Lab Equipment Blog

I think it is legitimate for politics to be informed by science. But for the science to be worthwhile, it must not be compromised by politics. As the tag line of one of our members says, 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts'.

I am an amatueur scientist (in my opinion). I try to design appropriate technology for poor people. It is not just polics that intefere in science, it is also social perception and the embedded ideas that the scientist gets from his or her upbringing. Concider the average scientist. They grow up relatively rich. They have time to think freely in their formative years. They are surrounded by books and knowelege. And they have a method, which involves having control samples and careful measurement of all external factors. And their research is drawn to the "cutting edge" because of the excitement and riches of it all. This type of science successfully excludes the amateur like me. I cannot afford all the measuring equipment, and cannot often stand around taking measurements most of the time either. And I deliberately look away from the cutting edge. Designing processes for poor people involves a different set of values but I think it is still science. So far, I have come up with the pulser pump, the mechanical mathematician, molds for making compound parabolic solar cookers, low tech solar trackers and (still works in progress, the tracking solar accumulator and (this one might not ever work, the low tech heliostat)). I think that is pretty good for someone working outside the system! Institutional science completely ignores these things, even though I put them on the internet specifically so that others could repeat and refine what I did. I believe that is a major problem to be addressed. Institutional science has a serious vision problem and the problem is an internal one. Brian

I have seen many posts from people who need a way to make electricity and are completely hung up on IC engine powered generators and the costs and difficulties of getting fuel into remote or poverty-stricken areas. Suggestions of photovoltaic panels or using alternative fuels are often not appropriate for those situations.

You seem to be more practical minded. I have an idea that I am unable to draw up plans for, but which would be practical almost everywhere. Using the solar reflector and tracking that you have devised to create steam to power a steam engine. [Perhaps a converted IC engine or a automotive screw turbocharger run backward.] The steam engine would run a generator. For nighttime, a small watertube boiler could use any available fuel to supply steam to the engine. The fuel could be anything from dung, dried vegetation, wood to coal or heating oil. This would reduce the need for batteries to just what is needed to power the unit.

I would like to see some of your plans too. I'd like to make something like this to supply some power to my property. Providing I can get my two left thumbs and arthritis to cooperate.

Thank you. Though I have to say my plans are still develloping. My crude tracking was NOT good enough for a parabolic dish. I realize that after a summer of occasional tests. I think it will be good enough for the compound parabolic dish because a compound parabolic dish does not need to be pointed perfectly at the sun. (There is a margin for error which the designer can determine.) Anyway, very few are interested. Brian

What is the proper balance between the two, particularly during a political campaign?

Why not ask the candidates to start a dialog that's more complex (but perhaps less lyrical) than "change, blah blah, change, blah blah"?

Personally, I'd like to see the presidential candidates have a science debate.

You got that right!!!

Sorry, political candidates ≠ complex dialog in this day and age. It's all buzz-words and sound bites, and photo ops. Personally, I'd like to see which REAL scientists and engineers each candidate proposes to put in charge of cabinet-level posts instead of the usual gang of bureaucrats.

The politicians that exist in most areas of the world are all the same. They do rely on remaining in the public eye and simple sound bites to annoy the nation. Unfortunately its not just sensible scientific programs that are affected. In social terms, political correctness was supposed to bring people together in a language of openness and non confrontationalism, instead now people are afraid to say anything in case it annoys someone else.

Science is not absolute, its results can be skewed, and not just by bad data. Polititcians do not generally understand science and are a pain when they don't understand. In point of fact the first dumbing down of any scientific data is for the politicians!

I do agree with the previous blogger who pointed out that scienctists need to look at not only hi tech cutting edge, but low tech solutions, the simplest solutions are often the best.

Absolutely! Good science does NOT have to be high tech to be good.

Science is compromised whenever politicians or followers of a particular political philosophy exert influence on scientists through money and official approval. A most egregious example being the "Global Warming" crowd. Those who disagree with them lose funding, are not published, are ridiculed, are called bad scientists, are accused of being paid off by energy companies and often lose their jobs. This kind of pressure forces scientists into the party line and makes them invent data to support it.

In the difference of opinion over GW versus natural Climate Change, one side rules out any effect of Nature while the other says we need to look more at natural causes rather than place all the blame on Man. In this difference of opinion the GW side treats the CC side in the same manner as totalitarian governments treat dissenters, even if not to such extremes as imprisonment or death. [Although some GW supporters have said the CC people should be in prison or executed.]

Ideally there should be no political influence in science, but as long as there are people in charge there will be influence.

Nope, one side estimates the background effect caused by natural forces and uses that to indicate just how strong human caused global warming is. The other side searches for indicators of doubt. People still argue that increasing CO2 by 40% is not causing any harm. Those same people vet scientific reports or shelve them. (Conservative government in canada, shelves a lot of reports. Bush administration in USA regularly gets in trouble for changing scientific reports). The problem isnt science. The evidence for the vast extent of global warming gets ever stronger. Global ice caps are melting really fast now. Newspapers, who sell on controvercy search out those who disagree or who say it is all natural. The big CO2 emmitters readily fund those people.

As an example of poltical stifling of science, our own current administration pooh-poohs global warming/climate change saying it just ain't happening, while all of the real evidence indicates that it is happening (regardless of what anyone thinks the cause is). That same bunch of politicos has also stifled every part of the government that has any part to play with science, from the USEPA, to the USDA, the FDA, and even the CDC and NIH. NOAA, NIST, CoE, nobody has been safe from this dumbing-down/chasing out phenomenon. And I for one, don't like it.

I agree that the climate is changing, however I think it is almost all natural. I don't think a political agenda should influence science and scientific investigation. I do see a Leftist political influence in favor of GW being caused by Man and supposedly something which can be stopped by Man. The fact that it would give the political Left more power and money could have nothing to do with it.

While I agree that we should not make more CO2 than is needed to maintain our civilization and that we should look into cost effective ways of making energy that does not produce more or is at least neutral, I think there are more important types of "pollution" that need to be cleaned up. The political Left in government as well as in the educational system has tried to silence those who say Climate Change is more natural than man-made using tactics inappropriate to a democracy where there is supposed to be freedom of speech and opinion. They say disagreement "pooh-poohs global warming","while all of the real evidence indicates that it is happening (regardless of what anyone thinks the cause is)", but it depends on which evidence is acceptable to those who blame Man and want to control people. And I, too, for one, don't like it.