Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tecoyah
So, in essence the Government should forgo funding the advancement of technological growth, and simply allow for private investment to guide economic growth within the technology sector, regardless of the impact stagnation could create within the population. It should also ignore scientific study in favor of a stable status quo, until forced to react to innovation elsewhere in the world.
|
I think "Government" has a responsibility to govern. People given the responsibility to govern in most cases are not going to be scientist. Scientists should have the responsibility to conduct scientific research. I generally think scientific developments and advances in technology are handled most efficiently in a free market without government. Government, however, is a part of the "free market", and as a consumer of scientific developments and advances in technology government will in-part be a driver of development in those areas. Also, government has a role in governing science based on the will of the people. For example government should regulate bio-hazardous material. However, government, in my opinion, should not make marijuana illegal based on cherry picked science, and then say alcohol is legal based similar science that lead to marijuana being illegal.
Quote:
|
I suppose that is an option, but fail to see how such a path would lead to prosperity.
|
If we started a list of scientific developments sponsored by governments and those privately funded, which list would be longer? Which list would prove to have had the greatest impact?
Quote:
|
The future of most economic growth in the coming decades will require a supportive atmosphere from every direction, unless we simply wish to live off of second hand science.
|
Many scientists believe for example that the FDA actually hinders the development of new and better drugs. Perhaps their is a fine line where government and the private sector are in balance providing maximum benefit to society. Today, I think government is over-regulating and hindering sceintific development .
Quote:
Misdirection of Data, by any entity is in my opinion a terrible wrong and one of the most counter-productive things we can do. Having it handed down by the federal government has the effect of making it acceptable and common, as we can now see.
I guess I just want the leaders of my coutry to...well.....lead.
|
I have not stated anything to the contrary. Just like the tobacco industry having an agenda, anti-smoking groups have one too. When I look at scientific research of any type, I look at it with in a skeptical state of mind. Everyone should.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Not quite...the mission of the US Surgeon General is to provide Americans the best scientific information available (not just the information that supports the President's ideology)on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
That is NOT a political or policy function. |
First, almost every mission statement I have ever read has been a reflection of an exercise in creative writing. When I am interested in knowing and understanding an organization, the mission statement is the last thing I would look at. I understand your point - but it does not move me. And because mission statements don't move me does not mean I am twisting evidence. I am ignoring the mission statement in this case, and I have given my reason. If you don't like the reason, so be it. But don't pretend I am ignoring the point.
Second, you take the position that the SG does not have a political or policy function but it is a politically appointed position in the government. I gave a reference where a SG was promoting a political agenda in his testimony to Congress. Over the years the SG has been involved in and has been used to promote. various "heath" related campaigns, politically driven. This is not new. How do you reconcile the mission statement and your point of view with reality and history?