PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:28:04PM -0400, Warnick, Walt wrote:
Anecdotal evidence abounds to show that basic research selected and funded
by the Federal government has produced enormous benefits. [...]
I am amazed to find
- Original Message -
From: Eric Crampton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The upshot isn't that
government science is entirely ineffective, it's that it displaces private
science spending dollar for dollar. The question then isn't how effective
government science is, it's how effective the private
--- Francois-Rene Rideau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously, the government didn't forecast the
unpredictable path of discovery any more than the
private sector. Non sequitur.
No. I was using the story as neither a premise nor a
conclusion to an argument about funding sources. It
seemed as
From: Warnick, Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the natural sciences, basic research at
universities tends to be funded by the Federal
government... Basic research funded by corporations
is very small.
Which hits on my original remark: if we have two types
of scientists, Basic Applied, and if
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 05:16:11PM -0700, john hull wrote:
The economic benefits of this separation [between Applied and Basic
researchers] outweighs the cost of paying for basic research.
How is this separation a benefit at all?
Not separating them will mean that they can better cooperate with
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With the widespread intrusion of the federal government into the lives and
business of everyone, it might be fruitful to consider a spectrum of
research
spanning the gamut from purely private to purely governmental rather than
considering
In a message dated 10/14/02 4:32:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With the widespread intrusion of the federal government into the lives and
business of everyone, it might be fruitful to consider a spectrum of
research
spanning the
- Original Message -
From: john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That the expense of cushy jobs for
okay scientists was more than offset by the gains from
getting only the best scientists to go to Bell Labs,
or MIT, or wherever.
Pardon my ignorance, but is MIT a private or public
In a message dated 10/13/02 11:00:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should only corporate science be considered private
science?
~Alypius Skinner
For that matter, not all corporate science would be purely private either,
since some of it probably gets directly subsidized and some of it
Gosh, I guess Canada is in a very bad way according to this author.
Shirley
- Original Message -
From:
Alypius
Skinner
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:36
AM
Subject: (book review)The Case against
Government Science
I was given to the impression that one of the benefits
of gov't funded science was that it creates separating
equilibria such that the okay, but not ground
breaking, scientists don't muck-up the works at ground
breaking institutions by misrepresenting themselves
and getting hired. That the
11 matches
Mail list logo
