Science is generally agreed to be a pursuit of knowledge where developers are generally agreed to be producing code. In my opinion a bounty associated to a particular outcome in science is not an analog of producing code as it is in conflict with the understood role.
I would argue that as many external motivations should be removed as possible (either financial or ideological) when the success of an occupation is one related to judgement or exploration. We could revise the social contract (further) and say it is unimportant. We could conclude that science (or legal systems or....) should be considered exclusively externally motivated but it is a revision that I think should be avoided. To the extent possible it would be nice to isolate certain roles from influences beyond the circumstances they are evaluating as I think that is what would broadly be considered the proper functioning of an uncorrupted system.
I don't think it as desirable to say the results, no matter how motivated, will be defensible or indefensible and should be judged exclusively by the recipient. While that test should always be applied there are many mechanisms to twist outcomes at that late stage than would have an additive effect to the issue of motivation. (Requisite anecdotal example of Nancy Oliveri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Fern_Olivieri)
I guess a middle ground may be to at least require disclosure and understanding of the implications and mechanisms of influence.
Some comments in this thread about how this doesn't imply lamarckian evolution.
However, there is some _other_ evidence in support of heredity of acquired changes. See: http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/millhillessays/2004/here dity/
Slashdot Mirror
"the production of numerous crops, including California almonds, one of the nation's most profitable." Is this a new euphemism for pot?
Science is generally agreed to be a pursuit of knowledge where developers are generally agreed to be producing code. In my opinion a bounty associated to a particular outcome in science is not an analog of producing code as it is in conflict with the understood role.
I would argue that as many external motivations should be removed as possible (either financial or ideological) when the success of an occupation is one related to judgement or exploration. We could revise the social contract (further) and say it is unimportant. We could conclude that science (or legal systems or ....) should be considered exclusively externally motivated but it is a revision that I think should be avoided. To the extent possible it would be nice to isolate certain roles from influences beyond the circumstances they are evaluating as I think that is what would broadly be considered the proper functioning of an uncorrupted system.
I don't think it as desirable to say the results, no matter how motivated, will be defensible or indefensible and should be judged exclusively by the recipient. While that test should always be applied there are many mechanisms to twist outcomes at that late stage than would have an additive effect to the issue of motivation. (Requisite anecdotal example of Nancy Oliveri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Fern_Olivieri)
I guess a middle ground may be to at least require disclosure and understanding of the implications and mechanisms of influence.
Some comments in this thread about how this doesn't imply lamarckian evolution. However, there is some _other_ evidence in support of heredity of acquired changes. See: http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/millhillessays/2004/here dity/