Not sure how relevant this is to the discussion, which I havent followed very closely, but I suggest that it is not only useful, but necessary to draw a distinction between the scientist and organization (whether governmental, academic, or entrepreneurial) for who the scientist works. It is probably doubtful that most scientists go into research to get rich, or even famous, rather than because of their curiosity to understand the natural world, or even through a moral decision to use science to improve life.
Does this mean that the scientific community, or at least some members of that community, cannot be corrupted by the organizations with whom they are employed? Of course not. Those on whom the scientist depend for their survival, who pay for the research, who provide the funds for needed and elaborate experimental equipment, define the immediate goals towards which scientific research is directed. The scientist is not, by definition, entirely immune from the pressures and blandishments, ranging from publish-or-no-tenure to build-a-better-bomb-or-we-execute-your-family, that organizations might employ. Along the same lines, then, it is also important to distinguish the goals, interests, and motivations of the scientist from those of the societies or organizations and the technocrats that govern them who employ the scientific work for their own purposes. Irving H. Anellis Visiting Research Associate Peirce Edition, Institute for American Thought 902 W. New York St. Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis Indianapolis, IN 46202-5159 USA URL: http://www.irvinganellis.info --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
