[Peace-discuss] RE: [sf-core] FW: Gerald Epstein | What's So Bad
About a Banker Brain Drain?
Morton K. Brussel
brussel at illinois.edu
Mon Feb 16 21:13:45 CST 2009
On Feb 16, 2009, at 12:33 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
> >Back to the stone age!
> >Back to average human lifetimes not exceeding ≈35 years.
> >Back to having no communication with another except to what you to
> walk to.
> >Back to ignorance.
>
> Of course, there are some who would argue that returning to these
> things may not be all that bad. It might be argued that it is not
> about the length of life as much as the quality of life no matter
> what its length. While quality of life is arguably a subjective
> thing, I am not sure if living into the 70’s, 80s, and 90s is such
> a desirable blessing if one is doing so as a someone’s science
> project. Moreover, once we leave the first world, many of the
> people do not benefit from first world advances and die young if
> they are not killed by wars and extermination made easier and more
> devastating by scientific advances and weaponry or through such
> scientifically possible manipulation of environmental conditions via
> biological controls and manipulations.
>
> It also could be argued that all the so-called advances has not
> come without its undesirable side effects and unintended
> consequences. With this in mind, I have to say your response is
> sort of a glib reply; I certainly expected more from you than a
> black & white slogan response.
You've must be kidding! Argument for the sake of argument.
Conclusion: Yes it would have been better with no progress in science
over the ages, no science. Let's just rely on prayer and gods.
>
> >Despite useful remarks about transparency (Most university research
> has been completely transparent) and the profits that derive from
> applications of >science, I find this comment, especially in the
> last paragraph, astonishing. The bitterness and resentment is
> misdirected.
>
> Getting a little defensive are we?
Damn right.
> I challenge you to go around with me to the various science and
> engineering departments as well as the administrative officers at
> this and other universities and ask them to identify and show use a
> list of all the research being done by members of their department
> or the university in the case of the university administrators and
> let us see the names of the funders and the contractual papers that
> govern the use of those funds. I bet that we would get very little
> cooperation much less information.
Another silly reply. Of course, I'm not going to go around with you.
Moreover, I don't think you know anything very concrete about what is
open and what is not in the university community. Therefore, you are
simply making, unjustified assertions which evidently come from
pathological mistrust. I have worked on research with government
contracts in physics, nuclear physics no less, and everything we've
done has been completely open to the public, including all
publications. This is not to say that there are not parts associated
with the university, like formerly CERL, or the research park, that
have (had) links to military research and development. And I am not
conversant with what happens in the departments of chemistry, the
biological sciences, geology, the atmospheric sciences, oceanography,
astronomy, mathematics, even in engineeering (where there are closer
links to industry) and the social sciences, but even so I'm fairly
certain that the great bulk of what they do is transparent to anyone
who wants to look. So, your sweeping generalizations are complete bunk
(IMO). Moreover, that one has a government funded or corporate
contract does not imply the the results of research in those contracts
are in any sense secret.
> I say that this makes your statement about most university research
> being transparent questionable.
>
> If one adds the fact that there is a lot of governmentally funded
> defense, national security, and law enforcement related research
> being conducted in and at universities around the country by
> academic researchers or academics serving as consultants which are
> to totally or in part confidential or secret with those receiving
> funding signing or otherwise agreeing to non-disclosure agreements,
> one has further reason to doubt the extent of the transparency of
> information surrounding research at the university and who it is
> being done for and why it is being done. Do we even know what
> percentage of university research is or is not of this type? There
> also is a lot of contractual research going on at this and other
> universities for private companies (some of which is funded by
> those companies, some by government grants, and some by a mix of the
> two). In fact the amount of contractual research has been on the
> rise as has the privatization of a variety of things including
> research and research facilities, stadiums, etc. at universities –
> including publically funded state universities.
>
> You really mean to tell me that scientists, engineers and academics
> are special types of people unlike everyone else in that they are
> not inclined to follow the money when designing and carrying out
> their research so as to get research grants and exploit funding
> opportunities, so as to set themselves up in a position to get
> lucrative consulting contracts, so as to establish a foundation for
> future side ventures and businesses. I do not think that they are
> that pure, that they do not engage in pettiness, organizational and
> professional politics and backstabbing, ambitiousness and desire for
> fame, fortune, and power. What percentage of academic research by
> scientists and engineers are being done in fields or areas or on
> topics and problems for which there is no grant money available from
> the government or private enterprises?
Of course, not everyone is "pure", but that should not condemn the
whole enterprise, as you do. And of course, there have been and no
doubt continue to be projects within universities that compromise the
transparency that we'd like, and that collaborate with the state,
whatever the state decides to do. That's the nature of society and in
the nature of humans. It seems silly to have to point out that there
is good and bad in the world, and in our universities and with
scientists, but you wish to see only the dark side of things. To claim
that science and scientists are evil and have done no good for
civilized life I reiterate is preposterous, if not the worst kind of
nihilism or ignorance.
>
> I don’t find any of my comments astonishing or outrageous; and any
> resentment and/or bitterness that I may have expressed is not
> totally misdirected. I resent anyone who uses public resources for
> secret purposes or in support of secret agendas or for private gain
> and benefit/profit.
>
> Enough from me. I'm disappointed in your remarks. --mkb
>
>
> From: Morton K. Brussel [mailto:brussel at illinois.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:17 PM
> To: LAURIE SOLOMON
> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; sf-core at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [sf-core] FW: Gerald Epstein | What's So Bad About a
> Banker Brain Drain?
>
> Back to the stone age!
> Back to average human lifetimes not exceeding ≈35 years.
> Back to having no communication with another except to what you to
> walk to.
> Back to ignorance.
>
> Despite useful remarks about transparency (Most university research
> has been completely transparent) and the profits that derive from
> applications of science, I find this comment, especially in the last
> paragraph, astonishing. The bitterness and resentment is misdirected.
>
> --mkb
>
>
>
> On Feb 15, 2009, at 3:46 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
>
> Scientists Celebrate Dawn of Barack Obama's Age of Reason
> http://www.truthout.org/021509E
> Mark Henderson, The Times: "There was indeed a palpable buzz
> yesterday in
> the subterranean conference rooms of the two downtown Chicago hotels
> where
> the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is
> holding
> its annual meeting. The real excitement, however, has had much less
> to do
> with Darwin than with the most famous former resident of America's
> second
> city - Barack Obama."
>
> (My comments) Where have we heard similar expressions before? Of
> course,
> the Bush proponents would argue that their term was an age of reason
> also;
> it just used different rules of evidence and argument, different
> forms of
> logic and reasoning, and different arguments and understandings.
> But the
> important and undisclosed part of this is that science as a
> enterprise and
> industry is a special interest group whose interests are now being
> served;
> unfortunately, like the financial industry, it is being given
> stimulus money
> and other funding, permissions to engage in research that was not
> permitted
> before and in ways that were not allowed previously, and
> opportunities to
> ear revenues and make profits at public expense for private actors -
> the
> scientists, the universities and companies that they work for, and the
> investors who get value for risks that the public takes.
>
> If the scientists research is pure research and of some short or
> long range
> benefit to society and the public so as to justify their public
> funding and
> right to engage in the research, then why not insist on all
> copyrights and
> patents related to the research and its findings be public and that
> private
> persons or companies who are using said research or findings for
> profit be
> required to pay monthly licensing fees to the government at
> reasonable and
> fair market value based on the profits generated by the products and
> services which utilize the research and research findings done with
> public
> money? In addition, if public money is to be spent on scientific
> research or
> on research done in public facilities or by public employees (i.e.,
> faculty
> members in public institutions), then that research should be made
> totally
> and completely transparent with respect to the research itself, the
> findings, the methodologies employed, the contracts between he
> involved
> parties, and the uses to which the research is being put.
>
> However, I doubt if the new age of reason will not be very similar
> to the
> older ages of reason where scientists are out for themselves
> although they
> justify their activities under a clock of public good, and the type of
> research and the benefits of it are determined by the needs and profit
> opportunities of the funding sources (particularly the government
> whose
> public funding is more times than not for secretive national security,
> defense and policing purposes with other benefits being mostly spin-
> offs and
> not the main purpose) and those who seek to make financial gain from
> the
> research. Very little scientific research these days is being done
> for
> purely intellectual or academic reasons.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090216/bccf97a6/attachment.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list