IT's route to riches was over-sold, identical to the "Grapes of Wrath" dynamic. Given the extensive education and experience needed to pull it off well, the constant threat of being outsourced, etc. I'm certainly not steering my own kids into it.

There's also a difference between the -ologies and the -eerings. The -eerings (aerospace engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, etc.) are the industrial applications of science. They're most likely to be outsourced.

The -ologies (geology, zoology, archaeology, paleontology, etc.) are for the most part dying or dead, since they are more aimed at pure/research (no profit motive) and our culture doesn't value them very much -- even less than the -eerings.

The sad fact is that government skewing of Science may soon cease to be a problem. A couple years ago, MIT announced that, in response to the Outsourcing of so many High Tech jobs, enrollment in Math & Science courses of all sorts had dropped by 50%.

America's Best & Brightest brains are increasingly deciding that there is no Future in studying Science &Technology. They see all the rewards going to "C" Level MBA students.

Combine that with the way Math & Science courses in the Public High & Junior High schools have been Gutted by "Conservative" Education "Reforms" and America's position as a world leader in Anything except Prison Populations is in serious danger.

Thanks for Nothing Georgie Boy.

The country is bankrupt. The best way to keep politics out of science is to stop funding research. We have to start practicing triage. We'll save tons of money and will delay the day they can implement national mind control.

Or would you rather eliminate Medicaid?

Tonkatsu

Great stuff, Thanks for the information.

"In the beginning there was light."

A response to bobpomeroy's "challenge", the following is Excerpted From:

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

>> Skip down to:

The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment--a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public's resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.

Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid "borers" to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largese. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.

One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did NOT make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk [the clerk in question was a Corporate Attorney, Planted in the Supreme court], the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."

From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional "personhood." Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these "rights," corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.

C'mon, scientists are political animals too. It is societies obligation to set the moral laws of the society. How else can science be restrained from it's Frankenstein inclinations. There is a proper balance to be struck. Remember those nightmare's that science brought us: nuclear weapons, bio-weaponry, land mines, cluster bombs, frankenfoods, eugenics, and now genetics and the magic of the Nordic Ideal. Science in the hands of monsters needs to be stopped. Scientists are as much evil as good and they are not gods.

Remember the Dooms Day Clock? I know a fusion scientist, Dr, PHD, and all, to young to have it taught to him in school. He didn't believe it existed! Voted rapepublican and doesn't understand a dissenting non- FOX view. I'll believe these guys when I see it.
I feel like I cannot call every card a spade with the likes of George Washington Carver and such, but I will say that the joker trumps the deck except the ace of spades.($?) (Politically, 1 out of 53 isn't bad, I wish we had those odds in our congress!)

Every one of them is funded by some institution corrupted by the very leaders signed in to make the shareholders feel safe or to ensure the standard of saftey isn't lobbied away by self interest. They have all bent to the whore of greed and self preservation.

Where is our Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr.?

All of the essential governmental agencies like the EPA, FDA, Forestry Service, etc, have been gutted of all objectivity. This has been job one of the Deciderer in Chief. Regent University has replaced those former bastions of science like MIT, Harvard, Cal Tech, etc.

The official position of the United States is that Jesus spoke to crowds in Texas from the back of a dinosaur some 2000 years ago. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Regarding the questions of the nature and value of science, and its ideological and political nature: "A People's History of Science: Miners, Midwives, and 'Low Mechanicks'" by Clifford Conner was particularly illuminating for me, especially after digesting the standard university-history-of-science fare.

For: NicNews

Who says that the Bush Administration is winding up? How do you know what treachery he and his minions are cooking up for cancelling the next elections? With most of our National Guard overseas, it would be easy for him to cancel elections because of the invasion of the evil Iran and the need to have his steady hand available. Future elections may be conducted if Bush feels they are appropriate and he approves of who runs for all parties.

You know...you people can sit behind your keyboards and whine to your heart's content but until the evil morons in Washington and in the boardrooms are put in fear of their very lives, nothing will change. "Voting" for change is nothing more than a load of ineffectual horse shit. Action is the only thing that will save us.

Vince

I didn't mean to personalize this either. You might be correct that they could be more directed for purposes of discussion. This would also include many of the other posts here and is what I consider indecision.

I am saying that science as a lifeway that increasing defines how we intrepret the world should at the very least take some responsibility in the outcome. Some do and many more do not. An example would be if you want to learn about nature the most logical thing would be to spend time with direct contact in nature. You do not get the same benefit from reading a book about nature even though both methods yield knowledge. I can usually tell when I am talking to someone with no first-hand knowledge of something, what I dislike is when those people are considered policy makers. There is definitely something wrong with human interaction with the natural world and part of that is no direct relationship with a living world. It makes me a little grumpy... Sorry too.

treefrog: I'm not going to get into a long argument here, came back mainly to take my lumps for calling you a name, something I regret every time I do it. And to apologize, as it does not further the discussion. I'm sorry.

As to the first line of your 1:51 post. LOL.

I felt ...compelled to say something because to blame science and scientists for all the ills of human existance makes no more sense than it does to blame all religion and all the faithful. Or all the politicians or any and all government, or all human industry and entrepeneurs. And it does not further the discussion to maintain that position.

We could no more remove from what we are what we call science, than we could spirituality, music, art, or the ultimate human development - government.

To ask the human race to stop asking questions, is to ask us to stop being human. And if you you find only cynicism and failure to define the human experience you should't, because we've only been here for less than a blink of the eye, in cosmic terms. I'm not saying you're a cynical person, I'm speaking generally.

Our ability to propagate exceeds our ability to collectively and justly address all the consequences that entails. Somehow, something Sam Clemens said seems pertinent, for the third time today: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme."

Vince

A scientist didn't make this computer, a manufacturer did. I guess some people blindly follow whatever comes down the pike, I don't. It is the last great act of self-defense in a polluted world where someone else holds a patent to your genes. How it got that way is still a difference of opinion, but my smoke signals tell me is wasn't all political pressure or engineering. And, politics is a science for anyone that cares to look it up.

SCIENTIFIC BETRAYAL:
Never before have Americans experienced such dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data, as used by this administration to derail vital environmental reforms, conservation, family planning-- and the list goes on. The resulting long term environmental and social damage are beyond measure, and can only worsen if not curtailed.

Despite their clandestine cloak, or environmental friendly disguise, these sellouts have been evident since Bush first was handed the presidency. They have been exposed by defectors from the EPA, health & human services, etc; and have been documented and chronicled by numerous dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.

The gravity of these unprecedented betrayals eclipses the Monica Lewinski scandal which led to an impeachment, and pose greater dangers than Watergate which terminated a presidency.

Blame for these dreadful consequences falls mainly on the five supreme court justices who placed politics ahead of the law and put him in office against the voters choice; our legislators for allowing such reckless and dangerous behavior from this unlearned president guided by his financial and radical supporters; and especially the apathetic populace for tolerating this unprecedented outrage

bobpomeroy, rnmystr, fcada, thank you. Whenever a piece concerning science is posted on CD I know that treefrog will be here with his (her?) ludicrous rants. What an idiot.

I wonder sometimes if that person ever thanks scientists or sciece that they can sit at their computer and type any sort of nonsense instead of going out back and sending smoke signals. ????

No, the scientific method is very poorly understood, at times even by some scientists. It is rigourous and demanding: if your're right , your're right, and if you're not the method will eventually flush away your hypothesis.

The best source I know, for those that are truly interested and open-minded, is the bi-monthly periodical The Skeptical Inquirer published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Neither Dem nor Repub, liberal nor conservative, but truly committed to investigating what we know and how we know it, and helping to inform others how this works.

Science itself is apolitical. However many scientists are politically motivated. Science is a tool and can be misused and certainly has been. The public must be educated enough to detect political uses of science. This is much easier said than done but we must try. Also, science should never be used as a substitute for a human sense of fairness and judgment. Science can be used as a tool to determine fairness. Critical thinking is required.

Part of the problem may be the lack of interest,education, and trust in science by the voting public. Politicians know this and get elected by appealing to the public lack of education and beliefs in myths. I prefer not to describe these myths and hope you all get the drift. To get someone's idea of the cultural problems involved see http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/14/arts/dumb.php

The Union of Concerned Scientists has an A-Z list of polical interference, lies, and distortions of science.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-alphabetical.html

Thanks for the history lesson, rtdrury @ 1:34 am. It's a point that the Allen Greenspan/Milton Friedman school of economics studiously ignores.

Few scientists ever take responsibility for thier actions because they are only responsible to other scientists. We didn't drop the bomb on anyone, the military did, and the politicans said it was ok, and we just did the research. That is just plain old ordinary bull****.

This site http://csel.eng.ohio-state.edu/zelik/research/Rigor.html is recommended to understand what rigor is, both for science and for other things: rate how rigorous the 'intelligence' was for invading Iraq, and what Bush is now saying regarding Iran. The linked google link, along with the poster gives a fairly good understanding, with the other video linked to on the page for a brief overview. Just going by the poster alone http://csel.eng.ohio-state.edu/zelik/research/Rigor_files/ZelikPattersonWoods_ModelingRigorPoster.pdf shows up Bush's 'intelligence' to be a total farce.

(Few people understand what science and the scientific method really is, BTW, and repeat all sorts of silly myths about it, in their ignorance.)

These scientists want to be free of political control? Who do they think they are, multinational corporations? The regime is the keeper of scientific truth, not them. Heel, dogs, heel!

tonkatsu, the policy regarding corporations that Jefferson preferred was to form the corporation at the start of a project, and to dissolve the corporation after completion of the project. According to Jefferson, the "standing corporation" should be banned like the "standing army" and the "standing bank", all for similar reasons. Jefferson wanted to finally transcend capitalism/militarism run amok, with the British East India Company serving as the poster monster of the day:

wikipedia: granted an English Royal Charter by Elizabeth I on December 31, 1600, with the intention of favouring trade privileges in India. ... The Company transformed from a commercial trading venture to one that virtually ruled India and other Asian colonies as it acquired auxiliary governmental and military functions, until its dissolution in 1858 following the events of the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

openDemocracy: The company became the subject of ferocious critique in Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations [1776], where he argued that over-mighty corporations were just as much the enemy of the open market as the over-mighty state.

Jefferson's Copyright Clause likewise specified "limited times" to the legal protection of copyrights, same theme. We should get back to limiting the lifespans of the power concentrations, preferably by the "invisible hand" of public exchange/association. 90% of the current capitalist-controlled resource allocation and production in the US is wasted. The potential for the reform is to reduce the work weeks, so go down to 10% of 50 hours to 5 hours, then triple that to accommodate the inefficiencies of distributed production and you have 15 hour work weeks. This does require that people learn how to think, take responsibility and be satisfied with much less of today's mindless senseless waste and plunder. Most will be able to handle it. Scientific research, reason and truth are readily embraced by all after we cage the corporations.

Before you think that this has nothing to do to you - the United States gets more of its oil from the Alberta Tar Sands than from anywhere else in the world:

'Conspiracy of silence' on tarsands, group says

A new report accuses the federal government of allowing Alberta's tarsands to become "the most destructive project on earth". ...

The report says that instead of properly managing the tarsands, government has "outsourced" monitoring to the industry, "creating a classic situation of the fox guarding the henhouse."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080215/tarsands_enviroreport_080215/20080215?hub...

Feds allowing tarsands to become 'most destructive project on Earth': report

The federal government has allowed Alberta's oilsands to become the "most destructive project on Earth" by failing to impose the required environmental restrictions, an environmental group says in a report released Friday in Ottawa.

"Canada's progress on global warming is being held hostage by the tarsands," the Environmental Defence report says, adding that the tarsands are "ground zero" for global warming because of the precedent they set for the rest of Canada.

"Because our federal political leaders refuse to put real caps on greenhouse gasses for the tarsands, they thereby refuse to put real caps for the rest of the industry in Canada." ...

"There's nowhere else on Earth that we're talking about destroying an area the size of Florida," said Matt Price, program manager with Environmental Defence, at a news conference. "There is nowhere else on Earth where you have toxic ponds that are so big that you can now see them from space." ...

"The federal government is not using laws already on the books to require companies to reduce emissions and clean up their toxic mess," Price said.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/15/tarsands-report.html

Political science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science

Free from government to be opressed by religion like everything else. 2008 and still led and controlled by archaic fictional stories.

Scientists have rarely if ever been involved in implementing policy related to their discoveries. That is the domain of the politicians, who are bought and paid for. So blame congress and the president when you hear of some new fangled creative gee-whiz method of killing people or surveiling us and destroying the environment, not the scientists.

Tonkatsu. I study corporate actors and am a lawyer. I know of nothing, particularly in the Constitution unless you're referring to religion, by the founding fathers per your declaration. Could you please provide your source for this information.
By the way, corporations are a disaster, inter alia, because they exist to shield from responsibility and are not, contrary to Supreme Court decisions, on equal footing with humans. Until the Robber Baron era, they did gut misbehaving corporations once they figured it out. So that part is correct. The rest, as stated, is not.

Oh, and if you can't apply numbers to it, it's not likely science. So "political science" is one of the dumbest phrases in the world. There is no systematic inquiry and experimentation involved there, just a practical application of PV=nRT

Science does very little to change the environment or the way we live. It informs.
It is engineering and manufacturing that have created products and spurred the phrase "Better living through chemistry."
Scientists should not be confused with engineers, whom are responsible for the design and development and practical applications of the results of science.

We've been trying to bring truth and honesty to science and education since at least 1998, when we caught numerous scientists at UT lying, cheating, and stealing. But the overhwelming inertia is in the other direction because the establishment has too much to lose. The establishment contributes money to political campaigns therefore there is no incentive to academically or legally challenege these individuals and established system. It's also intentionally racially biased as everyone should know by now.

Thanks

http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html

there is a video "A FORCE MORE POWERFUL" easily found at libraries and online. it tell how nonviolent civil disobedience has changed the modern world. it gives detailed instructions on how to get your country back. it shows real examples of people taking back their country. if you study and practice with others, you could start taking back the us by April or May.
complaining on commondreams is worse than nothing because it gives you the false impression you are changing things. GET THAT VID.
YOUR VOTE HAS NOT COUNTED IN 8+ YEARS WHY DO YOU THINK IT WILL COUNT THIS YEAR! obama hillery mccain are not going to change the system but you can.
sacrifice and hardship is necessary but it would be worth it. the murderous thugs, congress and scotus wont give up their power without a fight.

Bush has been trying to bring peace and democracy to the field of science. this article clearly shows that.

And btw...politics is a science.

When scientists provide reliable information, what a freakin' laugh that is. The most corrupted people on earth are scientists. The air you breath, the food you eat, the toxic shit boxes you live in are all modern miracles of science. No one forces scientist to be dishonest and it is time they look at thier own behavior.

Ethics + Science = Sound Policy

Well, I'd write my congress-person but I don't think my two cents would fit in his pocket for all of the wads of money from big corporations that are in there already.
What kind of country do we live in? This is disgusting and sad that scientists have to ask for this kind of help. It should be a free country, not one governed by FEAR.
I can only HOPE (and pray) that Mr. Obama is a different kind of man.

Sometimes corporations have troubles if they dont pay attention to good science. Ask General Motors. If you want to learn about some great science check out www.rmi.org.

Peace

Common sense tells us that WTF and Kelmer, among others here, have it right. "Top scientists" in itself is a politically motivated, self-promoting statement. I would like the pols to keep their paws off me, too.

The only cure for the problem is to reinstate the Corporate Death Penalty.

It was no accident that the Founding Fathers wrote laws requiring that Corporations which meddled in Politics be dissolved and their assets be sold off.

It took the corporations almost 150 years to finish gutting these laws.

Now, hardly anyone remembers them. Just as the corporations which print "history" books prefer.

Twenty-five or thirty years ago, in my previous life, I was sitting an oral board to hire a couple of fire-fighters. One applicant was an oceanographer, with a Master's Degree.

I asked him why he wanted to be a fire-fighter as he seemed overqualified for the job.

His answer was that he wanted a job where he felt he was helping people. "I am so tired of having my research distorted, my reports changed or trashed, just to protect some polluter or private company, or to deny what is happening to our environment. I want no more of it."

This is not a new problem, but it has been increasing at an exponential rate, especially during the last eight years.

Science has always been politically and ideologically driven.

Wasnt it politically driven when the A bomb was developed?
Yes.

What's the beef? Galileo Galilei was wrong and the Church is always right - the world IS flat!

The issue is Lysenkoism, not political parties. That's why the following comment is idiotic:

"Just like dozens of other issues, the answer is a Dem president to clear "industries" out of the agencies, and a Dem Congress less beholden to industry lobbyists.
Together."

Again, for those of you on drugs: the issue is Lysenkoism, not political parties. (Psst! DD! Democrats use dictionaries, so it's safe for you to look it up!)

Science has always been influenced by social and political norms. At best we can only hope for less interference from the next administration. Will the next administration promote a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle, the benefits of which, are supported by good research? I think not.

It's about time they had it, too. We've had almost 8 years of politics free from science.

Most science done today is probably privately funded, with a market motive behind it. Think of all the "great" things scientists have brought us: nuclear weapons, nuclear power/waste, frankenfoods, nerve gas, RFID, a camera to watch your every move, algorithms to mine your every behavior, more efficient ways to kill, etc... Check out University, Inc. by Jennifer Washburn.

Nonethless, public policy must be informed by undistorted science.

I would like to see a Union of Concerned Ethicists, however, which informs science.

Just like dozens of other issues, the answer is a Dem president to clear "industries" out of the agencies, and a Dem Congress less beholden to industry lobbyists.
Together.

Why say "top" scientists want freedom from politics? All scientists want freedom from politics, and rely on the peer-review process to determine who does, and who does not, receive public funding.

Scientists who speak in favor of global warming, scientists who speak for cannabis research or against the AIDS myth, are routinely denied public funding. Environmental scientists do have alternative sources of non-profit funding, but scientists in the medical field often have the only recourse of seeking big-pharma funding, with concomitant special-interests.

HOORAY! We definitely need a government that isn't anti-science and trying to hide or alter research. The Bush Admin. will go down in history as the closest the US could come to a totalitarian, dictatorial government.

I would strongly encourage scientists, engineers, technologists, academics, teachers, civil servants, and concerned citizens at-large to check out the UCS web site. They've got a well-organized issues alert network as well.

This is a noble urging, but naive given the political and social landscape of the USA. This is especially true when science runs up against religious and business interests, and is nothing new (Galileo can attest to that). Scientists must leverage their assets to defend their interests or continue to be bullied around by the powers-that-be of the day.