 |
 |
Ken, I liked what you referred to as “my two cents” (they were worth more than that). I do think it helped to balance the discussion and to seek some constructive equilibrium where everything is in play and judged on its own merits (and demerits as Terry reminded us). How we find ourselves within this new opportunistic/problematic environment remains at issue and up to us individually and collectively. Best to all, Chuck On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:38 PM, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear Terry, Mike, and Chuck, > > Thanks for your thoughts. I did not post the Jeremy Rifkin piece because I agree with Rifkin on all issues, but because he identifies issues worth considering from the viewpoint of design and design research. While Terry may be right in pointing to gaps in the op-ed piece, it's an op-ed piece. The purpose of an op-ed piece is to capture major issues and state a viewpoint. There is not much room for nuances or counter-arguments to your own points — even when you might state different position on some of those nuances and counter-arguments. I plan to read Rifkin's book to find out what he believes when he can write at length > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1137278463/ > > It's clear that information and service products work different to manufactured products. And it is clear that economies of scale in mass manufacturing provide advantages over today's desktop factories. Even more important, it is clear that strong nations require industrial capacity, even in a post-industrial age. Those who have read Eamonn Fingleton's books and columns will be aware of the importance of manufacturing as one cornerstone of productive economies. > > http://www.fingleton.net > > http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Hard-Industries-Manufacturing-Information/dp/0395899680 > > I'm not able to decide whether privately funded science is good, bad, or simply undecidable. The first great universities were funded totally by the wealthy — from the Library and Museion at Alexandria to Oxford and Cambridge to Harvard, Stanford, Dartmouth, and the University of Chicago. This is also true of universities founded and funded under papal, episcopal, ducal, and royal charters — and that means nearly all great European universities. > > The Royal Society and was privately founded and funded. It is hard to point to a greater contribution to science than made by the RS over the past few centuries. And this is also true of many great research universities. It is only in the 20th century that government funding came to play as great a role as it came to be. > > Should we be worried about Bill Gates, Paul Allen, or Fred Kavli funding science? I don't think so. They are not funding private science for private conclusions. They are supporting public science with publications on the same principles as science funded by NSF or NIH. > > It's certainly not more problematic than top-secret science funded by the Pentagon with restrictions on publishing. And it's less problematic than science in an era when Tea Party politicians want no funding at all. And it's less of a problem than politicians who would defund anything that contradicts the King James Version of the Bible. (It has to be the KJV. Bible Bible politicians read their Bible Science in English. After all, as one pointed out, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.") > > Those of us who grew up during the years of large national research funding programs and massive publicly-funded scholarship programs were extremely fortunate. I believe, personally, that this is the best way to fund science and scholarship. But I remain grateful for Fred Kavli and Bill Gates, and I recall that the Rockefellers, Stanfords, and Fords who funded much of what we now think of as universities occasionally interfered with their creations. We just don't recall this when we think of University of Chicago or Stanford. Or even Harvard and Yale, where wealthy trustees and legacy admissions always played a big role. (A legacy Yale BA and Harvard MBA governed the United States before the Columbia BA and Harvard JD who now governs.) > > The relationship of money to research and science has always been troubling. At different times, it takes on different faces. G William Domhoff, a psychologist and sociologist at the University of California, has traced the role and power of the wealthy for many years > > http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/about.html > > I first read his classic Who Rules America. The Triumph of the Corporate Rich in the late 1960s. Now in a revised and updated 7th edition, it tells new versions of the story that Thorstein Veblen, Sinclair Upton, Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, and others told a century before. > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0078026717/ > > While I'd say we're right to worry, it's not Bill Gates, Fred Kavli, or those who fund science I worry about. I worry about those who fund classified science such as the Pentagon or private science such as Big Pharma. > > My two cents. > > Ken > > ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------