Decades of scholarship suggest that fundamental science is most effective in contributing to social goals when it is pursued in the context of practical problem solving. .... The history of modern innovations such as vaccines, aircraft or the Internet mostly shows ... that important contributions of basic science are grounded in ‘use-inspired’ research, not in leaving scientists to their own devices.I suppose I should modestly say that Sarewitz is making the same points I've been making for 20 years but doing it vastly better. Well, he's not doing it better or worse. The difference is that Sarewitz has the credentials to get his sanity published in Unnature, while I don't have any credentials.
After 20 years of trying to promote this idea, I am no longer surprised that scientists are reluctant to accept it. In advancing beliefs that support their political interests, scientists are simply acting like a special interest group, no different from dairy farmers or chief executives.
But the myth of the miracle machine harms science and society because it shields scientists from accountability, governance and being responsive to human needs. A major reason that pervasive problems such as poor quality publications, hyper-competition and hype have been allowed to fester is the miracle-machine ideology: give us money, leave us alone and we’ll solve the world’s problems.
Labels: Experiential education
The current icon shows Polistra using a Personal Equation Machine.