Home > economics, government, science > Why science as we know it is corrupted!

Why science as we know it is corrupted!

October 9, 2010

Despite the whole ClimateGate fiasco, the research-peer-review-grants and then research-peer-review-grants cycle has continued since the beginning of the 1900’s within the US government. The US government modeled research after governments special interests. Since then this fabric has only been woven tighter, not only within the US but also the the rest of the world.

The UK especially is having trouble, as about 2000 supporters of research, and UK scientists protested the government because of, you guessed it, cuts in money for research

“We want to send a message to the Treasury. Cutting spending on science would actually be shooting ourselves in the foot, because science, technology and innovation fuel the economy,” said Jenny Rohn, spokeswoman for the Science is Vital campaign.ref

Umm, no sir, jobs within those fields of science actually fuel the economy. These damn intellectuals don’t even know the need for specificity if it hit them on the head. If only talking about scientific fields and the reliance upon government alone, then that is enough to eliminate any notion of job creation. Why don’t these public scientific institutions and labs, go to the private citizen of the UK and let them invest. I like the concept of a marketplace of ideas, allow a market to form, based on public interest absent of government involvement. Allow the scientific institutions to get start-up money like any other small business venture, and then let them research a product, or bring an already established idea into the public by way of making it a product. Let the scientific institutions accumulate money based on a diffused market, rather then centralized dictation from a government.

It seems jobs would create around the fields with the most promise. Instead of jobs being created to research science by money taxed by people who may or may not think the science being practiced is ethical. People of all income brackets would/could invest and indeed if the money was followed by an already completely transparent process, then an individual can determine which fields of scientific research are promising and able to hold to a predictable outcome for private investment. There also needs to be a shift from short-term results to long-term results. We invest in now to see results in the future, not always the close future either. Science and its manifested research as a marketable product based application within the marketplace can help determine this shift needed, but ONLY if the government steps back and allows it to happen.

%d bloggers like this: