7 ms·
The fact that [t]here is no way to hold a scientist accountable when the fruits of 'basic science' are not provable for decades or centuries is an inherent prob
by jcfrei 11y ago
The fact that [t]here is no way to hold a scientist accountable when the fruits of 'basic science' are not provable for decades or centuries is an inherent problem with science. I can't think of an alternative system which would resolve this. If there was no uncertainty with regards to the profits resulting from research, then it wouldn't be science anymore - it would simply be consulting. And I honestly can't imagine how you can prevent dishonesty and overselling when laymen are involved in funding decisions through donations.
Edit: I've just read the comment by eli_gottlieb further below and would argue that's a far better improvement for science rather than abandoning the NIH.
- dnautics 11y agoExactly, you have hit on my point. You can't prevent dishonesty and overselling period. When a person gives out of their own pocket to an outlandish and unlikely project, that is on them. When the government gives out to an outlandish and unlikely project, the donors had no choice. In that way, government is dangerous, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of accountability. A charity or private nonprofit, if it screws up, it will find itself in a more difficult position with regard to seeking further resources for its work.