3 ms·
There are many causes of the lack of concern, but I think at the heart the problem, at least in the US, is that science has become politicized such that attempt
by derbOac 5y ago
There are many causes of the lack of concern, but I think at the heart the problem, at least in the US, is that science has become politicized such that attempts at reform are mischaracterized for political gain. There's also a bit of ignorance in the general public, but that's only part of it.
For example, if some on the right suggest some difficult but needed reforms, it tends to be spun as an attack on science. Or complaints that trivial projects are being overfunded get misinterpreted by the right and they try to make an example of the wrong studies for the wrong reasons.
The pandemic was a good example of this in my mind, in that I think there were some serious systematic problems in academics and healthcare that were laid brutally bare, and many people suffered or died as a result. But then the whole thing got misidentified and sucked into the political vortex and all you end up with are hearings about how to rehabilitate the CDC, as if that is the problem and not a symptom of even bigger problems.
I still think there are ways for things to change, but the most likely of them involve unnecessary suffering and chaos.
- N1H1L 5y agoI can give a different perspective. It is not because of politicization IMO - at least not in the hard sciences. The problem comes from way up, from Congress because the immediate impact of science is not obvious. Especially, for basic sciences the impact takes decades to be really felt. But then how do you do promotions? How do you judge output? Worse still, how does US Congress justify spending taxpayer dollars. Rather than acknowledging that any short term measurement of the quality of science is a fool's errand, we have doubled down on meaningless metrics like impact factors and h-indices. And this is what we have as a result.