From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 28 Jan 93 20:52:30 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1806@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.152051@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>|> 
>|>    Agreed.  The government has abdicated it's responsability to finance basic
>|> research and a lot of corrupting money is coming into science in the form of
>|> corporate sposorship or research done by stockholding scientists.  It give more
>|> motives to be dishonest.
>
>Another unfortunate source of temptation is the 'publish or perish' method
>of evaluating job performance used by many university administrators.
>This leads, at the very least, to an excess of mediocre, or downright
>shoddy, pieces being published to fill out the quota.  And it can easily
>be the final straw that pushes someone into fabricating results to publish.

The November/December 1991 issue of _Technology Review_ had a good
article by Steven J. Marcus, "A Splash of Cold Water,", that argued
similarly.  It's the most reasonable article I've yet seen.  Here are
a few excerpts:

   University scientists work with companies seeking to
   commercially apply (that is, derive financial gain
   from) their academic research.  Hardly the exploitable
   absent-minded-professor type, they often help found
   the companies themselves.  Whole universities, once
   deemed oblivious, even disdainful, of the profit
   motive, now wheel and deal with the best of them.
   Meanwhile, academic researchers demand more money than
   ever from public coffers, predicting widespread disaf-
   fection in the R&D community and eventual economic
   calamity for the nation should they not receive it.

   Add to the newly mercenary perception of academia a
   straight-out series of black eyes--misuse of federal
   funds (university yachts and presidents' home furnish-
   ings charged to the taxpayer), allegations of price
   fixing in awarding scholarships, and cases of misjudg-
   ment, fraud, and plagiarism--and it's safe to say the
   public has been rudely awakened.  Researchers turn out
   to be just plain folks.  Like everyone else, they look
   out for themselves, they sometimes make mistakes, and
   they bruise when they fall....

   Thus the deflation of the superhuman academic scien-
   tist is actually a good thing and long overdue.  Why,
   after all, should the desire to make money, or the
   capacity to make mistakes, be so shocking?
   Researchers _should_ seek to apply their work to the
   benefit of their institution, their country, and them-
   selves.  Such strivings are a basic human trait.  So,
   too, of course, are frailties and excesses, though
   ways of minimizing their adverse effects can also be
   evolved--as long as the environment is one of toler-
   ance and mutual respect.  Having discovered our part-
   ners' shortcomings doesn't mean we should quit working
   with them; on the contrary, it lets us collaborate
   more effectively.

   In that spirit, even the recent lapses and scandals
   can be regarded as potentially beneficial to the long-
   term health of the research enterprise.  They under-
   score the need for public accountability, public com-
   munication, and even public oversight, which should
   not be viewed as intrusions but as opportunities for
   interacting more fruitfully with the rest of the
   world.  Instead of regarding the recent affronts to
   the academic image as a signal to defensively circle
   the wagons, researchers should see them as little more
   than a wake-up call.  The appropriate response may be,
   like that of the guy who got slapped with after-shave
   in the television commercial, "Thanks, I needed that!"

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com

Newsgroups: talk.origins