SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Options Box -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Poet who wrote (9637)2/16/2001 8:39:10 AM
From: hobo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10876
 
Good morning Poet,

an interesting article in the economist re: Science & Profit. there are other interesting articles too, unfortunately i left my subscription run out so i can not access all of them. i will renew it soon. (when I get around to do it).

___________________

Science and profit

Feb 15th 2001
From The Economist print edition


ONCE upon a time, pure and applied science were the same. Sir Humphry Davy discovered seven chemical elements, and invented the miner’s safety lamp. Louis Pasteur investigated the properties of molecules, and worked out how to stop milk spoiling. Everybody thought that was admirable. Somehow, things have changed. Today the feeling is widespread that science and commerce should not—must not—mix. There is a queasy suspicion that the process of discovery is in some way corrupted if it is driven by profit.

This week saw two things that reflect this suspicion, which for many people is hardening into unshakeable conviction. One was the unease that greeted publication of the sequence of the human genome (see article). The other was a report by Oxfam, a British charity, on the plight of people in the third world, too poor to buy the western medicines they need to stay healthy. The cases may seem unconnected, but they are not. The underlying issue is the same, and goes to the heart of the debate over science and profit: what are the terms on which scientific knowledge can be owned?

more...

economist.com