Dr. Khin Ni Ni Thein Please excuse the delay in responding to your request, I have been unavailable to respond due to a funeral. Yes, you may repost the small essay I wrote. I have been doing some more thinking on this problem re scientists having to limit the research directions available to the needs of employers, whether they be University or business. An analogy that presented itself for consideration in my mind was the "job jar", something that most of us who are married are familiar with. Around our household, it is common for the maintenance of the house, that tasks that are required to be done be listed and then as resources and time become available, a task is selected and the appropriate work is done. If scientists were employed by a Fund that was contributed to by all business's and University's based on a percent of sales in business and a similar method in Universities, then a pool of capital would be available for research in general. If the various government, industry and university needs were displayed in a series of lists from which scientists could review and from that review put in applications including budget and time requirements for the research - and if necessary, security requirements, then the managers of the Fund through a committee selection system could allocate Contracts to scientists or groups of scientists. The projects then could be done according to the needs of the problem, rather than the needs of the employer. The various donaters would be allowed to post to the fund research they would like to see done and the requester would have a priority on the results of the research. For example, let's say that a Company wanted to research the technical feasibility and production of a set top box for bringing the Internet to the home through the TV set. A scientist or group of scientists might apply to solve that problem from a variety of technical standpoints. Let us say that the Company that initially requested the research be allowed to review and choose from the results of the the various research projects. To keep monopoly situations from developing, the original Company might be allowed an exclusive for a period of time or on some sort of bid system, the solution might be put out to the industry involved in which a number of licensees or permissions to use the technology would be issued by the Fund managers. This kind of thinking would take science away from business in the form of proprietary patents and make all scientific knowledge available to business to use in the competitive marketplace based production and marketing rather than monopolizing science through a patent system. Anyway, those were my thoughts and I thank you for your interest. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Khin Ni Ni Thein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 4, 1998 2:03 PM Subject: Request > >Dear Sir, > >I support your view. Could I forward your discussion on other list? >Please respond me asap. > >Respectfully yours, >NiNi >============================================================== >On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Thomas Lunde wrote: > > Dear Jay: > > There may be some merit in the concept of those trained > scientifically to determine policy and use of resources. > >You said: > > These experts would be employees who would have degrees in systems > sciences, have explicit employment requirements, ethical standards, > and objectives. > > Like any employee, the job comes with "responsibility". If they > perform well, they would be financially rewarded. If they lie > or steal, they would be cained, fired, and barred for life from > public service. > >The problem as I see it, is that most scientists are employed by >an employer, university, industry, government, whatever. >Through this employment they are directed to solve certain problems >as defined by the employer, build a bigger bomb, publish learned >papers to get tenure, evaluate a particular problem and provide a >report. As you have stated, their primary responsibility is to >perform well, or in other words, to do the job the employer has >tasked them to do and therein lies the flaw. If scientists had >financial and employer independence, then they probably would >make decisions based on the best scientific rationale. >However, the majority of them are making decisions based on >their employers needs and this colours the effects of their efforts. > >As I have mentioned several times over the months, this idea, >to a degree was postulated by Herman Hesse in his novel >"The Glass Bead Game" in which those gifted with certain >intellectual skills were trained from an early age to consider >governance and were trained so that the most gifted continued >to rise until they were finally chosen to represent the world. >The same sort of selection process was part of the Iroquois >Indian Confederation in pre European days of America. >If we are to develop those special individuals, it is not >enough that they have a University Doctorate, it is also >important that they be evaluated on more human qualities >such as honest, courage, compassion, etc.. Idiot savants >of a scientific discipline are often hopeless as evaluators >of the human condition or societal conditions. > >Respectfully, >Thomas Lunde >======================================================== > >
