Martin makes some interesting observations in his article. I must say that I agree with his belief that the vast majority of research is channeled toward specific goals and those goals are not necessarily best for the masses. The goal of corporations is profit and in being so their research must produce results. Their stockholders demand it. This model is a working one. It gets things done though it may not be the best model available. I think what Martin is striving for is public participation in the research process and the sharing of research information. Martin pointed out that corporate funded labs may, at times, be funded in one area and inadvertently stumble across an advancement in an unrelated area. What happens to that information? It is used or NOT used in the pursuit of profit. Who knows the cure for HIV may be locked away in some corporate vault while they make countless millions on pharmaceuticals. Weāll never know. Unfortunately the corporations fund the research and they own the information. They aināt giving it up so āforgetaboutit!ā Government research is funded with taxpayer dollars so it is possible to make headway in this area. Martinās opinion of disciplines and experts is a little ridiculous. I donāt know about you but I donāt want any uncredentialed doctors advice. Nor would I want an unlicensed engineer anywhere near my house. The process of education and credentialing is used to set a minimum standard of expertise. We all relay of the fact that the people we interact with are competent in their field. Credentialing doesnāt always ensure this but, hell you gota start somewhere so stop hatting Martin.
