A paper by Henry H. Bauer back in 2004 is worth reposting. For that matter, people with a serious interest in what's going on in science should be aware of the Society for Scientific Exploration and their quarterly periodical Fringe Science where they now publish scientific mysteries and the more speculative articles that previously appeared in their main journal. For example, there is some scientific evidence that the rate of natural radioactive decay varies cyclically ever so slightly on an annual basis. The speculation is that solar-generated neutrinos may be the source of the phenomenon. There's some really weird stuff in that journal!
Anyway, back to the paper titled Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels.
Abstract—Minority views on technical issues are largely absent from the public arena. Increasingly corporate organization of science has led to knowledge monopolies, which, with the unwitting help of uncritical mass media, effect a kind of censorship. Since corporate scientific organizations also control the funding of research, by denying funds for unorthodox work they function as research cartels as well as knowledge monopolies. A related aspect of contemporary science is commercialization.
Science is now altogether different from the traditional disinterested search, by self-motivated individuals, to understand the world. What national and international organizations publicly proclaim as scientific information is not safeguarded by the traditional process of peer review. Society needs new arrangements to ensure that public information about matters of science will be trustworthy.
Actions to curb the power of the monopolies and cartels can be conceived: mandatory funding of contrarian research, mandatory presence of contrarian opinion on advisory panels, a Science Court to adjudicate technical controversies, ombudsman offices at a variety of organizations. Most sorely needed is vigorously investigative science journalism.
His comments are especially relevant today when huge, untethered intergovernmental monopolies like the IPCC seem to be able to say what they please in order to influence public policy and there is no investigative scientific journalism in the main-stream media. If it were not for the newly emerging "blogosphere," few would have any reason to doubt Al Gore.
2 comments:
My concern here is that you can spin any scientific findings this way, right or wrong, with or without mountains of carefully compiled evidence. Here are some minority views that are stifled by the monopolistic cartels: creationism, intelligent design, flat-earth theories, moon landing denialism, anti-vaccinationism, UFO-ism. Not everything is a controversy! Some ideas are just wrong, and it's no one's responsibility to entertain them. Since climate change controversy is not going away to the degree those others have, *maybe* there's something to it. But the only *legitimate* approach to proving that unlimited carbon emission is the best of all possible plans, which is the claim I believe, is to use a completely different approach than the advocates of the above. The approach I recommend is to organize some careful research and skeptically test all the counter-arguments. Instead of badgering the folks who believe they have *already* done this, to get them to do it again *your* way, just do it! Science is not about authority, it's about liberty -- thinking for oneself and doing the measurements! The longer that doesn't happen, the more it just looks like another vaccine argument. The scientists have, through enormous effort over many years, procured the funding and infrastructure to do that. So, get started! It can be a "shadow" scientific community.
Great idea. Where are the grants? So far, all the opposition has been self-funded (despite the claim that big oil is behind them.) Billions are spent by DOE and NSF, among others, but it all goes to people trying to "prove" global warming is caused by man.
Post a Comment