National academies can be pivotal in speaking up for science, both to those in power and to the public.
Britain's Royal Society is 350 years old this year, and its track record is one worthy of celebration. It stands today as a relatively successful model of what an independent national academy can achieve, having made itself both highly regarded in the corridors of power and prominent in public debates on major science-related issues (see pages 1002 and 1009).
Such success cannot be taken for granted. In many parts of the world, scientific academies either lack real independence from the state (as in China) or else struggle to make themselves heard within it (as in Italy). And even where academies have established an independent voice — other notable examples include those in the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden — they must still maintain the difficult balance between taking stances that are full-throated enough to make the news, yet not so rash as to tarnish their reputation for impartiality.
As the Royal Society has demonstrated, however, scientific academies able to navigate these treacherous waters can offer authoritative input on contentious public-policy issues such as climate change, or the regulation of human embryonic stem-cell research, and can thus enrich public debate by ensuring that science is properly heard.
...
+++++
NOTA CAUSTICANTE DESTE BLOGGER:
Foram várias as fraudes perpetradas por membros de sociedades acadêmicas que levaram várias décadas para serem denuciadas e serem devidamente reconhecidas.
Do jeito que a Nature quer é uma ditadura da Nomenklatura científica sobre todas as sociedades. Isso é muito perigoso e é preciso se rebelar contra essas articulações escravizando a sociedade a um grupo supostamente iluminado. Vade retro, Lucífer!!!
Hay Nomenklatura científica, soy contra!!!
+++++
Vote neste blog para o prêmio TOPBLOG 2010.
Hay Nomenklatura científica, soy contra!!!
+++++
Vote neste blog para o prêmio TOPBLOG 2010.
