PDA

View Full Version : Tunney Is What is Wrong With Science



Spoorman
November 23rd, 2008, 01:07 AM
i my opinion, Tunney represents everything that is wrong with modern science.

he sells out to a large corporation, who then goes on to charge a fortune for whatever gets developed.


i myself are currently studying science at university, physics and chemistry, and i think that discoveries (such as Tunney's) should not b owned by any corporation. I would NEVER sell out to a large corporation, and dont respect anyone who does.

Shpinxinator
November 23rd, 2008, 01:39 AM
Could you define "selling out"?

BC-304
November 23rd, 2008, 02:02 AM
Sell out? Corporations are the major source of funding for many scientific endevours, without them many scientific projects wouldn't have gotten out of the lab. Whether you like it or not, science and business must mix for progress to be made.

Serebii
November 23rd, 2008, 02:40 AM
i my opinion, Tunney represents everything that is wrong with modern science.

he sells out to a large corporation, who then goes on to charge a fortune for whatever gets developed.


i myself are currently studying science at university, physics and chemistry, and i think that discoveries (such as Tunney's) should not b owned by any corporation. I would NEVER sell out to a large corporation, and dont respect anyone who does.
Tell us that when you're offered millions for your research :p

Major_Griff
November 23rd, 2008, 02:44 AM
Money and corporations are what's wrong with Art in today's word as well, but as an aspiring filmmaker, if a major studio offered me a crap load of money to make a movie, I might want to say no on principles, but as they say, " SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

prion
November 23rd, 2008, 09:37 AM
Sell out? Corporations are the major source of funding for many scientific endevours, without them many scientific projects wouldn't have gotten out of the lab. Whether you like it or not, science and business must mix for progress to be made.

the trouble is that often, people/companies sell out their principles for cash. it's a slippery slope, but one people easily jump on.

the biggest problem - as evidenced by today's financial crisis - is that the stockholders/investors were treated like royalty - everything was done for them to make more cash, and integrity, morality, etc. be damned.

there's nothing wrong with someone like tunney having an investor. the problem would be when the investor wants to control the project. which is why drugs hit the market, no doubt, which shouldn't.

ToasterOnFire
November 23rd, 2008, 10:02 AM
I sold one of the antibodies I developed to three companies and they currently sell it to other scientists. I get royalties every year, though the actual amount is pretty paltry. ;)

I'm more than happy to send some of the antibody for free to any scientist who emails and asks since it's been published. And giving the antibody to companies means they can expose more scientists to it who might otherwise never know it was available. They make it easier for my reagent to help others, which is really what the spirit of science is all about.

Ikaros
November 25th, 2008, 07:28 AM
i my opinion, Tunney represents everything that is wrong with modern science.

he sells out to a large corporation, who then goes on to charge a fortune for whatever gets developed.


i myself are currently studying science at university, physics and chemistry, and i think that discoveries (such as Tunney's) should not b owned by any corporation. I would NEVER sell out to a large corporation, and dont respect anyone who does.

That is what's wrong with our world.That we use our brains for the wrong reasons.Science, Religion,everything.We use them the wrong way.
But in Science itself, the worst thing about it, is that Scientists today, focus on one thing.They spesialize in one Science only, or two, that are usually relative. Like you study Physics and Chemistry.
If people were studying more things,if we had a complete different kind of education, focused on "Educating" us instead of "preparing" us for a certain way of living and contributing in a specific science of our choise,things would've been better.
Like the ancients. Plato wasn't just a philosopher.He had studied medicine, maths, music, botany,philosophy.He had a knowledge of many different things. Therefore he could compare and mix things.
For example,Archaeologists could translate Aristotle's "iatrika"(about medicine), but only when a doctor with knowledge of ancient Greek tried to understant them, they found out what it was really written in them.

FurlingElder0
November 25th, 2008, 11:53 AM
Tunney and McKay's relationship is actually quite similar in several ways to the relationship of Edison and Tesla. Tesla being an unquestionable genius who wasn't publically recognized that often. And Edison a far less capable inventor who was quite popular publicly. Though Edison became obssesed with trying to destroy Tesla.

Anon
November 25th, 2008, 01:55 PM
yes this is a class a example of science. GE and other huge international corperations are always doing it for the money. that is why the head guy (tunney's boss) cut all the phone lines. FOR THE MONEY, not for the human race, the money. this is our world today. some really thin cloth with some ink on it. We fail as a race, we really do

jhvdh
November 28th, 2008, 01:20 PM
That is what's wrong with our world.That we use our brains for the wrong reasons.Science, Religion,everything.We use them the wrong way.
But in Science itself, the worst thing about it, is that Scientists today, focus on one thing.They spesialize in one Science only, or two, that are usually relative. Like you study Physics and Chemistry.
If people were studying more things,if we had a complete different kind of education, focused on "Educating" us instead of "preparing" us for a certain way of living and contributing in a specific science of our choise,things would've been better.
Like the ancients. Plato wasn't just a philosopher.He had studied medicine, maths, music, botany,philosophy.He had a knowledge of many different things. Therefore he could compare and mix things.
For example,Archaeologists could translate Aristotle's "iatrika"(about medicine), but only when a doctor with knowledge of ancient Greek tried to understant them, they found out what it was really written in them.

The ancient philosophers and renaissance men were pioneers in their various fields. Do you know what it takes to become an expert in any one field. Heck, there are so many subfields in each field that you can't even completely master and contribute to all of them in a single lifetime.

Just think about physics. You have sub-atomic physics, planetary physics, energy physics, etc., etc., etc. The amount of work and genius it takes to contribute just one major discovery in a lifetime is enormous because so much has already been discovered.

Even the plausibility that someone like Rodney McKay could even exist in reality is ridiculous. He's a master programmer that has not only mastered the written languages of both the Ancients and the Wraith, to the point where he can also read and comprehend complex scientific treatises in both languages, but also their programming languages in a matter of months is practically impossible. Then add to that he's an electrical and mechanical engineer of impossible skill and genius, he understands and pioneers in the fields of multiple universe physics, and has mastered Ancient, Asgard, and Wraith tech. Yeah. That's insane.

You can be a "renaissance man" and have an expansive knowledge of a variety of fields, but at this point in human history it is impossible to do that and also be a pioneering, contributing member of those fields. This is due to constraints of time and human cognitive power.

My point is, you can be a true master in a one or a few specialized fields, or a jack of all trades and a master of none. It's part of the limitations to human existence.

WarLud
November 28th, 2008, 10:45 PM
We fail as a race, we really do

No, we don't. In fact, we do quite the opposite. It is the drive for more power, greed, and selfishness that drives the human race and has led us to succeed where others have failed (I'm talking about other human-like species and animals here). If humans were content with just the vary basic needs/necessities we would never get anywhere.

Avenger
November 30th, 2008, 09:53 PM
Sell out? Corporations are the major source of funding for many scientific endevours, without them many scientific projects wouldn't have gotten out of the lab. Whether you like it or not, science and business must mix for progress to be made.

This is a sad fact. It even permeates down to universities and their research as well. A professor I had at Cal was refused tenure because he publicly stated that he didn't agree with an agreement that the University made with Novartis that granted the company the rights to the research in the bio-sciences department.

leksa
December 5th, 2008, 02:52 PM
i my opinion, Tunney represents everything that is wrong with modern science.

he sells out to a large corporation, who then goes on to charge a fortune for whatever gets developed.

i myself are currently studying science at university, physics and chemistry, and i think that discoveries (such as Tunney's) should not b owned by any corporation. I would NEVER sell out to a large corporation, and dont respect anyone who does.

When you get a job after you graduate, in your contract will be that every idea, every patent every invention you make belongs to the company/institution/university for which you're working.
You said you study physics. There is no way you can fund privately decent lab to do research. You need to get a job with some institution/company/university. If you're theoretician then you'll still need funds way beyond average income of even riches countries on this planet. For the computer you'll use. I'm sort of experimentalist, and just to process my data I need to use cluster. The computer on my desk is the most expensive in it's class (and I still need to use cluster). My private computer hardly has one third of those capacities, I cannot afford better one.
And yeah, it's bugger, knowing that every time I invent something some one else will cash it. But that's how science works today. And in cases you get some profitable invention you will not get millions. Nah, majority of the money will go to the investors, then institution for which you were working during the time you made invention and then, if your job contract allows you will get some money too. But not millions. Gosh, never millions.
I guess you'll specialize in solid-state physics or something similar. I got my masters in that area, and job offer from military after that. So I decided to switch area and went to astrophysics instead to do my Ph.D. At least now I know that no one will use my ideas to kill other people....

leksa
December 5th, 2008, 02:57 PM
That is what's wrong with our world.That we use our brains for the wrong reasons.Science, Religion,everything.We use them the wrong way.
But in Science itself, the worst thing about it, is that Scientists today, focus on one thing.They spesialize in one Science only, or two, that are usually relative. Like you study Physics and Chemistry.
If people were studying more things,if we had a complete different kind of education, focused on "Educating" us instead of "preparing" us for a certain way of living and contributing in a specific science of our choise,things would've been better.
Like the ancients. Plato wasn't just a philosopher.He had studied medicine, maths, music, botany,philosophy.He had a knowledge of many different things. Therefore he could compare and mix things.
For example,Archaeologists could translate Aristotle's "iatrika"(about medicine), but only when a doctor with knowledge of ancient Greek tried to understant them, they found out what it was really written in them.

Did you know that Mathematic today is so large that you would need 20 lifetimes just to learn all of it (assuming no more advances are made)?
It is impossible to learn more than what's covered in the specialization. Science is too large, so unless you find some fast method of learning there is no way you can get what you're describing.
And Plato, did you know that when you finish elementary school in any country on this planet, you know more than Plato did??