[ RadSafe ] Re: AW: Making policies

[Jaro]

That's great -- I like it Jerry !

A more serious discussion was recently published by J. Marvin Herndon (of
Georeactor "fame") entitled “Thoughts for India’s scientific renaissance”
which appears in the June 10, 2005 issue of Current Science, published in
collaboration with the Indian Academy of Sciences.

<quote>
The necessities of World War II brought the first major US government
funding to American science. Government funding
for science continued after the war with the establishment of the National
Science Foundation (NSF) in 1951 and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) in 1958. The administrative procedures employed today
have been in place for about five decades with little substantive change.
However, these procedures are seriously flawed, thus slowing, eroding and
corrupting American science.
Someone nearly half a century ago had the idea that, if peer reviewers were
anonymous, given a shield of secrecy and freedom from accountability, they
would be candid and honest in evaluating proposals from their peers, some of
whom might also be their competitors. This is the way the system has worked
at NSF, NASA, and elsewhere for almost five decades.
Secrecy is certainly necessary in matters of national security and defence.
But, in science does secrecy and freedom from accountability really
encourage the truth?
If secrecy did in fact lead to truth, it would be put to great advantage in
the courts.
In fact, courts have employed secrecy – during the Spanish Inquisition and
in virtually every totalitarian dictatorship – and
the result is always the same: people falsely denounce others, for a wide
variety of reasons, and corruption becomes endemic.
The application of anonymity and freedom from accountability in the peer
review system gives unfair advantage to those
who would unjustly berate a competitor’s proposal for obtaining funding for
research.
The perception – real or imagined – that some individuals would do just that
has had a chilling effect, forcing scientists to
become defensive, adopting only the consensus-approved viewpoint and
refraining from discussing anything that might be
considered as a challenge to another’s work or to the funding agency’s
programmes.
And that is not what science is about at all.
Science is about challenging present perceptions and discovering what is
wrong with current thinking. Science
is about discovery and debate, not about consensus conformity.
I have described above the most serious failings of the US government peer
review, as applied at NSF, NASA, and elsewhere, in evaluating scientific
support proposals.
These failings, I submit, are the principal cause for the decline of
American science.
There are other elements of maladministration, however, which are
contributory.
<end quote>


 Jaro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
Behalf Of jjcohen at prodigy.net
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 1:09 PM
To: John Jacobus; Muckerheide, James; Rainer.Facius at dlr.de;
goldinem at songs.sce.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: AW: Making policies


As we are all aware, government policies have been based on the assumption
that 2+2=5.
However, there is a disagreeable bunch of so-called "scientists" out there
who keep insisting that the preponderance of evidence indicates that
actually 2+2=4. Accordingly, the NAA (National Academy of Arithmetic) has
formed an expert panel to review and assess the relevant data.
To avoid  possible bias, only those who have traditionally supported
existing policies are included on the panel and those with a contrary
"political agenda"  are excluded . And that, children, is how science should
be done. Right?


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 7/9/2005