Good grief! " We should not allow scientists to appeal to naive private funders, and the positively malevolent, to fund unsavoury projects."
"With crowdfunding, we enter a research agenda which is no better controlled than a street fight." Or maybe this is satire? Gregory Benford On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>wrote: > Members may be interested in http://www.petridish.org/ - a service to > invite 'crowdsourced' public funding for research projects. > Geoengineering is often in the public eye, and the small sums required > for research may be available from the crowd. I'm sure that group > members have their own ideas on projects, but some which spring to my > mind are the testing of 'Brightwater' and the measurement of the > effect of ocean iron fertilization on sea surface albedo. > > I am sure that crowdfunding of geoengineering will attract a degree of > controversy. To aid debate, I've set out a draft 'for' and 'against' > argument below. > > FOR > Geoengineering offers the opportunity to take radical action to tackle > climate change. It is also controversial. The electoral cycle of > democratic states, which tend to be the leaders in science, cause > politicians to shy away from tough decisions which risk popular > backlash. Likewise, wealthy individuals and institutions which may > seek to fund such research remain concerned by this potential public > disapproval. Sadly, geoengineering research is therefore trapped in a > politically inconvenient hole. Despite the promise of the technology > to control the worst effects of climate change, funding is minimal, > and mired in controversy at every stage. Even experiments which have > no effect on the climate system, such as SPICE, have been pushed onto > the back burner by a bureaucracy more focussed on avoiding > career-ending clashes than in preparing for a climate disaster. The > risk of the current impasse is that politicians will deploy > geoengineering in a panic, with inadequate research, or may miss the > opportunity to prevent an otherwise certain disaster. Crowdfunding > allows early action to depoliticise the situation. With many small, > safe geoengineering experiments available, both in the lab and > outdoors, researchers can sidestep the quangos and get on with the > science. This will help ensure that any future decision to deploy or > not is taken with the benefit of the best possible science, giving > mankind the greatest possible change of avoiding a climate disaster. > Oversight will always be available through the legal system, and > ultimate decisions on deployment will remain in the hands of > governments. We have nothing to lose but our ignorance. > > AGAINST > If ever there was a poster child for avoiding crowdfunding in science, > then geoengineering is it. Research into this technology sets in > place a chain of events which affects the future of humanity by the > very existence of the knowledge revealed. Adam cannot un-eat the > apple. Keanu Reeves cannot forget the Matrix. We fund science > publicly because we wish to regulate its excesses as surely as we wish > to capture its benefits. Science is not inherently good or bad, and > thus there is a degree of democratic control in the current funding > system. Whilst imperfect, the research councils perform two crucial > democratic functions: to control science, and to appear to control > science. Both are vital in a democracy. We cannot allow scientists > to develop powerful technologies, potentially useful to maverick > individuals, rogue states or terrorists, without proper control. > Research which is based on a funding pool attracted from fanatics and > radicals flies in the face of this control. When funding is denied, > it is because the democratic system makes a willful and specific > decision not to fund such research. We should not allow scientists to > appeal to naive private funders, and the positively malevolent, to > fund unsavoury projects. This is especially so where the research > hands the keys to the climate system to the highest bidder, or when > the research itself threatens the stability of the climate system. We > cannot even be sure that the knowledge and control afforded by this > experimentation would make it into the public domain. Even if we had > such unattainable transparency, we must still insist that research > which sets humanity on a specific path remains firmly constrained by > the accountability to institutional funders. Whilst some > geoengineering research is currently aided by benefactors, the > traceability and public position of these supporters is at least a > poor analogue of democratic oversight. With crowdfunding, we enter a > research agenda which is no better controlled than a street fight. > Regardless of the desires of the individuals involved, society rightly > does not allow men to fight in the street. If geoengineers wish to > develop their discipline, they must do so in the boxing ring, and must > submit to the authority of the referee. > > I hope that's helpful. > > 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]. > 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.
