Sci/Tech Canada Sells Out Science

[tom_mai78101]

Over the past few years, the Canadian government has been lurching into antiscience territory. For example, they’ve been muzzling scientists, essentially censoring them from talking about their research. Scientists have fought back against this, though from what I hear with limited success.
But a new development makes the situation appear to be far worse. In a stunning announcement, the National Research Council—the Canadian scientific research and development agency—has now said that they will only perform research that has “social or economic gain”.

This is not a joke. I wish it were.

John MacDougal, President of the NRC, literally said, “Scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value”. Gary Goodyear, the Canadian Minister of State for Science and Technology, also stated “There is [sic] only two reasons why we do science and technology. First is to create knowledge ... second is to use that knowledge for social and economic benefit. Unfortunately, all too often the knowledge gained is opportunity lost.”

I had to read the article two or three times to make sure I wasn’t missing something, because I was thinking that no one could possibly utter such colossally ignorant statements. But no, I was reading it correctly. These two men—leaders in the Canadian scientific research community—were saying, out loud and clearly, that the only science worth doing is what lines the pocket of business.

This is monumentally backwards thinking. That is not the reason we do science. Economic benefits are results of doing research, but should not be the reason we do it. Basic scientific research is a vast endeavor, and some of it will pay off economically, and some won’t. In almost every case, you cannot know in advance which will do which.

Canadian Science Agency Will Now Only Support Corporate Science

Over the past few years, the Canadian government has been lurching into antiscience territory. For example, they’ve been muzzling scientists,...

slate.com

 

[KMilz]

The guy that wrote the article said it right: "That is not the reason we do science." C'mon, Canada... really?

 

[FireCat]

Sells Out Science.. how? Hmm I Just don't get it!

 

[Varine]

Still want their health care system?

 

[tom_mai78101]

Still want their health care system?

I'd stick with Canada, for permanent health benefits. Science? People do have a chance to veto that.

 

[Varine]

I'd stick with Canada, for permanent health benefits. Science? People do have a chance to veto that.

The permanent health benefits, at least in the methodology of their implementation, are directly correlated to their lack of scientific innovation. No one wants to pursue these things because if there is not a very obvious commercial potential, then it is not beneficial for them to go into those fields of research because their is no financial reward and that is an extremely important factor because the people that go into those fields have hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt from the education necessary for them to be conducive in their research. And now it's largely be supported by the government, which is fairly minor in all comparison of the major issues that country has, which, similar to the US and most other countries, is rapidly becoming unsustainable and will likely fail in the next century or so if they do not begin to acknowledge and work on these flaws.

 

[Wummi]

Those stupid fucks!

 

[camelCase]

They could sell their knowledge to other countries if they want "economic benefit" and use it for free within their borders..

 

[tom_mai78101]

The permanent health benefits, at least in the methodology of their implementation, are directly correlated to their lack of scientific innovation. No one wants to pursue these things because if there is not a very obvious commercial potential, then it is not beneficial for them to go into those fields of research because their is no financial reward and that is an extremely important factor because the people that go into those fields have hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt from the education necessary for them to be conducive in their research. And now it's largely be supported by the government, which is fairly minor in all comparison of the major issues that country has, which, similar to the US and most other countries, is rapidly becoming unsustainable and will likely fail in the next century or so if they do not begin to acknowledge and work on these flaws.

You make it sound as if nationwide healthcare policy is not good for scientific achievements and researching.

 

[Varine]

It hasn't been.

 

[tom_mai78101]

It hasn't been.

Huh. That's something I've never heard before.

*nodding in agreement*

 

[KMilz]

Huh. That's something I've never heard before.

*nodding in agreement*

That's one of the only good things about our healthcare system, is that with the capability to charge whatever they want for the services, they're inclined to develop new and improved (and much more expensive) methods to care for people. That's why the free healthcare is flawed; with their set salaries and prices, they don't have the same incentives to improve their skills or technology, as neither will net them more business or money. Granted, a lot of people in the US would be better off with free, mediocre healthcare, but a lot of people would suffer because of it, too. That's why it's such a shitty subject in American politics: no matter what, someone's left unhappy. If we could only figure out how to make that someone the insurance companies, then I think we'd be all set.

 

[Accname]

Problem i see is: A doctor is not supposed to do it for the money but for the benefit of the people.
If we would imagine a world with ideal doctors who work to save lifes and develope new vaccines and technologies not for the money or fame, but because they want to rescue somebody, then this whole conversation would be pointless.

 

[KMilz]

Problem i see is: A doctor is not supposed to do it for the money but for the benefit of the people.
If we would imagine a world with ideal doctors who work to save lifes and develope new vaccines and technologies not for the money or fame, but because they want to rescue somebody, then this whole conversation would be pointless.

Well there you have it - people shouldn't be doctors. Robots should be doctors.

 

[Accname]

Well there you have it - people shouldn't be doctors. Robots should be doctors.

The exact opposite way. Robots just do what they are supposed to do.
Doctors should do it because they love to do it. Because it means something to them to save somebody.

 

[KMilz]

The exact opposite way. Robots just do what they are supposed to do.
Doctors should do it because they love to do it. Because it means something to them to save somebody.

Taking a look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs helps point out why that's so difficult to achieve:

One of the last needs we try to meet as people is that of our morals, which includes loving to help people for the sake of helping them. Now, doctors are almost always stuck with relentless schedules, working inconsistent hours and being on call when they're off the clock, so it can be difficult just to meet the most basic needs: sleep, food and drink and using the facilities can be hard enough to achieve in this environment. As you slowly wind your way up the list, you come across more and more things that you could imagine would be difficult to achieve some of in that position, let alone all of them that would allow them to focus solely on the moral aspect of their profession.

It's just the way we do things. We're selfish creatures, and there are so few of us that go against that hierarchy that the chances of one of them becoming a doctor is negligible. I know that I'm not one of 'em, and I'm not sure I know anyone who is. And when it comes down to it, I'd rather have an effective robo-doctor that worked at 100% efficiency to save lives because that's how it was programmed than even a doctor that worked for free just to save people because the human is still flawed even when their heart is in the right place. They're still human, after all.

 

[Varine]

That's one of the only good things about our healthcare system, is that with the capability to charge whatever they want for the services, they're inclined to develop new and improved (and much more expensive) methods to care for people. That's why the free healthcare is flawed; with their set salaries and prices, they don't have the same incentives to improve their skills or technology, as neither will net them more business or money. Granted, a lot of people in the US would be better off with free, mediocre healthcare, but a lot of people would suffer because of it, too. That's why it's such a shitty subject in American politics: no matter what, someone's left unhappy. If we could only figure out how to make that someone the insurance companies, then I think we'd be all set.

Why make the insurance companies suffer though? So that it's not longer profitable to be in insurance and they start to shut down? What we need to do is set up a state-level (as with everything else) organization that provides a centralized hub of sorts that would be able to work with insurance groups to achieve a low-cost, state-wide group plan that is largely inclusive, and is paid for out of the insured's pockets at a far lower cost than is typically seen. What we're currently doing is making it federally mandated, and large businesses are the ones paying for it, like the one I work for which though we have a lot of employees, we don't necessarily have an extremely high profit margin and therefore those costs are not sustainable for the business, meaning that in order to avoid the penalties no one gets full time now. The current health care system is not designed to help you; it's designed to make you increasingly reliant on the government.

Problem i see is: A doctor is not supposed to do it for the money but for the benefit of the people.
If we would imagine a world with ideal doctors who work to save lifes and develope new vaccines and technologies not for the money or fame, but because they want to rescue somebody, then this whole conversation would be pointless.

1. Vaccines don't work in most circumstances.
2. Do you know much it's going to cost for me to become a doctor? By the time I get out of medical school I'll have damn near 400,000 dollars in debt, and for seven years in residency I sure as hell won't be making the regular salary of a doctor. So yeah, I better make a lot of fucking money when I come out of this. I want to help people, yeah, but I'm sure as hell not doing it if I have the expectation of living in poverty for the rest of my life. I'm already going to be doing it for 12 years willingly, plus most of residency, so when I come out of it this, there better be a big enough check to cover that. Not to mention that most doctors spend most of their time dealing with moronic patients that cut themselves somehow and think they have lesions from AIDS or something.

 

[FireCat]

Just one little thought, but true saying. A doctor must/and should have a "strong desire to help others" Seriously, If a doctor are only interested in the money, they should really look for another field!

 

[Varine]

No they don't. They should have a strong desire to figure out what's wrong with you; it doesn't matter if they care about you or not so long as they're dedicated to the endgame of progressing human achievement beyond the vulnerability to something so basic as disease.

 

[FireCat]

No they don't

Oh, yes, they fucking DO.! What wrong with you!