Can or Should Science be Regulated ?

Balance, moderation, perspective, these must be considered that societal growth be well grounded and ever advancing....

The problem with society today,..... or may always have been but not exposed due to the media at hand.

IMO, society has been brought up to expect immediate satisfaction.

Science is truly on investment in the future. And like investments, some yields more than others and also comes to term in shorter time.

The Luddites, ultra-conservatives, and tea party fanatics would love to see science and most research that doesn't agree with their radical view of nature brought to a halt.

Social services are a necessary evil that these people see no need for. They're the "let 'em eat cake" types. "Ignorance is bliss", and all.

Now, where would such a decree originate and who would enforce it?

I say let's keep doing the research, and look for some honest, ethical people to run things.

The Luddites, ultra-conservatives, and tea party fanatics would love to see science and most research that doesn't agree with their radical view of nature brought to a halt.

lyn, thats political dribble. Theres plenty of stupidity to go around for everyone.

But we agree on one thing here...

I say let's keep doing the research, and look for some honest, ethical people to run things.

OK,

So, you're saying that stupid is universal?

not so much universal, as much as an unlimited resource.

Have to agree with Lyn on this one.

Let's see, can we start with the '40's? How 'bout "shock" therapy German style; put a guy in a sauna, then dunk him in ice water to see what happens. Next we can review how "wind chill" was determined. Then of course we have Gypsy moths to silk, and Africanized/European bees. Not to mention the "science is settled" on AGW. Bringing us up to date, we put fetuses in a Cuisinart and then inject them to make spare parts. Idi Amin had a similar philosophy. The first two examples were done by "ethical" scientists and medical doctors. Unfortunately the ethical was the ethical in Ethical Humanist Society. Yessirree bob, thar's a good group for ya. I'll take Tea Party or Luddites most any day over them. (SARCASM OFF)

Now that I've thoroughly P.O.'d everyone except Phoenix. I'm not against science, but leaving it to politicians and "ethical" scientists doesn't really solve the issue. While I haven't an answer, disparaging group(s) with whom you disagree is no way to build a consensus to solve the issue.

I say let's keep doing the research, and look for some honest, ethical people to run things.

Ethics.... This I have pulled this from the University of Texas with little modifications, it's the SMALL definition of different types of ethics, not including sub culture ethics.

Ethical relativism

· Often disparaging, what's ethical depends on the individual, the group, the culture, tradition,

· background

· Argument against: Just because one class of individuals does something, doesn't mean it's right

Intuitionism

You just know what is right and what is wrong

Utilitarianism

· One must act to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number

· Places public good over private good

· Possible harmful to minorities and individuals, sacrificed for the majority

· The ends justify the means

1. The purpose of morality is to make the world a better place.

2. Morality is about producing good consequences, not having good intentions

3. We should do whatever will bring the most benefit to all of humanity.

Deontological theories

· It's about moral obligation

· It's about actions (not ends)

· Rejects acts that harm minorities, individuals

* Stems from Immanual Kant known as Kantian Ethics - Always treat persons as ends-in-themselves and never merely as means to your ends.

(The right moral rules are those which people would freely choose to have govern them. A maxim is universal if and only if you could effectively achieve your goal by acting on it in a world where everyone else was pursuing the same goal by acting similarly in similar circumstances)

* Opposite of utilitarianism

* "Do what is right, though the world should perish."

• Meta-ethics
• Normative ethics
• Descriptive ethics
• Applied ethics
• Specific questions
• Ethics in politics and economics
• Environmental ethics
• Ethics in the professions

(and then there sub ethical definitions)

i. Ethics in health care

ii. Ethics in psychology

• Legal ethics,

(I have found that Legal ethics are nothing more, than, well, this is what other attorneys do........wink, wink...) Where the practice of ethics amounts to nothing more than a acting within the norm of the legal profession (other attorneys) as a whole within the immediate area..

There's more.... the list goes on...... pick one, there is an ethic standard for every occasion.

So when people say there should be ethical standards, I like to see how you can get a consensus to agree on what form of ethics should be applied.

An example is Utilitarianism form of ethics, would you lie, for the over all good, is a great example........oh, this would be good for the scientific community

Ethics is nothing more the a very vague word.

Integrity on the other hand is something totally something else. These two words may seem related, and to a certain degree they are, But they actually carry very different meanings as well as outcomes.

Drinking again?

Not yet.

I never mix work with play.

I keep seeing people refer to the Luddites negatively and it pisses me off. They tried to preserve their way of living and I cannot see anything wrong with that, particularly in that era. The politicians, and I agree with you on the tea party fanatics despite pheonix911, and there are others, that stand in the way of science for purely political reasons. They are the ones we should hammer.

I'm glad to hammer them, too.

Luddites are characterized as being opposed to technological change, and using force (destroying looms) to make their point. I guess it depends on your point of view. I see them as opposed to change.

Probably should not have interjected politics into this, but.................

The Luddites were not against progress itself, just against losing the only way, in their world, to make a living. The term is often used to mean people who are intrinsically against progress.

I wrote once to an opinion page contributor who had gone on about Luddites, I asked if he would oppose using properly programed computers to write for the opinion page. He ignored the letter.

I keep hearing about 'TEA Party' fanatics in the news, then the stories are always followed by a retraction, like the recent Brian Ross screw-up. It seems like once the full story is out there, the original story was due to some media douche with a bias. Most of the TEA party types I've seen are like run-of-the-mill PTA people, Kiwanis people, or people you might see in a bowling league. Their rallies have been boringly tame, unlike the 'Occupy' crowd.

Yeah, there are some TEA people who oppose stem cell research, for example, but on the left you've got some folks who take an anti-science stance on bio-engineered food products or vaccinations or drilling in ANWAR. I'm not sure I'd categorize either group as 'fanatics' until some property gets damaged.

FLASHBACK: When Dr. Amy Bishop shot her colleagues, the Left speculated that she was a Tea Partier. In fact, she was an Obama donor.

FLASHBACK: Discovery Channel hostage-taker was supposedly a climate change denier. In fact, he was an enviromentalist, D.Channel intern.

FLASHBACK: The census-taker was supposedly hanged by extremist anti-tax Tea Partiers. In fact, he hanged himself.

FLASHBACK: The Times Square Bomber was speculated to be upset about Health Care Reform. In fact, he was a jihadist.

FLASHBACK: The guy who flew his plane into the IRS in TX was supposedly a Tea Partier. In fact, he quoted from the Communist Manifesto.

FLASHBACK: The guy who was stabbing NYC cabbies was supposedly an anti-Ground Zero Mosque Tea Partier. In fact, he supported the GZM.

FLASHBACK: The Pentagon shooter was supposedly a Tea Party extremist. In fact, he was a 9/11 Truther.

FLASHBACK: When the Ft. Hood shooting happened, the Left speculated that he was a right-wing nut job. In fact, he was a Muslim.

FLASHBACK: When the Tucson shooting occurred, it was immediately blamed on Tea Party rhetoric. In fact, Loughner was a-political & insane.

_[ace.mu.nu/]

I don't know who "the Left" is you mention in your "FLASHBACKS"

It would help to have supporting links.

In this case, most of the media outlets seem to be the offenders (i.e., CBS, ABC, CNN, et.al.), probably trying to counterbalance FOX. :)

Well stated...

"Highly paid scientists?" No doubt a vicious rumor stated by those bothersome yet elusive, Luddites....

No,

Luddites were men of action, not rumors.

Let's keep it positive.

There are highly paid scientists.

But I agree with everything else you say.

Scientist average pay 78K annual.....

http://www.indeed.com/salary/Scientist.html

Four posts, 2 Good Answers! You're off to a good start.

The rest of the post just says it like it is!

Hm, regulation must be done, some scientist can get carried away , without thinking of the consequences, on the other hand nothing pushes technology forward as a war.

and then those discoveries trickle back into civilian life when the war is over.

So some regulation is good, but it is the government that throws those regulation overboard at their leisure.

which is it now? it was a theory of evolution that all came from nothing but now the search is for nothing?? please please

Sorry to be pedantic but the "Theory of Evolution" doesn't say anything of the sort.

It's an observation that all species end up being extremely well adapted to their environments (this is common knowledge). Darwin and others proposed various mechanisms to explain how it happens including "natural selection".

Modern genetic techniques and many other branches of science confirm that the general idea is sound and everyone in biology just takes it as obviously true.

A number of alternate explanations have been proposed, usually for religious reasons, but they've all fallen at the first hurdle.

Science is already regulated by political fashion.

Ethics is not a science.

Saving a litre of water in a place where it pisses rain doesn't make it available in a desert.

The Luddites were losers having a tantrum.

Ethics, science, losers....I don't see why performance enhancing drugs in sport are banned .. Bring it on I say.

Ethics is a very loose term with many definitions.

In college, ethics classes does nothing but interpret these definitions........ pick one that will suit your needs, there is a form of ethics for any occasion.

No different that the Knights Code of Chivalry, As I understand it, it varied from the basic understanding foundation and was applied to what was good for the knight using it.

Integrity on the other hand would carry much more weight.

As far as regulating science this was normally done by the peers of the scientific group, and was fairly reasonable set of checks and balances because of the competition from within. Barring if religion didn't get involved.

Bring it on....

Michio Kaku calls science the engine of prosperity. And the fuel for the engine is our imaginations. We could regulate science but only at our own peril. If we do not grasp the opportunities opened to those because of science, you can be sure there will be someone else who will grasp that same lost opportunity.

I post a link to a short discussion of science by Mr. Kaku and it is worth the time to reflect on our lost opportunities, especially with our young people. Perhaps money may be well spent in education and assuring that there remains a future supply of fertile minds.

A good example why science should be regulated or controlled is atomic energy which could be used for both good and bad purposes. Our problem is because UN has no funds some rich countries have taken control of it and manipulating for their benefits even by destroying other civilisations/nations/races/communities.

You're drawing a long bow there mate.

Destroyed civilizations? Like Sodom and Gomorrah? That was the result of a deity's tantrum wasn't it?

Anyone can build a reactor.

This story is inspirational and very detailed accounts of it are on the interweb if anyone is interested.

You probably already know this but building a reactor is "in principle" easy, in practice it's a lot harder.

Reading any account of how the USA developed the first atomic bomb will give some idea of the details. Even today many large well resourced nations can't do it so i doubt we need to worry about school kids doing it.

Today I read a news item saying a Mom has broken into the website of a school and changed the grades of her daughter. Years ago I read that a youth from UK entered into the website of US defence dept. When smart meters are introduced funny things might happen by hackers.

"some rich countries have taken control of it and manipulating for their benefits even by destroying other civilisations/nations/races/communities."

You mean like India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, France along with the former Soviet Union, and the United States? Are those all "rich" countries who are intent on the colonization of other countries? The United States is the only country who has used nuclear power in a tangible way for destruction. Even then it wasn't for the purpose of taking over and controlling another sovereign country. It was for the purpose of ending the aggression of the Japanese government. Many innocent people died as a result of the Japanese government gone amok.

pnaban, I think some faulty thinking on your part is that you think the UN is a solution for anything at all. It is extremely limited in it's usefulness and it isn't because there isn't money available, it is because it is simply a huge batch of beauracrats who just want to look and smell good without getting their hands dirty. They are a bunch of emasculated wimps who won't stand up for any kind of principles.

Representatives of governments in UN like the policy of "you scratch my back,I will scratch yours" so that each country can protect itself by "sovereignty of state". That's why I proposed "Sovereignty of races/communities" instead of sovereignty of states so that any community,controlling any govt, cannot pass any law or take action to violate human rights of another.

..or sovereignty of self?

I'm declaring independence.

"Sovereignty of races/communities"

We have something simular in the USA, its called the (ACLU) America Civil Liberties Union. Its has its place about 5% of the time.

Ya forgot one of the rich powers, that bastion of wealth North Korea

You're entirely correct. My mistake.

There is prime example of how a ideological way (socialist, communist) of thinking has kept a country of people almost in the Dark Ages. They have more people, natural resources, land mass, etc. than South Korea does by a huge margin and yet a great many of their people are starving. South Korea's economy on the other hand, without all the natural advantages, has one of the largest economies in the world.

It is because people are free to operate in a free enterprise, capatalistic venture. They therefore have the motivation to strive and work hard because they will be the benefactors of their efforts.

They have more people, natural resources, land mass, etc. than South Korea does by a huge margin and yet a great many of their people are starving.

Back in the 70's, just about every analyst said with the resources the USSR had, they could easily crush us. ( Us being the USA)

It is because people are free to operate in a free enterprise, capatalistic venture. They therefore have the motivation to strive and work hard because they will be the benefactors of their efforts.

easy there, before a label gets put on you. ^{but then again, you probally don't mind, even when the one doing the labeling does not fully understands the label that they just bestowed on you.}

Our problem is because UN has no funds some rich countries have taken control of it and manipulating for their benefits even by destroying other civilisations/nations/races/communities.

And the ironic part is the majority of the UN budget comes from the same rich countries.

If it wasn't for some of these rich country's, I wonder how you would feel if some third world country's had access to this technology, who would people look to for help?

The UN.

?, UN......U.N. .........United Nations

The UN is effective as the League of nations were(IMO)

Probably a lot worse, but no one in power is willing to publicly make that claim.

The U.N. holds the world's record for the number of dollars swindled with the Oil for Food scandal, among many other infractions and frauds. The problems are not incidental, but systemic. To top it off, no one can or will be held accountable for these acts.

Sadly, the Mafia probably has more scruples than the U.N.

The last thing we would want is the U.N. regulating anything, let alone science.

There was a time when things were left to die...........like the League of Nations.

who would people look to for help?

Your right,..... how arrogant of me. Thats where we go to get a loan to be able function and help.

Science should be for benefit of mankind not for destruction.

Science is for the benefit of those funding it.

A little destruction (not in my back yard of course) can be constructive.

How else can we find out what lighting the blue touch paper will do?

No, we can leave that for most of religion.

Throughout history, mankind can thank these rebel outlaws

Yes, but we would all be of equal social status. :)

Absolutely. No Child Left Behind.

Maybe Willie Nelson speaks for all us oldies who think things seem to move way too fast. On Science.

By regulation, you mean by government? They do not possess the knowledge to comment on scientific topics. Science exploration is necessary even if the light at the end of the tunnel continually eludes us. We may never get to the end, but along the way, other discoveries will be made, some of which may remain on the theoretical shelf and some that may be beneficial to mankind.

The proposition is impractical, in order to regulate, we we need people with the knowledge and experience to do so, and the only place we can find such people is in the industry itself. Such people are aware that after the next election they may need a job back in the industry.

There have been some off topic remarks about N. Korea. The truism, "You ain't paranoid if everyone really is out to get you" applies here. The government of Iran is in a similar position. Both governments are repeatedly accused of violating agreements, with justification, they do violate the treaties, but the agreements were forced on them Godfather style, "... and my father assured him that either his brains or his signature would be on the ..." Whenever those governments look outward, they see guns and sanctions pointed at them, it is no wonder that they look inward. Incidentally, we were to build two nuclear power plants for N. Korea as part of the agreement; we didn't do it because Congress didn't ratify the agreement.

facilitiesmgr quoted, "Now, where would such a decree originate and who would enforce it? I say let's keep doing the research, and look for some honest, ethical people to run things." and wrote, "This certainly shouldn't be the role of a National Government."

The government is automatically involved because of the military. Many have been the beneficial discoveries that would not have been found by commercially funded research, The internet is the most obvious.

"we didn't do it because Congress didn't ratify the agreement."

That is the law. The reason is that you do not want one person dictating international policy that directly impacts the US. It is called checks and balances.

The reason is that you do not want one person dictating international policy that directly impacts the US.

OR,.......... we could create another Czar, and soon we'll have enough Czars to roust enough players for a Rugby or Lacrosse League for some interdepartmental play between the Czars.

Understood. But the treaty is the same one that that NK is accused of violating.

Do you not see a hypocrisy here? We are haranguing Nk for violating a treaty that we have, in effect, rejected. The power plant was in the negotiated deal.

The power plant may have been the negotiated deal, but it failed ratification, so there really is no deal.

Politics will grab every spear and barb that can be found in the quiver. hypocrisy is just another arrow in that quiver. It is the nature of geopolitics and everyone plays by those same silly rules.

As far as North Korea (as well as Iran) is concerned, the end game is to stop the spread of nuclear technology. If you think everyone plays with Snow White purity on that field you will be horribly surprised.

In the end, we do our best to choose between the lesser of two evils. It's sort of like voting.

That, actually is where my problem lies, we apply sanctions and castigate the countries but the measurable effect is that we strengthen the government we would like to unseat. Sanctions hurt the population and since, "my enemy's enemy is my friend" they support the government instead of overthrowing it.

By the way, I think "If you think everyone plays with Snow White purity on that field you will be horribly surprised" borders on being patronizing. I don't support Iran or NK but I do like an even handed treatment of the facts of the case. None of the countries that received the nuclear technology by the back door has used it, in fact, the added security of having it seems to have settled them down some.

That is not necessarily true. For instance, sanctions on Iran are having a desired effect, even though Iran has many ways to get around some of them, it is still creating consternation among internal members of the government there and does shape their policy.

You are kind of stomping in my back yard with regard to geopolitics. I find it fascinating. One of the first things you learn is that there are two sides to the geopolitical story. One is what you hear/see on the news for public consumption. The other is what is really happening. They are often not the same thing.

Also, the media and government press releases tend to try to make the whole subject simple, simpler than it really is. There is so much that you do not get to see below the tip of the public iceberg. General public opinion is shaped with great care or at least a lot of effort is spent trying to do this.

Countries like Iran have a much easier time shaping their own public's opinion than our own government, but even here things are not as transparent as they seem.

While you may desire an open truth for dealing with other nations you would quickly find that will get you creamed in the real world. You can see hints of that when Obama first took office. Obama and the State Department made a number of successive mistakes thinking that an open an honest approach would turn hearts.

The opposite happened and countries immediately seized on what was taken as a genuine weakness with regard to US international affairs. Obama and the State Department learned a hard lesson. If you closely examine their policy today you can see that it has changed radically from the policies tried in the first years of office.

While they are doing a better job, those blunders of the early years have negatively impacted US foreign influence and the ability to shape world events.

In the case of Iran, the real problem with nuclear weapons is not that they would use them, but it would do two things. First, it would expand Iran's sphere of power throughout the Mid East. This is clearly the goal of Iran now and has been for over a decade. Iraq was the counterbalance to Iran's ambitions, but now Iraq is essentially controlled by Iran, so that counterbalance is gone. This has radically changed the landscape in the Mid East by making that continent much more unstable.

Second, having nuclear weapons forces other nations (such as the US and Mid East neighbors) to deal with Iran at a higher level and demand a higher degree of clout with those demands.

Neither of those are desirable attributes that the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other smaller countries in the region can tolerate.

Russia (and to a somewhat lesser degree, China) are using Iran and now Syria as a mechanism to keep the US engaged and bogged down in the Mid East while Russia and China work to expand their projection of power. This is why both countries oppose UN resolutions against Iran and Syria. Not only do Iran and Syria represent good customers for Russian/Chinese military goods, they are also good pawns in the geopolitical chess game against the West. The Cold War really is not truly dead after all.

What I am trying to impress is that while permitting these countries to join the nuclear club may seem to settle them down on the surface, it has far more negative underlying effects that do not serve the interests of the free world.

1-can science be regulated? i doubt it, at least not in a free society.

2- should it be? no. a better question may be what should the government fund, and should there be a relatively short term benefit to all of or citizens. yes

4- should scientific reseach be funded just for the sake of curiousity? not with tax money.

5-should we be giving foreign students scholarships in subjects where they can take the knowledge back home and use it against us? that's a no brainer.

6- should scientific reseach be motivated by profits. in most cases , yes.

7-should we let political correctness determine where limited grant money should be spent? e.g.- small activistist groups. absolutely not

8-should reseach grants be spent according to how many people it will benefit? yes.

9- should we allow politicians to decide where the money goes? no.

10- should we have an independent board decide who would benefit the most from grant money? yes.

11-should there be a mathematical formula concerning the amount of funding available vs. the number of people who would benefit and to what degree? yes.

Some of these say the same thing in different words.

#8 and #11 are a problem if you meant #6. #s8 and 11 don't necessarily go with the profit motive.

#9 The politicians control government money, it's the Constitution.

#10. Who selects the members of the board?