5 Comments

• 

  000000002

  Australia | 9 years ago

  I agree. Similar to medicines sans frontiers. Could build it's own liquid fluoride thorium reactor ( see idea in energy) rather than people waiting for governments. Seriously. Governments have their next election in their own country to worry about. Scientists look at long term interests of humanity and should not all be tied to governments or big business.

  1 0

• 

  PetrKropotkin

  Canada | 8 years ago

  sound good

  1 0

• 

  Anonymous

  8 years ago

  If we're talking science, It's just a transfer of "paradise" "color science", once initially was considered a "quantum" as "color charge" electron transfer "photon". Now with sub-particle theory we know the carrier particle "color charge" other. As the number 8, Mendeleyev "strange / angle" is now "strange quark"..
  It was just "Enos, son of Seth, grandson of adam"/8 "octagon", see hexagon saturn, and the relation and what pentagon?
  All the world of science, energy, health, etc, about the "angel of war, our war, from the" book "dead sea scrolls".
  Read all comments at, translate first from Indonesia:
  www.niochengyam.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/3/
  Help orphans (their families from 9:11 Pentagon in year 2178), from karma and reincarnation who are not compassionate.
  TQ.

  0 0

• 

  Gerals

  United States | 7 years ago

  You seem to be unaware that most scientists not researching specific products or services are already not associated with businesses.
  
  Indeed, they're associated with government and special interest funding.
  
  it's why the popular opinion amongst scientific communities won't tolerate scientists and studies that oppose the leftwing opinion, because their funding demands that their research support the left wing opinion, or risk losing it.
  
  You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of how our research is paid for regarding the more controversial issues in our society.
  
  You can't have fair and accurate science by cutting out business funding and not cut out public funding. You have to cut out both or neither because either way, from government or business, research becomes biased towards what will maintain funding.

  0 1

• 

  guilhermearbache

  Brazil | 5 years ago

  Well, my dear "Gerals" yes, I'm aware, and I completely agree with your concern (although it sounded a little unnecessary harsh to assume "I'm not aware" - sorry, but I'm a little tired of Internet discussions where people start accusing each other of not knowing things). The thing is: business biases science, governments biases science, the own scientific institutions are biased towards publication, methodological issues (related to this publication bias - journals prefer to publish only studies that says X is correlated to Y even though we are using methods that statisticians are increasingly opposing, null findings are not published), as well as other kinds of bias (sometimes related to governments, interest groups and/or businesses). The thing is, how do we solve that? I know my proposition above is far from perfect or complete (if it was, I should win at least a Nobel Prize, for I would be solving one of the biggest issues the world faces today, one that would help us solving many other issues from Health to Environment). But I did propose we create a "independent, open" science community. Which would be merely a website. Okay, government funding, which is one of my propositions above, might be a problem. We can drop that off . But it would require some funding (or voluntary work from IT professionals, etc. like this website). And I believe more important than "who is funding" would be to guarantee a lot of transparency and democracy in this website: people replicating studies, inserting data, checking data, anyway, having everything they do (including their profiles and who they work for besides being scientists, who are they linked to, etc.) it might work properly. even if it was funded (but not controlled) by governments, it might work properly. In fact, it is a simple thing I am proposing right now, since we already have places to post data and scientific things, like GitHub. That would be only a place to organize and EVALUATE scientific ideas, studies, etc., just like Global Democracy aims to organize ideas to help the world.

  0 0