European science spends billions on research with no result

Informações recentes no universo dos bolseiros. Notícias da imprensa sobre ciência são também bem-vindas.
Responder
Torgal
cientista sempre presente
cientista sempre presente
Mensagens: 1141
Registado: quarta dez 09, 2015 8:17 am
University/ Institute: Minho

European science spends billions on research with no result

Mensagem por Torgal » sexta mai 10, 2019 6:23 am

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 80FDCA1B2A

Important essay in the link above by Zeynep Pamuk at Oxford University. She makes an excellent case on the public funding of science still its worth mentioning that the German and retiring MEP Hans-Olaf Henkel just said that European public science spends billions on research with “no result”. https://sciencebusiness.net/framework-p ... -no-result

Of course let´s not forget that what he means is that no european champions (cash cows) like Google are being generated as a result of those billions. Probably the fact that he spent more than 30 years in the industry explains why he´s so much obsessed with industry champions. He has a hammer like vision no wonder then that all he can see is just nails. He forgets that if Europe was able to cut tax evasion by half that would mean an annual revenue of around 500 billion wich is more than the annual total net income of 15 Google champions. Furthermore, it was exactly that self devouring obsession​ for champions, unlimited growth​ ​and confort ​that has bring Humanity on the verge of its own destruction. Hence we need less champions, less growth and above all less confort.




_______________________________________________________________________
De: F. Pacheco Torgal
Enviado: 22 de Abril de 2019 19:39
Assunto: April 22___Earth day or hypocrisy day ?

If our Planet only allows a certain level of "confort" to the nearly 10.000 millions who will live here in 2050 why the press (and so many in academia) avoid talking about it ? Are they so afraid to stigmatize those that live with much higher "confort" levels than the ones they are legitimately entitled ? How many years it will take so we start to look for those "confortable lifestyles has wrong and and illegitimate ? What is the maximum "comfort" level that each of us is entitled to?

PS- To make things worse it just so happens that today Nature reported that global warming is widening the chasm between rich countries and poor countries https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04 ... inequality





________________________________________________________________________
De: F. Pacheco Torgal
Enviado: 9 de Abril de 2019 7:06
Assunto: "our terrifying future"

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/ ... lace-wells



_______________________________________________________________________
De: F. Pacheco Torgal
Enviado: 7 de Outubro de 2018 7:06
Assunto: Elsevier 2018___The need to force the wellbeing of rich to "decline rapidly"

Below short text taken from a paper just published on the jornal Futures entitled "Challenges for the degrowth transition: the debate about wellbeing" authored by researchers of Leeds and also of Lund Universities that raises an important question that was also raised 10 years ago by Martin Desvaux, email below.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8718300715

“The dialogue between rich and poor people globally is necessary because of their different relations to degrowth – the incomes and material living standards of groups across the world whose basic needs are not currently being met would need to be allowed to rise in the future until their basic needs are met whilst those of the rich will need to decline rapidly”



_______________________________________________________________________
De: F. Pacheco Torgal
Enviado: 23 de Janeiro de 2018 20:10
Assunto: How many people can live on Earth?

10 years ago the physicist Martin Desvaux deliver a talk to the Royal Society of Statisticians that he later turn into a paper published in "Significance", a journal of the Royal Statistical Society. The title of the paper is "The sustainability of human populations: How many people can live on Earth?" in the end of it we wrote:
“It is not sufficient to try to apply technology to solve the, affluence term in the Commoner-Ehrlich equation. Humans will not willingly sacrifice much of their comfortable lifestyles for the greater good (especially for people in other countries) unless it is taken from them...”

Although very pessimistic this narrative has many advantages, the more important concerns the fact that it points the finger to everyone of us. And only in the moment that we were able to realize that technology will not bring miracle solutions that´s the moment that each one has to do is own part to solve this paramount problem. Higher education has a strong responsability on this context not only by teaching about self-responsability but also about the ethical importance of moderate consumption patterns. Of course Governments in Western countries have also major responsabilities in sending the rigth signals to certain industries. And they should already been after the auto racing industry the same way that they do with the tobacco industry. Not so much because of their associated emissions but mostly because it is an unwarrantable industry that embodies the "confortable lifestyles" and all the wrong values that Western countries live by.

Responder