From: Damien Broderick (thespike@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Jan 17 2003 - 19:29:02 MST
Anders Sandberg sez:
> An intresting issue here is that the committee seems to regard having a
> subjective agenda contrary to good science, even in the case of a debate
> book. Essentially they seem to say that researchers should only deal
> with objective stuff, and leave the debate about the meaning or how it
> should be interpreted to other people. While this is reasonable for
> scientific publications it also puts a gag on scientists as participants
> in the public debate. If it is considered bad professional practice for
> me to strongly outline my vision of how the world works and how it ought
> to be changed in public debate then my freedom of speech is being
> dampened. I can still speak, but will know my statements may hurt my
> professional career even when it is unrelated - the same kind of
> chilling effect that the DMCA has on other kinds of free speech.
My legal pal sez back:
< This is absolutely correct of course, and it was my first thought about
the
whole thing. But he also seems to have listed the book - or a portion of
it - as a scientific publication with his institution.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is the undervaluing in academia of the work
of public intellectuals, which gets short shrift for getting "points" for
one's department etc. Only formal publications in one's field, preferably
refereed journal articles, count.
Thus we see Lomborg trying to give the material academic respectability as a
scientific publication in the strict sense, which brings it into an area
that does, in fact, constrain his freedom of speech.
If he had written the book as a philosopher rather than as a statistician
(and hence a scientist, of a kind) the committees would have had no
jurisdiction. Even as it is, they leave open the possibility that they don't
have jurisdiction. >
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST