Comments on: Science Advisor Confirms His Existence http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4397 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: docpine http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4397&cpage=1#comment-9707 docpine Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:00:25 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4397#comment-9707 It's true that people should check facts, but op-eds can be, and often are frighteningly fact-free. I am more concerned with the equation of "A Certain Structure for OSTP" as "good for science." As a veteran of OSTP (as an agency rep during the previous administration), I can say that OSTP tends to be a voice for the Science Establishment rather than "science" as a useful publicly-funded activity which should involve the public on funding priorities, and the way science is done and how the products are used. To conflate the two (science and the Science Establishment) is something the Science Establishment would like to do, but we science policy practitioners should resist. It’s true that people should check facts, but op-eds can be, and often are frighteningly fact-free. I am more concerned with the equation of “A Certain Structure for OSTP” as “good for science.” As a veteran of OSTP (as an agency rep during the previous administration), I can say that OSTP tends to be a voice for the Science Establishment rather than “science” as a useful publicly-funded activity which should involve the public on funding priorities, and the way science is done and how the products are used.

To conflate the two (science and the Science Establishment) is something the Science Establishment would like to do, but we science policy practitioners should resist.

]]>