| > you have this idea that PI's hate their work / are gaming the system. That’s actually not what I said. > If the PI chooses use some funds from a grant to carry out speculative research. Good. GOOD. That is what scientific inquiry is meant for. My claim is not about good or bad. My claim is that there is a gap between how science is done and how it is presented to the public. > This is grants 101 You seem to agree such a gap exists, you just think it’s a good thing or a matter of business. > because it is not my expertise So notice when I bring up correct information, I’m told I don’t have the experience/expertise to do so despite my academic union card. Please do share opinions about software. We have no professional organization. People argue with ideas. > You are contributing to the decline of American science, and I will not stand for it. you seem to identify intellectualism as a group of people or an organization. I think that’s a mockery of truth and ideas. Yes American science as a family of organizations deserves scrutiny and critiques. Funding these organizations is not an absolute public good. |
They deserve scrutiny and critique from an informed point of view on what science can accomplish for the public, that is, what science can do for the absolute public good. "This doesn't work like I thought it did!" is not necessarily, in and of itself, an absolute public bad. It is, unfortunately, a cost of doing business in employing specialized labor to do specialized work.
Driving a truck doesn't work how the broad public thinks it does, either.