English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Many ecologists and resource scientists work for the government agencies to study resources and resource management. Do scienctists serve the public best if they try to do pure science, or if they try to support the political positions of democratically elected representatives, who after all, represent the positions of the constituents?

2007-02-10 03:41:22 · 4 answers · asked by Charles M 2 in Environment

4 answers

yes

2007-02-10 03:43:34 · answer #1 · answered by avani 1 · 0 1

OK there was a story about this in recent Australian newspapers. Recently the Australian Federal Government decided to review funding for medical research and identified six major areas where research was most needed. There were a few politicians involved in the process. When they came to review the areas of medical research that were actually being worked on, they found that more than half the funding they supplied was already being used in just those areas. Some of the other funding was being used in pure science areas, some in areas just outside the six chosen by the review group. So it appears that scientists, by and large, can identify the areas where research is most required.

It is my opinion that too much governmental supervision can lead to poor outcomes. Politicians and the public are constitutionally unable to identify where research is needed. The public is not well enough informed and the politicians are mostly business people and lawyers, neither of whom are famous for their understanding of scientific issues even if briefed to some extent.

Here are two Australian examples. In the late 19th century the opuntia cactus (prickly pear) was introduced from the SW of the USA to Australia. Having no natural predators here it flourished to the extent that hundreds of thousands of acres of farming and cattle rearing land was put out of production. It even blocked some roads.

Governmment funded research to kill off the plant pest but made no stipulation of how it was to be done. The scientists identified the cactoblastis moth that laid eggs in the cactus and did not attack other plants. It was widely introduced in the late 1920s or early 1930s and was a roaring success, to the extent that there are now only remnant plants which keep the moth alive in Australia.

Beetles which attack sugar cane were a pest in the sugar industry. A private group of farmers and businessmen decided to do something about it and introduced the cane toad, (bufo marinus) an amphibian with poison glands in its head. This was over 60 years ago. The toad has had no effect on the cane beetle since the beetle attacks cane in the higher parts of the plant, and the toad never climbs the cane stalks. Worse, the toad is spreading throughout tropical Australia and its poison is killing off many native animals. It is quite apparent that democratically elected representatives (Australia is one of the oldest democracies in the world) could have chosen to introduce the toad, without scientific advice.

2007-02-10 12:16:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The democratic process is dependent on consensus and popularity. History has repeatedly demonstrated that popularity in not the best indicator of correctness. Integrity demands that the scientist seek out correct views of phenomena rather than support popular views. Few of the scientists most respected today were popular in their lifetimes, because of their proclivity to correct misconceptions, yet we proclaim these "counter-culture" individuals to be the best of public servants.

Scientists have always been plagued by the dilemma of funding, whether public or private. When research brings an undesired result funding tends to dry up, forcing the scientist to seek funding elsewhere or pursue a different career. The public is not served when this happens.

2007-02-10 12:24:28 · answer #3 · answered by Helmut 7 · 1 0

It is not the fault of scientists... They were living in a different world.. No law or government can control them.. If they try to control.. Scientists will not work on their projects in that country... Example INDIA... Here very good scientists who tried to contribute for the well fare of human beings, were crushed by some stupid politicians and higher officials in their own branch... So, many of them found a new place were they are respected, recognised on what they are.... Not on who they are... That place is called NASA, Micro soft etc,,, Many of them were indian born scientists only..... Except Abdul kalam he is an exceptional one... Because he wanna serve our nation... what ever happens... When any scientist try to support politics... He looses his identity as a scientist.. So, no need to worry about such persons...Because they are not scientists...

2007-02-10 11:55:54 · answer #4 · answered by bharathkumarkt 2 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers