Science, Medicine, the Arts and Government
What Should Science Do?
Firstly, I guess I should state the role that I see appropriate for the government and funding scientific research. That role is … nothing. Taxpayer dollars should not be spent on scientific pursuits (unless these pursuits can be shown to make money for the government). Humans have a natural curiosity about them about the universe and their place in it. Science can give some answers, but at great costs (especially financially). Things like the CDC are a bit more complicated.
Think of it more as an investment model
– only pay for things that financially enrich the country. This would mean that
a group like NASA shouldn’t send up space shuttles (at great expense) for
missions that are just a cash drain. Missions with real money on the line (like
deploying satellites) might make sense if the cost of the mission is covered by
the mission itself. Planning a manned expedition to Mars would be a waste of
resources that could better be used elsewhere.
There is
a cost/benefits trade off in research. Science should be about making practical
discoveries (not studies determining how much beer a rat can drink before it
dies of alcohol poisoning). However, practical discoveries are much more
practical if they have dollar signs attached to them. Leave the theory to
academia and the funding for non-cash generating research to whoever wants to
fund it. Science should not be about discovering the mysteries of the universe
with a blank check. Practically, learning about quarks and sub-atomic particles
could expand scientific knowledge – but is it really a benefit to the general
population when these theories and equipment to prove them are funded by the
taxpayer who will never see any real personal benefit. Many of the answers that
scientists would love to find, would be nice to know but not worth the money it
takes to find them (and largely irrelevant to most people).
Most of
this up to now has been about the government funding of science. This is more
about the ethical dilemmas of science. Science should not be about playing
god. Things like cloning humans (whole or partially) are morally wrong (even if
they could cure disease and a litany of medical problems). Also cloning animals
should not be done. This falls under the whole you can do it, but should you
type discussion. I do not see a good reason for it. Stem cells are a dangerous
area of work (especially considering how they are obtained). I am against using
stem cells for medical and scientific research.
I
probably covered some of this, but this will also include the arts. Science
should not be directly funded by the government unless it can be shown
practically to be in the citizens of the country’s best interest. This does not
apply to unlocking the mysteries of the universe, just research on things with
practical real world applications. Missions like the proposed NASA trip to Mars
do not fit the bill (neither do space stations nor most shuttle missions).
Now for
the arts… what should the government fund? Nothing. The arts are a private
pursuit based on the concept of beauty and message. The public government
should not set the tone for the art, neither should they fund it. So, to be
clear the US government should not fund: poetry, literature, art (painting,
sculpting, etc), theater, and music (composition, artists, etc). The government
should also not fund TV, radio, newspapers or other mass media outlets. These
should all be free market situations.
Ethics of Government Involvement and Policy Making in the Arts
I am not
really a fan of the US claiming it owns the bandwidth (over the air).
Furthermore, the government should not have the responsibility (or right) to
censor broadcasts on radio, TV or the Internet (or enact fines because of it).
It is not the federal government’s place to set a code of “decency” for the
country (and actively police it). It is not the government’s place to say what
constitutes art and determine the message it conveys. It is also not the
government’s responsibility to police information dissemination and say what is
right and wrong. This clashes with free speech considerations. The government
should never try to use the arts or broadcast stations as ways to control a
message. Broadcasting is best left to the private sector and should not be
subsidized by the government in any way.
The Media
The Media as a Propaganda Machine
One of the most important things about
the media is that they are supposed to be free and independent from the
government. I think it goes without saying, that the government should limit
its usage of the media. The government should not use the media for propaganda
purposes as it takes away commercial opportunities. The media exists as a free
enterprise service to entertain and inform people. In fact, the government
depending on a propaganda machine suggests that the government is trying to
justify a potentially horrible course of action.
As I said
above, the media should not be used as a propaganda machine. Ideally, the media
would show no bias one way or the other and just report the facts (in the
political area). However, dull facts do not generate ratings. Hard news is no
longer there (or at least an endangered species). People want to be
entertained.
A
politician can and should use the available media he can to get his/her message
across (in the form of paid advertisements). However, an elected official, like
a president, should not set up media events as a form of opinion swaying.
Things like the state of the union address are more of an advertisement (and
should have to be paid for) than a real news event. Also, do not use the media
to directly attack your opponents. The media seems to have an agenda (may
differ from outlet to outlet) and their coverage doesn’t really do anyone
favors. How about what happens in DC stays in DC, without using media to
manipulate constituents to try and force you programs through (with less
delicacy than a nuclear bomb). The media should chose when politicians are
worth covering, politicians should not solicit coverage. Obama has appeared on
TV so many times it seems, he might be on less if they gave him his own reality
show.
You may
have heard that the media has some sort of bias. Maybe it is a political bias
or a geographical bias (things do happen outside NYC and DC). As a consumer of
media entertainment, it may be helpful to know what the biases of particular
organizations have. The media, in its quest for ratings, does like to
sensationalize events and use sound bites without the correct context. Know
what the news bias is (if you still watch, listen, or surf the Internet for
news). It is nice to be able to see both sides at times. At other times, you
might find yourself rolling your eyes and wondering what the host is on. A
conservative may have as much problem watching MSNBC as a liberal does watching
Fox News. Know that you see the world through a filtered view (so does everyone
else). Don’t take everything you see on the news as facts. They may be facts
ran through a filter and reported a certain way (to inspire a certain response –
outrage, disdain, etc). You never will hear the whole story. Also try not to
fall for the cheap political theatrics.
i know that TV can be a
nice release from the constant, unrelenting barrage of reality. However, TV
should not be used as a parent. Kids should not be setting their moral compass
by whatever shows on TV are popular. TV may reflect real life somewhat, but the
filter they put it through is more fantasy. Children, inexperienced in the ways
of the world, might see something on TV and view it as acceptable behavior. I
am not saying that someone will necessarily imitate whatever they see on TV
(though some do). It is important that the child know the difference between TV
and reality (though I have always hoped reality was relative). The moral code
setting is the responsibility of the parents/guardians. TV should also be used
as a babysitter (of course I can say this because I don’t have kids). Just
putting your kids in front of the TV with whatever movies, show or video game is
not really watching them – it is more delegating the responsibility to an
electronic medium. I know people can become busy and not have time to do
everything on their list, but hopefully the parents can find time to spend with
their children.
I am not
really a fan of the FCC, at least from the potential censorship issue. I am not
a fan of censorship – especially government mandated. The networks should be
able to show whatever they see fit. Most media outfits are corporate in nature
and have the responsibility of maximizing share holder value, whatever it
takes. There is a difference between accepted standards and censorship.
Censorship through the government sets up all kinds of complicated debates about
first amendment issues and what is acceptable. But really, it shouldn’t be the
government (or any governmental agency’s) right to decide. If people do not
like what the networks are doing, they just will not watch and the sponsors will
leave.
Original Post Date: 03/20/11
No comments:
Post a Comment