I won’t be offended if I am borffed for going off-topic, but something struck me in this article. While I don’t doubt the esteemed Nobel laureate’s sincerity, the logical extension of two of the statements give me pause:
1) “He is also worried about the rise in anti-science thinking.”
This pertains specifically to ID, but as he goes on to concerns over GE crops and global warming we come to one of his solutions:
2) “A levy on the coal industry could pay for research on clean coal technologies so more public funds could be spent on research into alternative energy sources and new industries.”
He proposes taxes to move public funds into research (thus, his concern over anti-science thinking?)
I see a problem with an industry whose findings result in an advocacy for the growing of said industry.
A tight circle is quickly formed from “identifying a problem” to “funding the search for a solution” to “generating findings” to “requiring more funding”, etc.
I’m sure this article reflects a sincere desire for knowledge and the public good, but at the same time it seems somewhat self-serving – dangerous, perhaps, if a situation arises where the self-serving voice is ever able to stifle dissenting voices.
You must be logged in to post a comment.