In my mind, this shifts the context from the purely scientific to (broadly) a social one; specifically, economic and political. Which is disquieting, for various reasons. While I think it naive to hold the romantic notion that all knowledge workers are men and women dedicated to the pursuit of truth, surely a substantial sub-set are as such; or at least that is how they begin their life journey. But outside of certain fields -- notably software/computer science -- it is simply not possible to pursue one's interests without recourse to resources that (to date) can (and have) only be(en) furnished by interests managing concentration of power e.g. state or capital. And the utility of these resources entail bondage (in the sense of curtailment of choice or perhaps more critically, voice) in one form or another. I further believe (and may be wrong) that the certain boldness (or recklessness, as you prefer) that seems to be the prerequisite of figuratively sticking one's neck out in these matters is somewhat at odds with the character of the personality types that pursue sciences. (One tragic case to the contrary that comes to mind is Galois -- and that is hardly a comforting precedent for those who came after him.) This leaves the stage to the marginalized, or perhaps the unhinged, individuals which in effect have 'nothing to lose'. Hardly a comforting thought. You mentioned LUA. A possibly viable (?) critique that can be directed at the scientific community in this regard by the outsiders is that such formulations, while logically rigorous, beg a social context that is hardly in evidence -- see above -- and are merely self serving formulations that provide the proverbial fig leaf for the scientific and technical community. Such a critique was violently expressed in our own time: http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~jr/gif/phys/kaczynski.jpg Earlier I had posted a thoughtful article by a very thoughtful, intelligent, talented, and sensitive individual: David Gelernter. That posting was certainly not by design, but I could hardly continue in this posting without introducing these two individuals in this conversation. (Believe me, I hesitated and still wonder if it is reckless of me to do so.) Let us assume as given that Kaczynski is in fact an unhinged personality. Clearly he was (and apparently remains) criminally minded. Do you believe him to be an exceptional instance? (Apparently to date he has a devout following who correspond with him and the man continues to publish.) Are we to leave the stage empty for such as him? That seems hardly responsible. Outside of these human considerations, the other aspect of this issue which is deeply troubling is a purely scientific one: we are now, most definitely, at the cusp of having the technology to enable inescapable bondage. LUA is of little comfort when the very minds that can (and would) object to gross violations may themselves be held captive. Perhaps the above paragraph is overly alarming (for today) but surely not by mid century? Looking back at the amazing trajectory of technology in the last 100+ years, I am fully expecting wonders bordering on magic in the coming decades. That we are fully surveilled today is nearly a given. At some point action with follow observation. I do not wish such a future for mine and your children. We currently have organizations such as UCS (http://www.ucsusa.org/). I believe we need more such organizations to counter the above mentioned concentrations and afford the current and future generations of scientists and technologist the social and institutional protection so that formulations such as LUA have factual basis are not left to the devices of "democratic" and "lawful" institutions and norms (which may in fact be merely theatrical productions) http://www.jimmywinokur.com/ImagesFromAgora/Jewish/Oppenheim... http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/goldberg/2009/04/1...
There's little doubt about that. Science needs money, and the system that distributes it needs improvement. It is not an easy time to be a early career scientist in the US. Science funding is at a low-point. For better or worse, US science funding has lost its ride on nationalism's back. Now it's fixed to the pariah of 'big government' taxation. >I further believe (and may be wrong) that the certain boldness (or recklessness, as you prefer) that seems to be the prerequisite of figuratively sticking one's neck out in these matters is somewhat at odds with the character of the personality types that pursue sciences. Not sure there. I know some good bold scientists. But when compared to a field like finance, you might be right. >We currently have organizations such as UCS (http://www.ucsusa.org/). I believe we need more such organizations to counter the above mentioned concentrations and afford the current and future generations of scientists and technologist the social and institutional protection so that formulations such as LUA have factual basis are not left to the devices of "democratic" and "lawful" institutions and norms (which may in fact be merely theatrical productions) Amen to that. But, I think the real solution is finding a new blood-boiling partner for science. Space exploration is the least-destructive and most inspiring I can think of.
What I meant specifically was that science (non-profit basic science) needs to become the champion of a (perceived) noble cause if it is to be welcomed again to the table. The advancement of human knowledge and understanding unlocks our potential, and at its root, science is human. But like all things that depend upon a general consensus and shared value, scientists could do much to publicly pursue and share knowledge about that which inspires us most. Personally, I'd prefer the shared discovery of space to nationalistic fervor.