Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tecoyah
Whats your take on the actual topic of discussion though? Are you concerned at all that the sciences were corrupted by government intervention? Do you think it acceptable to limit knowledge in favor of an agenda, at this level? Does the position this man takes on tobacco, nullify what he has to say on the censorship issue?
Inquiring minds want to know.
|
I don't think government should be in the business of science. Government should make laws based on the will of the people, by definition "political", and we should understand that science is best served when there is no government involvement. The US Surgeon General is a political position. The office, in my opinion, is to bridge scientific research and public policy. If our elected President sets a general policy of being against the use of stem cells, the US Surgeon General has an obligation to support that position or resign from his appointed post. I have never assumed information coming from the office of the US Surgeon General was anything other than propaganda supporting the political agenda (even when the data presented is true) of the White House.
Scientist should do their work independent of government. They should fund their own research or understand that they will have various types of pressure from the source of their funding including pressure to support certain preconceived conclusions. This would be true of scientist receiving funding from virtually all sources. The best scientists recognize and are able to manage these potential conflicts while doing their work in an impartial manner.
Almost everyone has an "agenda" when they give money.
My concern is not with the attempts to "corrupt" scientists by government or private sources of funds, but when scientists actually corrupt their work for whatever their reasons.