If so, then the motive will become even more instrumental - science as wealth-formation.
Society and government can benefit from research by making access to the research open, and controlling profit-taking from patents derived from public research.
We can also tax the earnings so the output becomes an input.
Very happy to see this get spun up! It's one of my fav IFP ideas/writing spheres.
This quote got me thinking (as I've been thinking about this for a while): "American science needs metascience more than ever. Our scientific institutions, while still productive, are increasingly cautious and bureaucratic." Although I agree with it's conclusion, I'm not sure I agree with its premise. Metascience is awesome, don't get me wrong, but I'm unsure metascience is needed to decrease cautiousness and bureaucracy.
I think a beneficial part of the new Macroscience writing is to find ways in which specific metascience insights have positively contributed to breaking down some of that bureaucracy (or, how did it get there in the first place - was it really an artifact of post-War thinking? Was it just the placement of a bureaucrat with some weird ideas?). When I think of metascience, I think of gap analyses, breakdown in scientific methodology, etc. But maybe my definition of metascience is too narrow :)
Timely and urgent discussion, plus I like the Beckworth nod. Applying science to policy our massive resources for science, engineering and medicine seems macro-logical
🥳
Should government take an equity stake?
No. No. No.
If so, then the motive will become even more instrumental - science as wealth-formation.
Society and government can benefit from research by making access to the research open, and controlling profit-taking from patents derived from public research.
We can also tax the earnings so the output becomes an input.
Very happy to see this get spun up! It's one of my fav IFP ideas/writing spheres.
This quote got me thinking (as I've been thinking about this for a while): "American science needs metascience more than ever. Our scientific institutions, while still productive, are increasingly cautious and bureaucratic." Although I agree with it's conclusion, I'm not sure I agree with its premise. Metascience is awesome, don't get me wrong, but I'm unsure metascience is needed to decrease cautiousness and bureaucracy.
I think a beneficial part of the new Macroscience writing is to find ways in which specific metascience insights have positively contributed to breaking down some of that bureaucracy (or, how did it get there in the first place - was it really an artifact of post-War thinking? Was it just the placement of a bureaucrat with some weird ideas?). When I think of metascience, I think of gap analyses, breakdown in scientific methodology, etc. But maybe my definition of metascience is too narrow :)
Timely and urgent discussion, plus I like the Beckworth nod. Applying science to policy our massive resources for science, engineering and medicine seems macro-logical
❤️