Increasingly, our culture will have to be built around maintaining elderly people whose prospects of returning to independent good health or of ever being economically productive is essentially nil. What then will be the core value of our culture?
I’m leery about the whole idea of “science communication”. While science communicators generally present themselves as educators, a lot of science communication is at least as much concerned with fostering favourable public attitudes to the quite particular private interests of professional scientists who want more funding for certain types of research, of political organisations who…
Obviously, the process by which papers are accepted or rejected by peer reviewers is all to do with scientific quality and the scientific community is built around a common understanding of what that means. Or is it?
A lawsuit claiming defamation by those who criticised a researcher’s published papers is an attempt to influence what people believe about science and must therefore be regarded as a kind of scientific literature.
Blurring the boundaries between “scientific” knowledge or discussion and knowledge or discussion generally is not an fruitful way forward for open science.