Dear Jay:
There may be some merit in the concept of those trained
scientifically to determine policy and use of resources. You
said:
These experts would be employees who would have degrees in
systems
sciences, have explicit employment requirements, ethical standards,
and objectives.
Like any employee, the job comes with "responsibility". If they
perform well, they would be financially rewarded. If they lie
or steal, they would be cained, fired, and barred for life from
public service.
sciences, have explicit employment requirements, ethical standards,
and objectives.
Like any employee, the job comes with "responsibility". If they
perform well, they would be financially rewarded. If they lie
or steal, they would be cained, fired, and barred for life from
public service.
The problem as I see it, is that most scientists are employed
by an employer, university, industry, government, whatever. Through this
employment they are directed to solve certain problems as defined by the
employer, build a bigger bomb, publish learned papers to get tenure, evaluate a
particular problem and provide a report. As you have stated, their primary
responsibility is to perform well, or in other words, to do the job the employer
has tasked them to do and therein lies the flaw. If scientists had
financial and employer independence, then they probably would make decisions
based on the best scientific rationale. However, the majority of them are
making decisions based on their employers needs and this colours the effects of
their efforts.
As I have mentioned several times over the months, this idea,
to a degree was postulated by Herman Hesse in his novel "The Glass Bead
Game" in which those gifted with certain intellectual skills were trained
from an early age to consider governance and were trained so that the most
gifted continued to rise until they were finally chosen to represent the
world. The same sort of selection process was part of the Iroquois Indian
Confederation in pre European days of America. If we are to develop those
special individuals, it is not enough that they have a University Doctorate, it
is also important that they be evaluated on more human qualities such as honest,
courage, compassion, etc.. Idiot savants of a scientific discipline are
often hopeless as evaluators of the human condition or societal
conditions.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
