Just one query.
On 12/4/19 11:24 am, David wrote:
... [lots of interesting stuff ...]
... General Relativity and immunotherapies for cancer come from the same
intellectual tradition - we don't get one without the other.
Are you proposing that General Relativity Theory is a necessary
precursor to immunotherapies for cancer, or just a fellow traveller?
If the former, I'll do a Pauline and say 'please explain'.
If the latter, I'd argue that we apply some scepticism to research
proposals, in the immunotherapy area as in all other areas, and make
people jump through hoops, initially give them only small amounts of
funding, and only give them more as positive outcomes are demonstrated.
Okay, that's an over-simplification, not least because the human fear of
death puts rose-coloured glasses on people when it comes to medical
research proposals; and research funding is subject to bandwagon
effects, etc.
But my point is that we expect payback on public investment.
It's one thing to fund theoretical physicists sitting in offices, using
whiteboards, and using their share of cheap data-processing facilities.
It's quite another to build dedicated facilities at vast expense, and
burn large amounts of energy and people's salaries, supporting
alice-in-wonderland high-science.
--
Roger Clarke mailto:[email protected]
T: +61 2 6288 6916 http://www.xamax.com.au http://www.rogerclarke.com
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law University of N.S.W.
Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
