Forum menu
I'm just pointing out that universal health care and high living standard for everyone, while a very noble aim, does have very dire consequences in reality.
That's an easy thing to say, for someone who is relatively safe in the comfort of a powerful Western Nation.
Imagine the boot's on the other foot, and you're a peasant farmer in Sudan. aren't you equally entitled, as a Human Being, to the same benefits of Science as anyone else? Or is your life somehow worth less?
I'm a bit uncomfortable with your comments with though, GrahamS
I hope they are taken as they are meant: i.e. a rather callous reality check to counter your noble, but I believe, niave aspirations.
I don't "agree" with them, as such (as in "I don't feel comfortable about them or think that it is fair") but they are, I believe, the harsh and unfortunate truth.
You started me off by mentioning using less energy, and I can't see how you'd possibly manage that by stopping scientific research while supporting ever-growing populations and elevating the standard of living for billions of people.
....and could it not be argued that these would be lowered with greater access to healthcare and contraception? ....
not to forget education either!
It's kind of 'funny' that most aid seems to come with the strings of either political or religious alignment attached, just giving cash without support or guidance is of little use except in 'emergency situations'
I'm pretty sure there's no Answer, but talking about it from a rational and unbiased viewpoint has got to be better than ignoring it....
Hmm so basically you have reservations about what research we do (ie what gets funded) but you do not really know how any of the decisions about what we do research get made?
I've got an interesting example. A bloke discovers an obscure method of detecting very small changes in magnetic fields using photonics, through a blue skies funding initiative to explore photonics. At the time there were no identifiable end uses for the explorations into photonics. So the initial funding was just a wild stab in the dark, could have lead nowhere. Until the magneto optical discovery was made, it was quickly realised that there were lots of possible uses for this discovery, including the potential to detect malaria optically. This lead to further funding to develop a laboratory device, which then needed further testing to prove it works. Now its in its third round of funding to miniaturise the lab device to make it really useful as a portable device.
All because of blue skies funding.
Hmm so basically you have reservations about what research we do (ie what gets funded) but you do not really know how any of the decisions about what we do research get made?
So, enlighten me then.
I imagine a panel of 'learned' people sit round and make a decision on what gets the money...
I find it hard to believe that there is all that much 'blue sky funding'; I'd imagine the more potentially profitable ideas get the lion's share of most funding.
Company: 'Oh hai, we'd like to give you some funding for research projects'
University Lab: 'That's great, thank you!'
A little while later...
Company: 'Oh, remember all that money we gave you? Could you perhaps do a little favour for us?'
Uni Lab: 'Oh erm, we're not sure we can do that really..'
Company: 'Do you want funding next year?'
As I said, no such thing as a free lunch.
So, how much Scientific Exploration and Research is done purely in the name of objective investigation?
GrahamS; I understand what you are saying. It is an uncomfortable reality, sadly.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory ]Not helped, when Third World countries try to improve their lot, yet the West doesn't want to allow them to...[/url]
talkmada i still thin you are being shortsighted
your 'peasant' in sudan probably has a mobile phone that he may well use for more important things than ordering a pizza
and thanks to last years patent ruling now has access to aids drugs among other things
http://www.plusnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=87438
and you missed my point about sputinks, the network of satelites that mobile networks rely on could never have existed if it wasnt for the early scientific pioneers
gps a completely militarily driven technology, now fitted in every ambulance in the country, really saving lives
its sad that governments are only happy to throw big money at military projects, but the benifits are unimaginable, in ww2 penicillin was turned from a useful fungal excretion to a mass produced life saver millions have benifited from
and i think that makes it ok(ish), darwins voyage on the beagle probably cost a sh!tload of cash, how long would it have taken us to reach the stage we are at now if he hadnt seen those finches?
the human genome project cost millions (not military)and has probably thrown up more questions than answers about life but its already changing medicine, can you imagine what it will have led to in 200 years
today we expect results immediately, part of our fast food,self checkout,high speed wifi mentality
science doesnt work like that it goes in fits and starts,in a non-linear fashion, each experiment is just another step and it may be years or centuries before we see the benefit
talkemada
i work at the institute of cancer research/ the royal marsden cancer hospital
we receive millions in funding from the government and
we also work with drug companies
your attitude is insulting, and ignorant, funding is heavily scrutinised, declarations of financial interest are required for any grant acces, patent application, scientific publication
heres a project carried out in my department
http://www.breakthroughresearch.org.uk/clinical_trials_clinical_researchers/clinical_trials/parp_inhibitor_trial/index.html
thankfully if you develop a cancer that carries a BRCA mutation there will be a drug you can treat it with, and it took millions to get drugs to this stage, and treatments of cancer requires xray machines, pet scanners- hardcore physics was required to develop these machines
and the complexity(and cost) of the machines and devices used in the lab would blow you away
Am I the only one here who doesn't buy into this utilitarian argument?
Science is worth doing for its own sake, not (just) because it might turn out to be useful.
I don't think I'd like to live in Torquemada's perfect society - "Put that book down citizen, and do something I deem to be more useful!" (or face the inquisition?)
talkmada i still thin you are being shortsighted
Maybe I need to go to the opticians... 🙁
Once again, to clarify, I'm not opposed to all Scientific Research and Investigation; I just think the time and effort devoted to certain projects could be better spent on more benificial ones.
As for mobile 'phones, GPS's, etc; so, none of that technology could have been developed outside of the Military Research Programmes? Really? Any proof of this? I appreciate it's Military Funding that has driven many of these projects, but would it not be better that we develop them without the death and destruction bit?
As for the Moon Landings etc; I fail to see many real benefits of such programmes, other than for one country to claim bragging rights. The USA was pumping billions of dollars into such things, while in it's own country, there were people fighting against racial discrimination and inequality. A Giant Leap For All Mankind...
Penicillin was not developed within any military programme. It is just coincidence that it's application became widespread during WW2.
Some discoveries have come about through military research programmes. SuperGlue was developed as a product that could be used to quickly seal open wounds on a battlefield, where other surgery was not possible or too far away.
Meanwhile, other avenues of research are sometimes restricted. Alternatives to oil-based fuels have been in existence for decades, but only now are we seeing their development. The development of such fuels has been stifled by powerful lobbies concerned with protecting their investment in the oil industries. And now we have wars over the control of oil...
Cancer research in the UK is funded primarily by charitable donations. Can you imagine how advanced treatment methods might be, if this form of research received just a small portion of what is spent on 'Defence Research'?
And even then, research isn't always that egalitarian; there is a discrepancy about the level of funding that research into diseases suffered more by those in the Third World receives, than that of the West. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
But seeing as you have no understanding of how these things are decided, who the hell are you to decide if it was worth funding or not? As kimbers said, you are ignorant of how this works, so I think you should spend some time finding out how science is funded before you open wide, currently you are just bringing shame on your house.
EDIT - Its simpler to say: you are talking utter sh1t about something you clearly know nothing about.
wikipedia is your friend
mass production was developed by Margaret Hutchinson Rousseau funded by the us army with 2.3 million doses ready for the invasion of normandy
previously the 1 stsuccessful treatment of 1 patient required half the worlds existing stock
But seeing as you have no understanding of how these things are decided, who the hell are you to decide if it was worth funding or not?
I thought you were going to enlighten me on how things are funded?
Why the hostility? If you actually bother to read my original post, and have a think about it for a few minutes, you might actually see that far from attacking Science as a whole, I am merely wondering if time, effort and resources can't sometimes be used more effectively, for the benefit of more people Worldwide. How many more times must I make this point?
So, perhaps, just perhaps, I'm actually asking for Science to be used in a more egalitarian and humanitarian manner. What's the big problem with that?
Take the iPad; the current 'must-have' gadget. Wonderful technology. I can't help 'wanting' one.
Where is the funding to develop this kind of technology for those who could really benefit, such as those suffering from physical disabilities? I am not so naive that I can't see that consumerism and market forces have a part to play, and perhaps I'm being too idealistic, but it would be nice if such a thing were to take place. Instead, it seems that Science is too often hijacked to serve the greedy, rather than being used to help the needy.
Kimbers; I'm sorry if you are offended by anything I've said. I never meant to cause any offence, so I apologise. I think those who work in places like you do, do an incredible and invaluable job. I'd like to see them get more funding, and better access to the resources they need.
treatments of cancer requires xray machines
yay, guess what I'm currently programming...
Alternatives to oil-based fuels have been in existence for decades, but only now are we seeing their development. The development of such fuels has been stifled by powerful lobbies concerned with protecting their investment in the oil industries
What fuels are these and were they really stifled by shadowy oil companies or are they really just not ready for mainstream yet (i.e. hydrogen fuel cells).
Overall, from what you've said, I'd say your beef isn't really with science, but with Capitalism. Which is a whole other topic! 😀
Overall, from what you've said, I'd say your beef isn't really with science, but with Capitalism.
You know, you could have a point there... 😀
It has been an interesting discussion, this, and I'd like to think I've been given some food for thought. I don't think my overall position has changed much, but I've found quite a few points of view very interesting.
toys19; you need to relax a bit.
Also, you are "RudeBoy" and I claim my five pounds.
Eh? I've tried to be as polite as possible. That's a bit unfair. 🙁
toys19 - Member
EDIT - Its simpler to say: you are talking utter sh1t about something you clearly know nothing about.
He's not talking sh!t, he's 'blue sky' talking 😉
If provocative, simplistic or naive statements are just met with abusive replies, no-one learns anything except about the limitations of the responder.
It's not really the place for intelligent polite discussion I know, but if someone knows/understands something that the other doesn't why not just explain it ???
Actually, I'd like to thank all those who've posted intelligent comments, as surely it's through discussion and debate, that we can learn. I can certainly accept that some who are more knowledgeable than me have more insight into the matter. I think I've come away with perhaps a slightly more philosophical view of Science, and am willing to admit there is a degree of naivety on my part. I do still think that we, as a society, don't question and challenge Science enough, however. It's not an easy task. But I don't think blind acceptance of [i]everything[/i] you are told is healthy. You should always be prepared to challenge that which you feel may be flawed; that way maybe you can learn more and become more informed.
It's not really the place for intelligent polite discussion I know
😆
Oh ye of little faith!
Oh ye of little faith!
Oh FGS don't bring religion into it 😆
Eh? I've tried to be as polite as possible. That's a bit unfair.
hmm... "RudeBoy" is a former frequent poster on here, who you sound a lot like at points, rather than a reflection on the politeness of your posts (which is better than most here). 😀
Oh FGS don't bring religion into it
😆
And so it begins....
I've tried to be as polite as possible. That's a bit unfair.
I think you'll find that GrahamS was referring to a former STWer......a jumped up mouthy git, who talked a lot of crap.
I haven't really been paying much attention to this thread, so can't comment on whether you resemble him
........... what you been saying mate ?
Erm, that some stuff is good and some stuff is bad and maybe you should have an open mind... 🙄
Well you don't sound like him then........the geezer was a right obnoxious ****.
i must say, turkey murder is doing a fantastic impression. if he's not our friend then he's definately rory bremner.
Although if you don't mind me saying, you do sound a bit dopey mate.
Trailmonkey you're weird. You were going on about a certain rotund Boltonian steam enthusiast earlier. 😯 ❓
Ernie, that's nice, isn't it? What have I done to upset you? Why the nastiness? 😥
Now [i][b]I'm[/b][/i] starting to have my suspicions.
Just so we can discount all probabilities, tell me Talkemada, how tall are you ? And what would you do if a couple of disabled Bangladeshi shirt-lifters turned at your bed and breakfast to book a room for the night ?
Taller than Prince, not as tall as Peter Crouch.
What's their disability, ethnicity and sexual orientation got to do with anything? I don't own a B+B.
What on Earth are you going on about? 😯
What's their disability, ethnicity and sexual orientation got to do with anything?
Ouuuu....................WRONG answer 😐
Anyway, to conclude, I think it's safe to summarise that most Scientific Exploration is 'worth it', but some is a waste of time and money. Fair enough.
He's not talking sh!t, he's 'blue sky' talkingIf provocative, simplistic or naive statements are just met with abusive replies, no-one learns anything except about the limitations of the responder.
talkemeda,
Apologies, I was irritated by some of the things you said and didn't and still don't have the time to critique and be as nice as I'd wanted, so I am genuinely sorry for being a cranky ****er.
My major gripe is that your lack of knowledge about this area is exacerbated by what appears to be an education in science research from the various forms of media; ie TV and newspapers. They only tell you about the bad and annoying stuff.
I would request that you google and really study:
1) EPSRC
2) Technology Strategy Board
3) cordis.lu (especially NESTA on here)
Everything you need to know about blue skies funding and more outcome driven funding is found here. I'm deliberately not explaining these as you should have a poke around and find out for yourself. I'll bet after a few days of getting bored on these sites come back and tell us what you think of science and technology research funding decisions.
Love and peace..
Toys
I am quite suspiscious that you are fred dibnah aka padded bra aka rudeboy. Deny it!
Your point about energy consumption is valid and science is needed to make our systems more efficient AND we need nuclear energy to replace oil.
The population problem is driven by the availability of food. Today's population levels are only possible because of the development of fertilisers and farming mechanisation. Medievel farming techiques yield a fraction of the food needed now.
😯 ❓
I'll put on a dress and you can call me 'Monique', if it makes you happy...
Speaking of food, I need to pop out to the supermarket.
Or there will be no supper.
Dibnah, bang to rights, always was s bit comma happy....
Surely in that London the supermarket can't be so far away?