Science and democracy

Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Robert Cook-Deegan

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Susan M. Fitzpatrick and Robert Cook-Deegan critically review an article by Donna Gerardi Riordan titled, 'Research Funding via Direct Democracy: Is It Good for Science?'. The language used to sell Proposition 71 promises more than science can hope to deliver. Concluding a public referendum on a complicated issue fraught with scientific, ethical, legal, and social controversies should not be misinterpreted as giving people a voice. Given the forced choice of Proposition 71, a majority of the citizens of believing California money could accelerate the alchemic process whereby basic research yields medical treatments, voted to cure diabetes and defeat Alzheimer's. Attention may now turn to the serious coordination problem that follows from state research programs. The need for federal funding is arguably reduced in scientific areas where states and other countries have stepped in. Riordan focuses on the results of insulating the program from conventional state legislative and executive processes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)19-20
Number of pages2
JournalIssues in Science and Technology
Volume25
Issue number1
StatePublished - Sep 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

funding
democracy
direct democracy
basic research
referendum
science
physician's care
chronic illness
money
citizen
language

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General

Cite this

Science and democracy. / Fitzpatrick, Susan M.; Cook-Deegan, Robert.

In: Issues in Science and Technology, Vol. 25, No. 1, 09.2008, p. 19-20.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Fitzpatrick, SM & Cook-Deegan, R 2008, 'Science and democracy', Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 19-20.
Fitzpatrick, Susan M. ; Cook-Deegan, Robert. / Science and democracy. In: Issues in Science and Technology. 2008 ; Vol. 25, No. 1. pp. 19-20.
@article{22c2cab5813b4cdebb05cf8bad9bc362,
title = "Science and democracy",
abstract = "Susan M. Fitzpatrick and Robert Cook-Deegan critically review an article by Donna Gerardi Riordan titled, 'Research Funding via Direct Democracy: Is It Good for Science?'. The language used to sell Proposition 71 promises more than science can hope to deliver. Concluding a public referendum on a complicated issue fraught with scientific, ethical, legal, and social controversies should not be misinterpreted as giving people a voice. Given the forced choice of Proposition 71, a majority of the citizens of believing California money could accelerate the alchemic process whereby basic research yields medical treatments, voted to cure diabetes and defeat Alzheimer's. Attention may now turn to the serious coordination problem that follows from state research programs. The need for federal funding is arguably reduced in scientific areas where states and other countries have stepped in. Riordan focuses on the results of insulating the program from conventional state legislative and executive processes.",
author = "Fitzpatrick, {Susan M.} and Robert Cook-Deegan",
year = "2008",
month = "9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "19--20",
journal = "Issues in Science and Technology",
issn = "0748-5492",
publisher = "University of Texas at Dallas",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Science and democracy

AU - Fitzpatrick, Susan M.

AU - Cook-Deegan, Robert

PY - 2008/9

Y1 - 2008/9

N2 - Susan M. Fitzpatrick and Robert Cook-Deegan critically review an article by Donna Gerardi Riordan titled, 'Research Funding via Direct Democracy: Is It Good for Science?'. The language used to sell Proposition 71 promises more than science can hope to deliver. Concluding a public referendum on a complicated issue fraught with scientific, ethical, legal, and social controversies should not be misinterpreted as giving people a voice. Given the forced choice of Proposition 71, a majority of the citizens of believing California money could accelerate the alchemic process whereby basic research yields medical treatments, voted to cure diabetes and defeat Alzheimer's. Attention may now turn to the serious coordination problem that follows from state research programs. The need for federal funding is arguably reduced in scientific areas where states and other countries have stepped in. Riordan focuses on the results of insulating the program from conventional state legislative and executive processes.

AB - Susan M. Fitzpatrick and Robert Cook-Deegan critically review an article by Donna Gerardi Riordan titled, 'Research Funding via Direct Democracy: Is It Good for Science?'. The language used to sell Proposition 71 promises more than science can hope to deliver. Concluding a public referendum on a complicated issue fraught with scientific, ethical, legal, and social controversies should not be misinterpreted as giving people a voice. Given the forced choice of Proposition 71, a majority of the citizens of believing California money could accelerate the alchemic process whereby basic research yields medical treatments, voted to cure diabetes and defeat Alzheimer's. Attention may now turn to the serious coordination problem that follows from state research programs. The need for federal funding is arguably reduced in scientific areas where states and other countries have stepped in. Riordan focuses on the results of insulating the program from conventional state legislative and executive processes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=53849136605&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=53849136605&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:53849136605

VL - 25

SP - 19

EP - 20

JO - Issues in Science and Technology

JF - Issues in Science and Technology

SN - 0748-5492

IS - 1

ER -