The assumption behind RAGS and most reports of the same type is that an improved investment is primarily (or even solely) described as more dollars. Sadly this reduces science and technology policy to budget policy (as Sarewitz has argued to the point of becoming an axiom). The difficulty of finding and using effective measures for innovation (patents are at best proxy measures – noting one kind of result from innovation) makes it difficult to break from this emphasis on dollars.

Thanks for your comments. I’m happy to respond.

1. I agree. It was not me who asserted that patents are a measure of competitiveness, but Rep. Wolf (and also found in RAGS).

2. Ditto.

3. Ditto.

4. Agreed.

5. This is an assertion. It may well be correct, but if it is correct there should be an argument to make beyond the assertion.

Thanks!

I don’t think your arguments are very good, which does not mean I am disagreeing with them, just that they are not strong and seem simplistic. To restate and expand:

1)I don’t believe the number of patents is a good metric for innovation. There are changes in legal and economic factors effecting the number of patents.
2)Similarly there are other factors effecting the number of papers published. I recall Steven Weinberg saying a number of year ago, that we would be better off if we just destroyed most of the theoretical physics papers (not so for the experimental “one can always use another data point”).
3)There is a long delay between investments in education and science and the awarding of Nobel prizes. We will not see the affects of recent changes for many years.
4)This is secondary to your point but… The article on Nobel prizes argues that US K-12 education is excellent. This is true of the top schools but it completely ignores the dismal nature of the bottom schools. We have enough good schools to produce a lot of top scientists but we are miserably failing a very large percentage of the population.
5)We will not maintain leadership by merely remaining constant in our investment. One needs to improve in the face of more competition.

Thanks,
Greg.

Best,

D

(go ahead – ask me about my emoticon skills)

TT

Best,

D

Yes, thanks. This was tongue-in-cheek indeed – I thought I’d hinted at that

E.B. White once remarked: “Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind.”

Best,

D

Your points are well-taken if Mr. Peiser was addressing, “how politicians can avoid bad science advice”. On the other hand he may just have been commenting on his previous comment and Roger’s reply; that is the way I took it.

Another thought has occured to me. Might both of us have missed the point? Could Mr. Peiser have just been making a joke about junketing politicians? If so I am sure that he was just trying to lighten up the conversation.

Mr. Peiser, Would you please respond to these four comments?

Thank you

TT

The assertion was “how politicians can avoid bad science advice”.

The short blurb described some FR parliament members traveling to India on a fact-finding mission.

Nowhere in the arty does it mention what staffers are coming along.

Nor does it mention anything about how the members are receiving information or with whom they are meeting or talking to.

So the arty is, at best, a vessel into which you can pour whatever you want.

But maybe I’m missing something, TT. Perhaps you can point out for me how they are avoiding bad science advice.

Are they speaking to non-FR scientists [har-har]? Are they not speaking to scientists at all? Are they only speaking to certain scientists? Are they speaking to policy-makers?

As apparently I missed these answers and you caught them, maybe you can be kind enough to point out what I missed.

Thank you in advance TT,

D