The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Should the public have more control over how money is spent in science?  (Read 1668 times)

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Do you think that the public should have more control on how funds should be allocated for science and how it's used in the sciences? By "more control" I mean that our elected officials should have less control over it because they don't necessarily reflect the publics desires. That may or may not be a good thing.


 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1870
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
What sort of mechanism do you propose to allow "the public" to have control over something without "their representation" having that control?

I know people who have resorted to Kickstarter to fund their research (in their experience, this doesn't work so well)

And, as bad as our publicly elected officials are (at least in the US, I can't speak about other governments), I'm not sure that the American Public would be any more "pro science..."

"you want 1.8 million dollars to study lubrication?!? what's wrong with WD-40?"
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: chiralSPO
What sort of mechanism do you propose to allow "the public" to have control over something without "their representation" having that control?
By election ballet votes. When you go to the poles on election day you're sometimes given selections which you an vote on. Several years ago we (people in MA) had the selection on the ballet to be able to buy beer and wine in grocery stores. That can be extended to voting for certain things in science.

Quote from: chiralSPO
..I'm not sure that the American Public would be any more "pro science..."
This isn't voting about science/no science. This is voting among where the funds go. And a lack of voting will mean a vote for letting your elected official determine where the money goes.
 

Offline ProjectSailor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
I think we scientists should overthrow governments and take the entire tax haul for ourselves..

but If I think about the general poluation.. specifically many of those I see on Jeremy Kyle (Jerry Springer) I think its better not involving the general pubic.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
By "more control" I mean that our elected officials should have less control over it because they don't necessarily reflect the publics desires.

Wouldn't it be better to reorganise the electoral system so that they did reflect public opinion? It's not difficult. 
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Do you think that the public should have more control on how funds should be allocated for science and how it's used in the sciences? By "more control" I mean that our elected officials should have less control over it because they don't necessarily reflect the publics desires. That may or may not be a good thing.

A scientific fund/budget each year should be handed over to a science committee made up of various scientists of various fields from different continental places who are trustees to the funding and forthwith decide on what pursuits to endeavour in and for what purpose the funding is best spent.   Public opinion could only hamper things, for example,  if most of the public believed in extraterrestrial life, E.T may end up with a big budget phoning home from their limos.
The simple answer to defining a budget is to ask what is needed the most?   At this time do we need to travel deep into space?  are thinks like this really a necessity?
Needs is always a must and localised science should always come first and the needs for survival take premise over all other sciences.  Turning lead into gold or improving our environment?   gold is no good to a dead man.



 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
I think you have just invented the European Science Foundation. Best avoided, in my experience.
 

Offline Katori

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Should, but, at the same time, how this crowd can know what be better the science?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums