The problem with these financial arguements is that the basic assumption that scientists are primarily profit driven is invalid. In fact, universities found a long time ago that faculty will take a lower paying post if there is stronger institutional support for research by way of facilities and graduate programs. Furthermore, if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they would be found in corporations paying much better than the low pay (often less than 45K/yr) found at most universities upon graduation, not to mention the even lower pay for postdocs. Despite this, graduates in environmentally relevant fields do not, in general, seek the high paying corporate jobs, but instead seek the academic posts viewed as most prestigious. These facts seem to fly in the face of the entire idea that scientific opinions are in some way driven by the availability of funds. Especially considering that the vast majority of research done in these areas involve no public funds, but rather the finances of the scientists doing the research and possibly a few tidbits from their home institution.
NOTICE>>> I AM NOT SAYING THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT MONEY, ONLY THAT IT ISN'T FIRST ON THEIR LIST! But, suggesting that somehow there is all this money around for us to roll in is completely ludicrous. The entire budget devoted to all environmental research pales in comparison to the funds invested in oil exploration and refining, damage control campaigns to spread misinformation, and the interconnected auto industry that has resisted shifts from oil based to electric vehicles, etc. If we invested half of the budget for one fighter jet into environmental problems, there would be great strides felt immediately. Instead, we are too busy blowing things up and pretending the issues at hand will just go away. After-all, something happening 50-60 yrs from now will not involve most corporate and political leaders because most will be dead by then. So why should they care? Selfish attitudes and selfish motives beget selfish actions. There is a reason why they say academics "work for the greater good" and that businessmen are "in it for the money." Malcolm McCallum On Tue, October 23, 2007 5:40 am, Maiken Winter wrote: > Hi Kelly, > > I don't think the article had an unbiased view on the issue of funding - > to compare funding that people receive from oil and gas companies with > funding that researchers receive after a peer reviewed process of research > proposals is like comparing apples with oranges. Of course many > researchers these days like to focus on climate change, because it is > horribly hard these days to receive any funding, and many people's salary > completely rely on external funding. We need to trust that those projects > that do get funded will indeed help to better understand issues that are > of critical importance for solving the climate crisis. Of course not all > funded projects always deserve the amount of funding they receive, that's > true for all areas of research, but all in all, I trust scientists do the > best they can for their own career sake, and reviewers do the best they > can to weed out those proposals that do not deserve funding. > > Even if for some scientists the motivation for climate change related > research were indeed just the money and the fame, at least they do still > help solve the crisis, or at least don't stand in its way; whereas that > cannot be said for those people funded by oil companies. > > Luckily, the link is off the California webpage. > > Maiken > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
