The scientific industrial complex is as bad as the military industrial complex

Here are words from President Eisenhower written in 1961 that apply even today. These words are the other half of his famous military industrial complex warning, and seldom mentioned these days.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

With the federal funding of global warming research allegedly at around $7 billion dollars annually, and popular media and even legislators’ interest in the subject, the dog and tail who wags who subject is alive and well. The mission remains constant for most of us … the benefit of mankind. But after having been through the same drill, but just the opposite with the coming Ice Age and national magazine covers, etc. about 30 years ago, we older common citizens may look askance at all the hoopla. Again, the mission remains constant. And common sense still counts. Just read anything by Bjorn Lomborg, or Andrew Cockburn.

And so when voting citizens look at the cost and benefits of how today’s military defends our national interests (and tries to sell it to us), so must we question the costs and benefits of today’s research driven global warming possible threats to our national existence. Starting with credibility and facts explained in English would help. Politicians should explain in English why we are threatened, and should change our way of life (mostly quality of life). Gore’s Hollywood awards and five Norwegians award count for little in this effort. Even media might get involved in explaining why the global freeze 30 years ago is now the global warming today.

One appealing thought to this author is the idea of the FDA reviewing the drug companies work in promoting their products to the benefit of their company and we humans. Perhaps we citizens can have the same overview that looks out for our interests. In no way should this challenge peer review, which has always worked (so far) to weed out charlatans and other such poor people.

It is fair to say today that the whole scientific industrial process, and the political process about explaining it, are both presently unhealthy. What are we to do in another 30 years when another hoopla is promoted. Again, the mission remains constant … the benefit of mankind. A little smart thriftiness along the way will also help.