I am generally in favor of a bit of anarchy in science and technology, and see institutions often as mechanisms that stifle creativity and innovation.
What is the purpose of such an institution? What need is it trying to fill? How do you prevent the primary goal of the institution becoming its own persistence and growth, regardless of how that might impact the stated goals of the institution? How do you prevent an institution from picking a few early winners and then excluding ideas that come along later (that challenge statements of institutional leaders, initial funding priorities, and assembled constituencies)? I am fine with people banding together to advance their specific goals. I am skeptical about the need for an institution that attempts to speak for * everybody*. On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>wrote: > I note the UK's IMechE http://www.imeche.org/ is currently a strong > supporter of geoengineering > http://www.imeche.org/about/keythemes/environment/Climate+Change/Geoeng > > We have on several occasions suggested the creation of a 'geoengineering > institute' on this list. I write today with an alternative suggestion. > > My proposal is that we present a letter to the IMechE, signed by prominent > members of this list (especially those in the UK). In this, we would set > out our plans for the institution, and ask that the IMechE, with its > existing infrastructure and recognition, will operate this new > geoengineering institution until such time as it is able to be 'spun off' as > an organisation in its own right. > > My suggestion is that the letter should address the following points: > > 1) Setting out the principle of the organisation's existence as a part of > the IMechE > 2) The creation of a specific class of memberships for accredited and > non-accredited geoengineers. > 3) Defining the IMechE as the focal point for the study of the regulation > and systematisation of geoengineering. > 4) Encouraging the model to be adopted internationally, providing > professional 'residence' to the geoengineering community worldwide. > > > In my opinion, such a move is vital. For too long, this community has > lacked a proper system of organisation, and I suggest that, after several > non-starter attempts to get things moving, we now look to an established and > sympathetic body to help systematise the discipline. > > I look forward to receiving comments of all colours by return. > > Thanks > > A > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
