Can't have both.
Let's face it folks, this administration is fundamentally oposed to public review of *any* issue.
Bottom line, we leave them there long enough and they'll start going after
Don't believe me? Look at what happened to the SPIE (Society of PhotoInstrumentation Engineers) under Reagan. They started being threatened with arrest on treason charges if they released research that contradicted SDI (The "Star Wars" program).
As somebody who worked on a few SDI proposals and was doing fiber optics work at the time (mostly for defense applications) I don't intend to be quiet this time.
So, are you ready to "hang separately"?
Rustin H. Wright
Founder, Reed and Wright
F.O. patent 4,808,204 (drawings done on a Mac Plus!)
Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
Christopher Reeve has been mentioned several times lately here.
I think it would be worth while to set up an interview on Slashdot with him.
Any one else agree?
These independent review boards were not doing peer review of other scinetists work they are little think tanks that give policy advice. They were never (if such a thing is even possible when giving policy advice) giving their advice from some pure knowledge-for-it's-own-sake scientific stance. They have always been staffed by scientists and academicians and LAWYERS who are activists or politically biased.
The only thing happening here is that a group of (who are very influential because they can set the initial terms of debate) policy advisors that agreed with the views of the last administration is being replaced by a group of policy advisors that agree with the views of the current administration.
An oligarchy is the government of a few chosen for their virtue, usually based on their age. Oligarchys have been very rare in Western governments, but were more common in Native American tribes, where it was usually implemented as rule by a council of elders.
The "democracy" you speak of is in fact a representative democracy, which in practice usually develops into a republic. The difference between a representative democracy and a republic is that in a representative democracy, the elected officials are supposed to have opinions that are representative of the majority of the citizens that official represents. In a republic, all that matters is popularity, and popularity among the upper class being more important (but not all important) than the middle and lower classes. There is no true nobility in a republic because the influence of the lower classes still exists, although there may be a minority slave class that has no influence.
The difference between a republic and a aristocracy (which is the comparison you were trying to make between an oligarchy and a democracy) is that in a republic there is that gradient of influence, and the majority of people have at least some, but not necessarily an equal, say in the government of the country. In an aristocracy, the majority of the people have no say in the government.