4 ms·

Just a hunch but the scientists who don't approve are the ones who aren't getting grants? I am all for private funding of basic science research, and if there

by mikece 3y ago

Just a hunch but the scientists who don't approve are the ones who aren't getting grants? I am all for private funding of basic science research, and if there are billionaires putting cash bounties on problems they would like to be solved then tough cookies for the scientists who want to work on other things. The idea of governments funding science is new; wealthy patrons funding all manner of science inquiry (and doing the research themselves as well) was the norm for centuries. Personally I would rather see someone who has made something of themselves in business decide who gets scientific grants rather than a bureaucrat and history has many examples of a scientist obtaining patronage to perform research in areas that weren't originally of interest to the donor. Perhaps scientific advocacy and PR is an under-staffed field in science?

mistrial9 3y ago
emphasize the "cant touch this" side for have-nots, and then amplify personal power motivations on the other side.. What could go wrong?
- mikece 3y ago
  Can you cite any investment in scientific research that isn't goal or product oriented? The best example that comes to mind for me are the theoretical researchers that were on staff at Bell Labs prior to the breakup of AT&T -- but even then, funding basic scientific research was a requirement for AT&T in exchange for their monopoly of the telephone network at the time.
  - pexabit 3y ago
    That isn't really a useful comparison in a world where public or public-adjacent (bureaucratic committees operating by consensus) funding has totally crowded out rich funding interesting projects in terms of both dollars and status. But wasn't always that way, and most of the science behind the modern industrial world was probably funded by rich guys sponsoring research at Cambridge or Edinburgh or wherever. The complaining scientists just don't like the accountability entailed by being funded by a real person very much.
  - sonicshadow 3y ago
    Not their job to educate you
sonicshadow 3y ago
You sound like you’ve been in ad-tech your whole life and just started reading up about this field called “academia” a couple weeks ago in some mushroom-fueled Wikipedia binge

by mikece 3y ago

mistrial9 3y ago

emphasize the "cant touch this" side for have-nots, and then amplify personal power motivations on the other side.. What could go wrong?

mikece 3y ago
Can you cite any investment in scientific research that isn't goal or product oriented? The best example that comes to mind for me are the theoretical researchers that were on staff at Bell Labs prior to the breakup of AT&T -- but even then, funding basic scientific research was a requirement for AT&T in exchange for their monopoly of the telephone network at the time.
- pexabit 3y ago
  That isn't really a useful comparison in a world where public or public-adjacent (bureaucratic committees operating by consensus) funding has totally crowded out rich funding interesting projects in terms of both dollars and status. But wasn't always that way, and most of the science behind the modern industrial world was probably funded by rich guys sponsoring research at Cambridge or Edinburgh or wherever. The complaining scientists just don't like the accountability entailed by being funded by a real person very much.
- sonicshadow 3y ago
  Not their job to educate you

sonicshadow 3y ago

You sound like you’ve been in ad-tech your whole life and just started reading up about this field called “academia” a couple weeks ago in some mushroom-fueled Wikipedia binge