On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 09:37:42 -0400, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is really pathetic that you consider that a worthwhile "thrust" of
> the article. "I'm told..." that there is a great solution to a difficult
> problem that the Man has ignored? You, Gary, are the kind of person most
> responsible for people like Bush and his cronies coming to power.
How are people of Gary's ilk responsible for that, exactly?
And I thought the article was a cautionary tale of sorts, at least
that was the impression the first paragraph gave me:
The interface between science and public policy is awkward at best.
Scientists and academics need money for research, while politicians need
research to build better weapons and sometimes to justify intended policy
changes. But what happens if you look for scientific support for some new
policy and the results of the research show that what you are
intending to do
is wrong? You can change your plan or ignore the research. This latter
decision, one example of which is the topic of this column,
brings with it some
peril because if it later becomes known that the research was
commissioned,
completed, and ignored, then someone's job is on the line. So if
you are going
to bury research findings, it is a good idea to bury them deep.
I guess that if it came out in a column, it wasn't buried deep enough.
BTW, I found the link on a mailing list where, on-list, what would
happen would be either no response or some hand-wringing, but
off-list, the activists there would add it to their list of problems
to be addressed in a manner that might actually start seeing some
results. I posted it here because I was interested in what debaters
would have to say about it. You, Erik, have not disappointed me --
you found something to debate right away.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
