Originally Posted by
MrPeabody
Yes, just read the first few paragraphs and I agree, but you obviously didn't read much as you've have understood where he was heading with this and whom he was criticising.
"
Science is probably the last bastion of true freethinking but is being swallowed by this make-money-get-profit world. Science and scientists are becoming more and more detached from the pure curiosity that once drove them, and they are embracing this notion of profitable science, which means that an idea must first be sold in order to be explored."
I wonder where this is heading......?
"In naturally profitable scientific fields, for e.g. pharmacology, biotechnology or applied physics, the price is lower, and usually consists on adjusting the direction of a certain study to the best economic outcome."
Well, I expected that! But what followed was also no surprise:
"........But what when there is no direct profit? Fundamental science, for example. To be able to sell it in order to get funding a scientist is frequently forced to bend or adjust the narrative used to describe its project. From that moment onwards, it doesn’t matter how hard he will then fight to ignore the adaptations used in the marketing plan. His focus, his scientific agenda is forever deviated, since he must present results in line with what was proposed. One good example is how climate change is frequently introduced into projects which have nothing to do with it."
And the same with this:
"We are embracing, in science and as scientists, the same values and rules of the financial markets. We have transformed it into the monetisation of science (see Horton, 2016). This means that no longer the primary goal of science is to increase knowledge for the growth and prosperity of mankind but to obtain profits and be economically strong,
under present neoliberal economic principles" So those same neoliberal economic principles which are damaging our societies are also responsible for pulling down our higher education; surprise, surprise!
And on it goes with pointing out the present failures in the world's higher education systems. But I think your wedded anti science view has clouded your ability to read this with an independent mind, allowing you to jump to the conclusion that this piece supports your political views, but it doesn't. Sure, there are problems, but this piece doesn't provide evidence that the system has corrupted the science that is used to support the view on CC or CV. The argument on "peer" reviewed work is well known and there is a scientist in Melb who has taken it upon herself to shine a light on this problem and she has had a reasonable amount of media expose for it recently (last 6 mths or so). A lot of this "peer" reviewed work is out of very low level journals (and a reasonable % out of China) and are large part of the problem is the need for published "research" by Unis etc. So for peer reviewed work, it's the standing of the journal that matters, claiming peer reviewed means nothing if the journal is of low standing, and the highest standing journals guard their reputations because without them, they're are worthless.
However, conflating this issue with all climate science is pure rubbish, most of the direction on CC is coming from the likes of, Australia: CSIRO, BoM, previous Fed Gov Chief Gov Scientist, UNSW CC unit, US: NASA's Goddard Institute, NOAA, Academy of Sciences, US equiv of BoM, UK: Royal Society (oldest science org in the world), UK Academy of Science.
Afaik, every reputable science org supports the consensus on CC. We are not talking bottom of the rung science, we are taking the top levels.
The article also points out the profit driven area of science these days, that being the bio / pharma areas. So who is corrupting the actual outcome of science, those at the bottom rung or the profit driven areas. Who provides the money for all of these web based anti CC stances? The fossil fuel and vested interests in not wanting any change that will impact their profitability.
I'm not wedded to CC, for the life of me I cannot see for me, an emotional benefit and definitely no financial benefit in accepting CC, or CV responses. Why would a normal person want to, with all of the negative outcomes of that acceptance. For me it's simple, the bulk to the science supports it. Unfortunately we now have to endure that fallout.
Mr Peabody, the article doesn't support your view, you've conflated it with your beliefs.
Edit: "
A good read on the scientific experts of today! " Yeah nah. It isn't a read of scientific experts today, it's a comment on the declining "standards" of science in general, just as you have varying standards of aviation around the world REGARDLESS of the same regulatory standards worldwide. Imo your comment is further evidence of your misunderstanding of the article.