David Breecker wrote: > One of the key findings was that the way scientists tend to discuss > issues like certainty, and their dialectical method of taking > exception to perceived flaws in one another's work, has hampered our > ability to convey the urgency of the climate change situation and the > preponderance of (scientific) opinion and findings to the general > public and policy makers. p57 and vicinity on incentives ring true. But you know, there are a lot of tenured university professors that will have their jobs pretty much no matter what they do. Some of them may not be even engaged in research, but still well aware of the issues from their teaching obligations. It seems to me University leadership could do more to draw these people out for local television news and newspapers. E.g. by giving big raises for public outreach and by giving them influence at the university.
The public won't know and won't care whether or not such professors are leaders their fields or not. To the public, they are experts and authorities or else they wouldn't be professors. A lot of the other supposedly immutable `academic traditions' (cough) could be fixed with a wider range of funding opportunities. Of course if a researcher's career depends on the whims of just a few colleagues, they will become extremely cautious in keeping those colleagues happy. So give more people more options. Perhaps nothing will change at the tippy top of the ivory tower for elite researchers, but it doesn't have to. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
