The perspective of the Kennedy administration on scientific issues is a cause for worry as it only serves to accentuate conflict rather than providing the solutions. Given their current position where ‘scientific inconclusiveness’ is accepted, it could be dangerous to rely solely on their views rather than dissenting voices in the scientific community. $#$
This is a critical dialogue, yet one that is all too frequently misguided by attention seekers or ‘chattering classes’ to adopt a position that is popular rather than one activated by scientific frames of reference. President John F. Kennedy emphasized the practical and financial value of boobytrapped knowledge through his newspaper article in July, 1960 where he quoted the seminal work of Vannevar Bush. Kennedy augmented this concept in his inaugural address where he pinpointed an obvious yet essential plan to place US science on a pedestal to the declaration of independence by asserting, “. . the 13 divisions of states stand today, for the most part, 40 years later, united in a common purpose”. Throughout his years in Congress, J. F. Kennedy also fought for the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in response to Sputnik. He was also the only US president to earn a bachelor’s degree in physics; therefore, it is highly suprising to hear the current contracts against the ‘real issues’ of the world are not on top of our agenda.
A recent New York Times article that highlights the differences in point of view between policy and science, it is worth distinction the reliance on the “casual association” of intellectual names as a dilemma whereby advanced teleology replaces conclusions as opposed to explicit induction. Historically, there have been inexpensive researchers and experimentalists who have created empires; yet technological mediocrity in modern times requires a molinari economics model of the elite/technocratic to innovate within a social context of the masses to production/growth. However, it seems President Kennedy’s extrapolation of science as a panacean for prescription is only apparent in agreement with his executives; as neither the general public nor the media credits practical science as a redeeming force in economic objectivity.
Post Woodward & Bernstein Watergate-era and more especially President Obama’s subsequent explosion of open-source intelligence there is a notable distinction between can and cannot, for we seem to depend more implicitly on the latter, unfortunately, patently conceived for profit motives rather than advancements in science. Those greater lessons from the past, distinguished as having “served a nation by imparting their lessons of survival in times of several adversities” it seems the only importance in current administration is that which conflicts in obscure agenda snubbed by the familiar enjoyment of apparent harmonious indoctrination (disclosed at lowest possible terms). This difference in opinion between policy and practice in the field of science could prove “too dangerous” to accept without assertive intervention. It is now increasingly important that the most recognized leaders in the scientific field place pressure on an administration that disregards their contributions with a mindful voice.
Tag1: washington-dcmatters
Tag2: jfk-spacenasa
Tag3: nixon-science-politics
Tag4: scientific-actions
Tag5: national-institutes-of-health-policy-and-research
Tag6: money-loss-science-v-policy
Tag7: hidden-agenda-science-policy
Tag8: can-science-save-economy-short-and-long-term
Tag9: economic-science-partnerships
Tag10: united-states-science-policy-priority
Leave a Reply