Comments on: Putting COMPETES to Shame http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4821 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4821&cpage=1#comment-11476 David Bruggeman Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:36:26 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4821#comment-11476 Oh, both COMPETES and the South Korean plan do equate science policy with science budget policy, no question. And none of the measures mentioned in the South Korean policy are unique to that program. R&D as a percentage of GDP has been a widely (ab)used metric in this area. Oh, both COMPETES and the South Korean plan do equate science policy with science budget policy, no question. And none of the measures mentioned in the South Korean policy are unique to that program. R&D as a percentage of GDP has been a widely (ab)used metric in this area.

]]> By: CurtFischer http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4821&cpage=1#comment-11474 CurtFischer Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:35:45 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4821#comment-11474 <i>All said, it’s still nice to see a government trying an aggressive plan rather than passing a bill with little funding to support it.</i> I suppose I generally agree with the post, but I have to ask, doesn't it verge on equating science policy to science funding policy? :) I am not ready to accept *on principle* that giant, government-led R&D spending drives lead to better science or better societies. Sure, government-led R&D seems to have worked for many situations in the past (the space program for aeronautics, the defense department for the internet, nuclear technology, etc, etc, etc), but does that mean it always will? In particular, the government's choice to use as a success metric R&D spending as a % of GDP is suspect. Just give all scientists 2x raises! It doesn't mean anyone will get better R or D, though. All said, it’s still nice to see a government trying an aggressive plan rather than passing a bill with little funding to support it.

I suppose I generally agree with the post, but I have to ask, doesn’t it verge on equating science policy to science funding policy? :)

I am not ready to accept *on principle* that giant, government-led R&D spending drives lead to better science or better societies. Sure, government-led R&D seems to have worked for many situations in the past (the space program for aeronautics, the defense department for the internet, nuclear technology, etc, etc, etc), but does that mean it always will? In particular, the government’s choice to use as a success metric R&D spending as a % of GDP is suspect. Just give all scientists 2x raises! It doesn’t mean anyone will get better R or D, though.

]]>