So, the larger issue...

[pcs]

George Deutsch was a junior staffer in NASA's public affairs office. He resigned in the midst of an uproar kicked off by a memo he wrote dictating content for a PA website.

 

So one of the larger issues in play pertains to the appropriate role of public affairs in Big Science--the community of institutions, researchers, policymakers and implementers associated with large government and corporate scientific enterprises. Keep in mind that the stakes here often involve public or private investment beyond anything reseachers over a century ago might've considered attainable. And given the broad scope of the aims and resources attached, Big Science may attract greater non-scientific scrutiny.

 

I think Pangloss was aiming for this sort of discussion, so let's try to meet his standard.

[Sisyphus]

The limit of the politician's influence on "Big Science" ought to be...

 

a) the direction of government funds towards research. It's the people's money, so said research ought to be in the public's best interest. Of course, the irony is that the people who would most know the value of science is the scientists themselves, so a responsible politician, who really does have the public interest in mind, will seek counsel primarily from a broad range of qualified advisors (i.e., scientists with differing viewpoints). It should also be kept in mind that pure, non-goal oriented research has produced the bulk of benefit for mankind, and that practical applications could often have not been anticipated ahead of time. Private investors, of course, can and should be encouraged to pursue whatever they want, with a few exceptions, which brings us to...

 

b) The restriction of dangerous technologies. It wouldn't do to have private investors getting themselves an atomic bomb.

 

Neither of these, of course, apply to the situation in question, which seems to amount to politically-motivated censorship.

[bascule]

Religious bias of any kind should have no influence upon science reporting, as was the case here

[pcs]

a) the direction of government funds towards research. It's the people's money, so said research ought to be in the public's best interest. Of course, the irony is that the people who would most know the value of science is the scientists themselves, so a responsible politician, who really does have the public interest in mind, will seek counsel primarily from a broad range of qualified[/i'] advisors (i.e., scientists with differing viewpoints).

 

It does not follow, however, that the people who best decide what's in the public interest are scientists. That's a whole other argument, of course. But I'm not overly concerned with the responsibility of a democracy to fund science, I'm concerned with what constitutes an appropriate public affairs operation in existing Big Science institutions. And as you pointed out, Big Science is accountable to some sort of public interest.

 

It should also be kept in mind that pure, non-goal oriented research has produced the bulk of benefit for mankind, and that practical applications could often have not been anticipated ahead of time.

 

I don't think this claim holds up under scrutiny. The expansion of scientific knowledge in the 20th century far outpaces that of any previous period in human history, and while we may argue it's built on a foundation of 19th century formalism the fact remains the expansion was conducted under the auspices of decidedly goal-oriented agencies with budgets to justify. Whether those discoveries opened new areas or not, a non-trivial amount of basic research ties directly to existing practical problems.

 

Neither of these, of course, apply to the situation in question, which seems to amount to politically-motivated censorship.

 

1. I don't think censorship is the right term. Deutsch didn't propose suppressing information, only qualifying it in a manner to placate the ID political paradigm.

 

2. Why is that inappropriate?

[pcs]

Religious bias of any kind should have no influence upon science reporting, as was the case here

 

Why not? We're not talking about a peer reviewed journal after all. In fact, we're talking about NASA's PAO.

[Sisyphus]

It does not follow, however, that the people who best decide what's in the public interest are scientists. That's a whole other argument, of course. But I'm not overly concerned with the responsibility of a democracy to fund science, I'm concerned with what constitutes an appropriate public affairs operation in existing Big Science institutions. And as you pointed out, Big Science is accountable to some sort of public interest.

 

It's accountable to public interest if it's funded by the government, and the funding came with that particular string attached, which I said it should.

 

I don't think this claim holds up under scrutiny. The expansion of scientific knowledge in the 20th century far outpaces that of any previous period in human history, and while we may argue it's built on a foundation of 19th century formalism the fact remains the expansion was conducted under the auspices of decidedly goal-oriented agencies with budgets to justify. Whether those discoveries opened new areas or not, a non-trivial amount of basic research ties directly to existing practical problems.

 

I didn't say direct practical research was trivial, but the fact remains that under any practical research lies a mountain of theoretical research. The practical is just figuring out how to use the theoretical to solve a particular problem. The theoretical research of today (even that for which nobody can imagine a practical application) is the necessary foundation for tomorrow's practical applications. Nobody could imagine any use for electricty for over a hundred years after they began formulating laws to describe its activity. If research were limited to solving particular problems, we wouldn't have electricity. I like having electricity.

 

"If there is no other use discovered of electricity, this however, is something considerable, that it may help to make a vain man humble." - Benjamin Franklin, 1747

 

 

1. I don't think censorship is the right term. Deutsch didn't propose suppressing information, only qualifying it in a manner to placate the ID political paradigm.

 

So he's altering what the public can know for political purposes. If it's not censorship I'd say it's just a matter of semantics.

 

2. Why is that inappropriate?

 

Because it's harmful to the scientific process and therefore contrary to the public interest.

[pcs]

I didn't say direct practical research was trivial, but the fact remains that under any practical research lies a mountain of theoretical research.

 

That doesn't sound right. I was under the impression that the body of theoretical work vis a vis discussion of practical application, observation and experimentation is miniscule. We can sum up base physical knowledge in a single book of equations and declaratives. You can't similarly the compress billions of pages detailing man's practical exploration of math and science.

 

Nobody could imagine any use for electricty for over a hundred years after they began formulating laws to describe its activity.

 

Which was largely a development of mathematical physics, an inexpensive, not so very labor intensive pursuit. And a 100 years after Stokes and Maxwell developed competence in the field puts us in the mid-20th century.

 

If research were limited to solving particular problems, we wouldn't have electricity. I like having electricity.

 

That simply doesn't follow -- there's no reason to rule out the possibility that practical Maxwells--aka, inventors--may have formulated a theory of electromagnetism.

 

So he's altering what the public can know for political purposes. If it's not censorship I'd say it's just a matter of semantics.

 

I don't think "censorship" or "semantics" fits in that sentence in any meaningful way; not unless we're simply throwing words around for their connotations.

 

Because it's harmful to the scientific process and therefore contrary to the public interest.

 

So says the Lord. But wait, you're not the lord. You're my friend Sisyphus. And so let me challenge you on the whole harmful to the scientific process bit and, more importantly, the claim that what's harmful to the scientific process is contrary to the public interest.

[Sisyphus]

That doesn't sound right. I was under the impression that the body of theoretical work vis a vis discussion of practical application, observation and experimentation is miniscule. We can sum up base physical knowledge in a single book of equations and declaratives. You can't similarly the compress billions of pages detailing man's practical exploration of math and science.

 

I'm not sure we're disagreeing. You're saying that engineers and inventors have spent a lot more man hours applying theoretical knowledge to practical applications than scientists have building theoretical knowledge. That's true. But the theoretical obviously had to come first, and the more complex the application, the more theoretical knowledge underlies it. So for an individual application, it would be entirely accurate to say most of the work has already been done by theoreticians. Just think how much knowledge in how many different fields had to come together before anyone could build, say, a CAT scan machine.

 

Which was largely a development of mathematical physics, an inexpensive, not so very labor intensive pursuit. And a 100 years after Stokes and Maxwell developed competence in the field puts us in the mid-20th century.

 

Labor intensive? No, not in the sense of requiring thousands of lab techs and stuff. It just required a couple dozen very, very smart people trying to unlock its secrets over their whole lives, without any idea what might its practical value be. I've actually read du Fay, Franklin, Nollet, Coulomb, Volta, Oersted, Farraday, etc., and spent a great deal of time studying them, so I really don't think you want to argue with me on that. Those people were all before Stokes and Maxwell, incidentally.

 

That simply doesn't follow -- there's no reason to rule out the possibility that practical Maxwells--aka, inventors--may have formulated a theory of electromagnetism.

 

To what end? If they're formulating theories, they're theoreticians. And they couldn't have known what it could be used for until they had theories to describe it.

 

I don't think "censorship" or "semantics" fits in that sentence in any meaningful way; not unless we're simply throwing words around for their connotations.

 

I'm not really sure what it is you don't understand about it. The difference is merely semantical because although it might not technically fall under the definition of censorship, it is abhorrent for the same reason that censorship is, and it was for the same end. So sure, you can deliberately obfuscate as much as you want, and in the end I'll just give up in disgust, but in the end we both know its true.

 

So says the Lord. But wait, you're not the lord. You're my friend Sisyphus. And so let me challenge you on the whole harmful to the scientific process bit and, more importantly, the claim that what's harmful to the scientific process is contrary to the public interest.

 

This seems to be the heart of the topic, and worthy of a full explanation. I don't have time at the moment, however, so I'll post another reply when I do.

[pcs]

I'm not sure we're disagreeing. You're saying that engineers and inventors have spent a lot more man hours applying theoretical knowledge to practical applications than scientists have building theoretical knowledge. That's true. But the theoretical obviously had to come first' date=' and the more complex the application, the more theoretical knowledge underlies it. So for an individual application, it would be entirely accurate to say most of the work has already been done by theoreticians. Just think how much knowledge in how many different fields had to come together before anyone could build, say, a CAT scan machine.

 

 

 

Labor intensive? No, not in the sense of requiring thousands of lab techs and stuff. It just required a couple dozen very, very smart people trying to unlock its secrets over their whole lives, without any idea what might its practical value be.

 

When aggrandizing the past to the point it grows larger than life, it helps to note that we teach undergrads what it took 18th and 19th century thinkers to unravel. Assigning genius simply because somebody thought of something before anyone else for no good reason at all has nothing to do with our discussion.

 

I've actually read du Fay, Franklin, Nollet, Coulomb, Volta, Oersted, Farraday, etc., and spent a great deal of time studying them, so I really don't think you want to argue with me on that.

 

I've never been one to put somebody's claim to authority in the way of a good argument.

 

Those people were all before Stokes and Maxwell, incidentally.

 

I don't believe I asked as much.

 

To what end?

 

Presumably to further develop electrical technologies that had been around since the 17th century; particularly means of insulating or conducting harmful electrical charges away from life and property.

 

If they're formulating theories, they're theoreticians. And they couldn't have known what it could be used for until they had theories to describe it.

 

Sure they could. In fact, they almost certainly had an idea of what use their knowledge might serve if developed where it concerned electrical problems of the day.

 

I'm not really sure what it is you don't understand about it. The difference is merely semantical because although it might not technically fall under the definition of censorship, it is abhorrent for the same reason that censorship is, and it was for the same end.

 

By same reason you mean "I don't like it." Which once again renders your choice of "censorship" as meaningless. I'm pretty sure the "semantics" bit was just an unintentional turn of phrase injected to drive home the point that...well...you don't like it.

 

So sure, you can deliberately obfuscate as much as you want, and in the end I'll just give up in disgust, but in the end we both know its true.

 

Or maybe we both know its false. Or maybe, which is most likely the case, we disagree. Largely because no information was quelched and unlike you I don't see anything unseemly about a public affairs appointee looking after the interests of his sponsors.

 

This seems to be the heart of the topic, and worthy of a full explanation. I don't have time at the moment, however, so I'll post another reply when I do.

 

It is. Will look forward to it.

[Severian]

Religious bias of any kind should have no influence upon science reporting, as was the case here

 

Religious bias may effect what people regard as more worthy endpoints of research and therefore must influence science funding, if there are limited resources.

 

For example, who is to decide whether finding a cure for cancer is more or less important than finding the origin of mass? That is not a scientific question, but an aesthetci one.

 

My problem is with politicians who abuse scientific research for their own ends, either by distorting science to claim it supports their worldview when it does not (eg. anti-nuclear protesters), or by using science to manipulate the voters (eg. Bush's promise to go to Mars), or demonize science as immoral when science is in fact amoral and requires separate moral decisions to be made (eg. stem cell research).

 

I also see and increasing tendancy in science funding to promote spin. It seems that funding is not given to the most worthy projects any more, but is instead given to those who shout the loudest. This is understandable to some extent because the ministers who decide what should be funded are not scientists - they must listen to sicentists opinions and whomever shouts loudest is most likely to be heard. For this reason I think we should have a requirement that all science ministers should have scientific training.

 

And to counter pcs argument, it is more important that blue skies research be funded by governement. The practical applications of blue skys research will naturally be developed by private companies in order to make a profit. But blue skies research has no definite practical end goal, can take an undefined amount of time, and may not lead to a profit in the end, and therefore will not get funded by private companies. If governments (actually consortiums of governments) did not invest in research on particle physics for example, we would know nothing about quarks and the strong interaction. There has so far been no practical applicatation of this knowledge which has taken over 30 years to find out (and therefore would never have been funded by the private sector) but I am 100% sure that it will be a foundation of many many practical applications a hundred years from now.