Comments on: Dr. Chu Goes to Washington http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4868 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4868&cpage=1#comment-11578 Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut. Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:06:33 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4868#comment-11578 [...] I commented with a slightly raised eyebrow at comments made by Steven Chu, President-elect Obama’s choice [...] [...] I commented with a slightly raised eyebrow at comments made by Steven Chu, President-elect Obama’s choice [...]

]]> By: Tamara http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4868&cpage=1#comment-11550 Tamara Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:10:27 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4868#comment-11550 Which statements do we believe, the glib but probably heart-felt, or the ones that get him confirmed? Why should we be happy about scientists being appointed to these posts? They clearly know how to play politics with the rest of them. Which statements do we believe, the glib but probably heart-felt, or the ones that get him confirmed? Why should we be happy about scientists being appointed to these posts? They clearly know how to play politics with the rest of them.

]]> By: jae http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4868&cpage=1#comment-11549 jae Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:55:20 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4868#comment-11549 I can understand how a non-scientist can easily be enamored by and hopeful about "promising new technologies," but I have a real problem understanding how a scientist, such as Chu, can be such a cheerleader for such ideas. Presumeably he had a physics class somewhere. I can understand how a non-scientist can easily be enamored by and hopeful about “promising new technologies,” but I have a real problem understanding how a scientist, such as Chu, can be such a cheerleader for such ideas. Presumeably he had a physics class somewhere.

]]> By: stan http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4868&cpage=1#comment-11546 stan Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:53:36 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4868#comment-11546 Given all the hand-wringing around here about government funding for science, this might make for interesting reading. http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/story.html?id=0a545dbe-1ce4-467b-8220-d63f14046b83 "Sex, Science & Profits, by British academic Terence Kealey. The book deals with the nature of science, the history of technology and the role of governments in promoting economic growth. It provides a devastating critique of states' failure to fund economically useful knowledge, and suggests that all spending on "technologies of the future" is likely to wind up down the drain. Professor Kealey is not promoting some off-the-wall, right-wing economic theory. A comprehensive 2003 study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development titled "The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries," found that the only useful R&D came from private sources and that public R&D funding tended to have negative consequences." No surprise. Given all the hand-wringing around here about government funding for science, this might make for interesting reading. http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/story.html?id=0a545dbe-1ce4-467b-8220-d63f14046b83

“Sex, Science & Profits, by British academic Terence Kealey. The book deals with the nature of science, the history of technology and the role of governments in promoting economic growth. It provides a devastating critique of states’ failure to fund economically useful knowledge, and suggests that all spending on “technologies of the future” is likely to wind up down the drain.

Professor Kealey is not promoting some off-the-wall, right-wing economic theory. A comprehensive 2003 study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development titled “The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries,” found that the only useful R&D came from private sources and that public R&D funding tended to have negative consequences.”

No surprise.

]]>