We encourage your correspondence, and although we cannot print all that we receive, we will include at least one short, perhaps edited, letter per issue.

Correspondence from Doug Lilly

Dear WeatherZine

I have been a fan of the WeatherZine, but I have to admit the last one (WeatherZine#24, Stakeholders and Science) left me cold. After I read your report on stakeholders, I couldn't figure out the point, so I read it again, and still couldn't. I hope you try to restate it in terms more obvious to the academic community.

To the extent I did understand it, I was disappointed to see no hint of support for basic research; that is, studies for which the application is not at all obvious. While that too must be held accountable, the approach to that accountability has to be across the whole scientific community or, in our case, across all physical sciences.

Of course even the definition of basic or fundamental science is somewhat nebulous, and the usual justification is based on a few specific successful examples, without consideration of how much support has been wasted. Admittedly it may not matter too much, since the present and future contributors to fundamental science tend to be self-selected and not too sensitive to financial incentives. I am not too concerned about the perceived tendency for smart students to go into business, law, or economics rather than science. The real nerds, including weather junkies, will mostly still be there, provided they are given above-starvation incentives.

— Doug Lilly
DLilly6@aol.com

Comments? thunder@ucar.edu

[ Top of Page ]