IssueRaiser

The fact that [t]here is no way to hold a scientist accountable when the fruits of 'basic science' are not provable for decades or centur...

The fact that [t]here is no way to hold a scientist accountable when the fruits of 'basic science' are not provable for decades or centuries is an inherent problem with science. I can't think of an alternative system which would resolve this. If there was no uncertainty with regards to the profits resulting from research, then it wouldn't be science anymore - it would simply be consulting. And I honestly can't imagine how you can prevent dishonesty and overselling when laymen are involved in funding decisions through donations. Edit: I've just read the comment by eli_gottlieb further below and would argue that's a far better improvement for science rather than abandoning the NIH.

Posted by jcfrei on May 11, 2015, 7:01 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,500 issues0 comments

hackernews (Other)

The fact that [t]here is no way to hold a scientist accountable when the fruits of 'basic science' are not provable for decades or centur...

jcfreiMay 11, 2015, 7:01 PM

The fact that [t]here is no way to hold a scientist accountable when the fruits of 'basic science' are not provable for decades or centuries is an inherent problem with science. I can't think of an alternative system which would resolve this. If there was no uncertainty with regards to the profits resulting from research, then it wouldn't be science anymore - it would simply be consulting. And I honestly can't imagine how you can prevent dishonesty and overselling when laymen are involved in funding decisions through donations. Edit: I've just read the comment by eli_gottlieb further below and would argue that's a far better improvement for science rather than abandoning the NIH.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue