rebeccmeister (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rebeccmeister) wrote2007-09-07 06:26 pm
rebeccmeister) wrote2007-09-07 06:26 pm
Also, a note to self
This may end up being a backwards discussion with myself about science policy in the US.
I got into an interesting conversation with my friend R about the problem of how many economists/policy makers/media figures/people discussing the relationship between science and economics try to use the GDP as a common currency or measure of success. It came up in our discussion of measures of scientific progress and the purpose of basic scientific research (which must be distinguished from applied research like that conducted in the fields of health or technology).
I had basically spat out the Official [scientist] Party Line, which is that the US should fund more basic research because it is tied to progress in the competitive international market. It's obviously a self-serving argument for people in my shoes because I enjoy what I do and would like to be more certain that I'll be able to keep doing what I do. But is that really a sufficient argument for science? No, not really.
I have to go back to the idea that we humans are naturally curious about the world around us and would like to understand it, and part of gaining that understanding involves scrutiny in the name of science. I also have to go back to thinking about one of my favorite scientists, Bert Hoelldobler, who still expresses that basic joy in telling the stories of the ants.
This process of finding direction and meaning in my life's work, it is neverending.
I got into an interesting conversation with my friend R about the problem of how many economists/policy makers/media figures/people discussing the relationship between science and economics try to use the GDP as a common currency or measure of success. It came up in our discussion of measures of scientific progress and the purpose of basic scientific research (which must be distinguished from applied research like that conducted in the fields of health or technology).
I had basically spat out the Official [scientist] Party Line, which is that the US should fund more basic research because it is tied to progress in the competitive international market. It's obviously a self-serving argument for people in my shoes because I enjoy what I do and would like to be more certain that I'll be able to keep doing what I do. But is that really a sufficient argument for science? No, not really.
I have to go back to the idea that we humans are naturally curious about the world around us and would like to understand it, and part of gaining that understanding involves scrutiny in the name of science. I also have to go back to thinking about one of my favorite scientists, Bert Hoelldobler, who still expresses that basic joy in telling the stories of the ants.
This process of finding direction and meaning in my life's work, it is neverending.