Corporate Science

[Primordial Annihilator]

However, all is not lost. You can write letters to your elected representatives any time expressing your views on corporate hand-outs and underfunded areas of research. You can write opinion pieces or keep a blog about underfunded research. You can organize a petition. You can protest. You can canvas for donations to your favorite projects.

The reason governments are so cozy with corporations is that they know the public generally doesn't give a fiddler's fart about democracy unless it's an excuse to start a war. Lobbyists, on the other hand, are fully engaged 24/7/365.

I am an advocate of direct democracy for me the current system is tantamount to a corporate dictatorship.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Actually as I am trying to say it its up to the funders...who are seldom scientists or regular taxpayers.

So, in conclusion, if a corporation funds science, it should choose what science it funds.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

So, in conclusion, if a corporation funds science, it should choose what science it funds.

Certainly...have no issue with that...but that is not my argument.

 

[gnomon]

Scientific progress is funded in two ways, by the corporations and by tax payers...yet tax payers do not decide where the money is spent..more to the point as New Scientist reports much of tax payer money goes into funding/subsidising areas like the Pharmaceutical industry where very rich owners and top level managers reap the benefits of often non useful products like the recent wave of anti depressents that have had little beneficial effects on the patient anyway.
Science is supposed to be an altruistic exercise, it should not be the case that public sector scientific investment is overwhelmingly used for commercial profit making technologies and products.
Scientific innovation and technological evolution cannot occur if profit is all important...the singular aim of profit will stagnate progress.
Public money should be dedicated to research that will benefit our society as a whole...not mask its neurosis and make a fast buck.

My question is does anyone else think that there should be a democratic element to the decision making processes of public funds and their distribution amongst the scientific bodies?

How would that work?

 

[Nothing]

Scientific progress is funded in two ways, by the corporations and by tax payers...yet tax payers do not decide where the money is spent..more to the point as New Scientist reports much of tax payer money goes into funding/subsidising areas like the Pharmaceutical industry where very rich owners and top level managers reap the benefits of often non useful products like the recent wave of anti depressents that have had little beneficial effects on the patient anyway.
Science is supposed to be an altruistic exercise, it should not be the case that public sector scientific investment is overwhelmingly used for commercial profit making technologies and products.
Scientific innovation and technological evolution cannot occur if profit is all important...the singular aim of profit will stagnate progress.
Public money should be dedicated to research that will benefit our society as a whole...not mask its neurosis and make a fast buck.

My question is does anyone else think that there should be a democratic element to the decision making processes of public funds and their distribution amongst the scientific bodies?

Yes there is a need for a democratic element in this process, however, doing so is not the final step in resolving the problem. More public control over pharmaceuticals sounds good, and may in fact lower prices, but all it does really is transfer control from one small group to another. The success, failure and/or corruption of pharmeceuticals will still mainly be dependant upon dollars and sense. Only when global wellness becomes more important then dollars and sense will there be any REAL change, regardless of who is at the helm.

 

[Alceste]

You might do..I am British

You live in a country that elected David freaking Cameron and RE-elected Tony Blair and you think voters should decide what research to fund?????

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

How would that work?

Good question...best question I ve seen on the thread.

In short I dont know.

I imagine if people could fill some sort of online form relating to their income tax contributions...breaking down areas of R & D spending that one can choose to dedicate a specified % of their taxes to.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

You live in a country that elected David freaking Cameron and RE-elected Tony Blair and you think voters should decide what research to fund?????

We didnt elect Cameron his Conservative party formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats.

It was a hung parliment result....no overall majority winner.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Certainly...have no issue with that...but that is not my argument.

Phew - glad to hear that. I misunderstood your argument and thought you were saying that taxpayers should have a say in what scientific research gets studied. I didn't think you were dumb enough to make that argument.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am an advocate of direct democracy for me the current system is tantamount to a corporate dictatorship.

That seems a bit exagerated to me. After all, research can and is funded by governments to some degree.

But the real problem IMO is that it takes a fairly informed perspective to be able of wisely choosing research priorities. The general public is simply not up to the task, so it is probably for the best that it doesn't heavily factor into those decisions.

 

[Alceste]

I am an advocate of direct democracy for me the current system is tantamount to a corporate dictatorship.

That's not "the system" - that's the government the voters have voluntarily elected, starting with Thatcher. "The system" could just as easily have delivered a government that isn't slavishly dedicated to serving only the interests of the rich at the expense of everyone else if that's what voters wanted.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Phew - glad to hear that. I misunderstood your argument and thought you were saying that taxpayers should have a say in what scientific research gets studied. I didn't think you were dumb enough to make that argument.

Taxpayers should only get a say if they are paying for it...

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

That's not "the system" - that's the government the voters have voluntarily elected, starting with Thatcher. "The system" could just as easily have delivered a government that isn't slavishly dedicated to serving only the interests of the rich at the expense of everyone else.

No...the system is corrupted and broken...no such party would be allowed to gain power.

 

[Alceste]

We didnt elect Cameron his Conservative party formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats.

It was a hung parliment result....no overall majority winner.

Nick Clegg is worse.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

But the real problem IMO is that it takes a fairly informed perspective to be able of wisely choosing research priorities. The general public is simply not up to the task, so it is probably for the best that it doesn't heavily factor into those decisions.

So you think it better that the rich and wealthy (or their lackeys/allies in government) decide where my tax money allocated for research is spent?

Knowing that they will spend it on increasing capital, other concerns that are not yet profitable being sidelined.

So much faith in those that laugh at you....

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Nick Clegg is worse.

Yet another old skool tie scumbag...

 

[Alceste]

I have always thought tax forms should have a survey attached where you could allocate where you would prefer your money to go, and that the government should make a good faith effort to analyze that data and move in the direction voters have indicated a preference for, but limiting that to scientific research seems nutty, if you don't mind me saying.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Taxpayers should only get a say if they are paying for it...

Oops, spoke too soon.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Oops, spoke too soon.

Why bother speaking at all?

Not interested in your opinion really...you probably dont even pay income tax.

Go and irritate someone else...

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I have always thought tax forms should have a survey attached where you could allocate where you would prefer your money to go, and that the government should make a good faith effort to analyze that data and move in the direction voters have indicated a preference for, but limiting that to scientific research seems nutty, if you don't mind me saying.

Say what you like...I will reply in kind.

I agree that all aspects of government spending should at least in part be decided by the tax payer...as a group...not just science.