4 ms·
The first half of this editorial doesn't really address basic science. In the second half he does get to the premise in the title, and he gives it some support
by mcnamaratw 11y ago
The first half of this editorial doesn't really address basic science.
In the second half he does get to the premise in the title, and he gives it some support ... but he has very few cards to play. Yes, sometimes scientists get caught in an ivory bottle for too long. But sometimes practitioners play "poke and hope" for too long.
- _delirium 11y agoThe article makes more sense (or at least it did to me) once you read the byline: the author is a politician in the British Parliament, and this is more of a budget-related op-ed than analytical or historical piece. He wants to reduce UK science funding, and this is his defense of that position.