[throwaway0a5e]

>Usually these initiatives should be extremely transparent, and they're the exact opposite

The downside is that when they're too transparent politics gets involved and you can't study touchy things because people don't want the risk of conclusions they don't like.

Imagine the uproar if the navy said they think asbestos PPE might be less lethal than what it's protecting you from in some circumstances so they were planning on researching it. Congressmen would get involved. They'd grandstand and make all sorts of sound bites for the cameras. And the research wouldn't get done or it would have to be neutered in order to get done. Look at the political football that is women's PT requirements for the armed forces for a more mild real world example.

Of course, if there's no transparency involved the risk is MK-Ultra type crap which is bad too.

[libertine]

Well then maybe that's the cost of it, the public scrutiny of touchy things and political responsibility to justify such endeavors. It's like accountability is a bad thing.

If politicians would refused that, then that's a problem of politics, not of transparency.

I do understand that some subject might be too difficult to explain to the public, but that's more of an annoyance and extra work then anything else. Also could be a symptom of a education system with a lot of problems.