Should scientific experiments be strictly regulated by governments?

Question

I cant help feeling that self regulation has not worked for the common good.We must never regard science as a sacred cow beyond
regulation.

I have touched on a raw nerve with some people
here but it is a question that must be asked and
must be faced.

Answer 1

Of course not. I can't think of a single gov't official that would recognize or understand the value of the more abstract areas of science (like theoretical astrophysics or bioinformatics), not to mention the objections they might have on 'moral grounds' which have been addressed by scientists many times before. You never know what abstract research area will give us the next major advance. Electricity, magnetism, transitors, all once considered abstract and theoretical.

Answer 2

Melbourne, here's an answer from Australia. Not too long ago the Federal Government decided it would poke it's nose into medical research it funded. But because there were few votes involved it decided to find out a few facts first before running to Alan Jones and his marginally less horrible mates.

The committee - don't ask me how it was composed - came up with six key areas that most needed research. On investigation it was found, wonder of wonders, that those areas were the the ones that were already getting the most research. Some of the others were areas that did not quite make the top six.

Scientist already have enough to deal with, loony animal righters, loony greens, loony creationists and all the other ratbags that cluster around without having to deal with politicians.

Answer 3

Brief and simple answer: absolutely no.

Aspects of experiments which are likely to impact the public should be regulated; for example, emissions from chemical fume hoods, disposal of radiatioactive waste from experiments with radioactive materials, etc

But the content and direction of scientific work should not be regulated at all by governments. Every time this happens you have a regression in science. Today's stem-cell restrictions will be viewed decades from now no differently than we view the Vatican's active hostility against the doctrinally-unacceptable view that the Earth orbits the sun centuries ago. Governments are often driven by ignorance and inertia, two forces that should not set an agenda for science. The current administration has been well-documented, for example, in its manipulation and carefully-decided ignorance of scientific results, and has definitely harmed science, for example in AIDS research.

While it is the prerogative of governments to set funding priorities for things that are relevant for the general tax-paying public, for example deciding to fund medical research that will directly affect the health of tax payers instead of abstract physics, even those types of priorities often tend to be short-sighted and counter-productive in the long run. Space exploration provides a perfect example of something that could be argued as practically useless but that has generated countless scientific and every-day technological benefits that would never have come about if short-sightedness dictated funding priorities.

The scientific system actually regulates itself extremely well through peer-review, etc. While I, as a practicing researcher, could start discussing the flaws of the peer-review system for a long time, it is by far the best system out there. Although one rotten apple sneaks by every once in a long while, just the fact of the huge publicity that those rotten apples attract demonstrates how rare they are. How often does the media even bother mentioning when a politician or a major corporation lies? But if a scientist fabricates results, it's front page news world-wide and their career is completely over. Worth remembering that there are far bigger crooks in government than in science. If it was up to me I'd have scientists strictly regulating governments, not the other way.

Answer 4

To a degree, they already are. However, peer review and ethics boards are usually powerful enough forces to make scientists follow the rules. Adding more government oversight would hinder the scientific process and create unnecessary expense just to catch the rare researcher who oversteps ethical rules or fakes numbers. In many cases, more questionable behavior exists because of government regulations, not in spite of them.

Answer 5

It is totally inappropriate, inadvisable, incongruous and insensible for governments to interfere with scientific experiments which lead to advances in science and hence improvement in human life!

Answer 6

only for safety purpose (you don´t want to blow the university, research center or city they take place in)
or for ethical purpose (I´m not for living cow dissection to show a stomach to scholars)

Answer 7

I thought they already were...to an extent

Answer 8

not ever
they stop real progress happening