5 ms·
In your case, the scientists were likely punished by wasted time, disqualifying otherwise correct science work, maybe even lost their jobs. How do you think th
by dgzl 8y ago
In your case, the scientists were likely punished by wasted time, disqualifying otherwise correct science work, maybe even lost their jobs.
How do you think they'd be punished in China under this system? Maybe they can't ride a train anymore, or forced into dingy second rate establishments, or refused certain services. I wonder how that will work when facial recognition hits big.
And to answer your question, trusting the government is always foolish.
- Farradfahren 8y agoTrusting the private sector is too. You can at least vote the public sector to change. Its your government, it will never be your company.
- __blockcipher__ 8y agoIronically, a (public) company can totally be my company. Wheress the government will never belong to me. Always cracks me up when people think corporations are full of evil people but noble government would never be similarly evil.
- dgzl 8y agoYou actually can't just 'vote' to change the public sector at your will. In fact very few things are Democratic in American government. The closest you could get would be voting for politicians who pinky-promise to try approving plans to try implementing something that's probably not even what you want but will cost twice as much. The government very much works like a business does: there are worker-bees, managers, committees, higher people in charge, crooks and thieves, power-abusers and criminals. On the other hand, the private sector is literally made up of competing groups and individuals who are looking for success when the market is fair. The same problems above exist in some businesses as well. The benefit with the private sector is, when we find corruption we can destroy contract, sue, and find a competitor. You can't do that with the government.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoTrusting the government to set up an independent oversight body, such as gave us trading standards, food safety, and the bodies that became the BSI (British Standards, the first national standards body) or various regulators etc. It's perfectly possible to trust an independent body set up, and funded, by government whilst entirely distrusting party politics and the government of the day. I have yet to lose trust of, for example, the BSI Kitemark. Nor trading standards despite governments occasionally limiting their funding, and thus their effectiveness. Despite being funded by the state they are not the government. (Actually I think BSI is self-funded these days, but the point stands) Professional bodies, such as those for lawyers, doctors etc, frequently attract criticism for being to lenient. The market clearly heavily weights where the money is. Government action is one of very few opportunities to balance that. Now, I don't know enough from the article about how this will be set up, or which government agencies are being granted this role. Nor do we know how it will work - Party Members punishing errant scientists is clearly very wrong, an independent body of scientists "striking off" an errant scientist may be a very good thing. Little different to a doctor being struck off, but perhaps freer from commercial influence. We can assume, but we don't know. Hence my original question. Harsher, further reaching penalties for faking peer review, falsifying data or CVs seems a reasonable goal, that might just work. The devil, as mentioned above, is in the unknown details.