Several former top heads of various US science agencies are
proposing the creation of an integrated overall Earth Sciences
agency. In particular they want to merge NOAA and the Geological
Survey, with much closer collaboration with several additional
agencies.
And the combined agency would provide a strong group on behalf
of science, he said, working in collaboration with the National
Science Foundation, NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency,
Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy and National
Institutes of Health.ed.z.: I would be against it, I would
rather keep seeing different groups of people studying similar
problems to see if their results and recommendations jibe with
each other. Yes, it is duplication of effort in a lot of cases,
but this is research that leads to policy, the policy and
implementation part costs 10 or 100 or 1000 times as much as the
basic research, so it is important to get it right this first
time, and the only way you can do that is to make sure it
doesn't all come from the same place with one overall
political appointee "head honcho" guy signing off on
the reports. We've already seen what political motivation can
do, so we need all the scientific "biodiversity" we can
get. I see where they are coming from, and I can see that it
makes some sense from their perspective, but looking from the
outside back in at them, those guys can't see the problems
that such an overall single agency can come up with it.
Sometimes, bigger is just not *better*. What has reinvigorated
man in space more lately, another space shuttle launch, or a
dozen companies all going into space with private research and
interests? Who is really coming up with revolutionary car design,
any of the entrenched Detroit big three, or a few dozen smaller
wild eyed dreamer "dare to be actually great" small
companies? What has revolutionized software and computers, the
same big mainframe corporations from the 50s and a few closed
source operating systems, or hundreds of companies making
computers by the millions yearly and the ability to actually
craft your own personal operating system for cheap or free due to
the work of hundreds of thousands of widely distributed and
enthusiastic "wild eyed dreamer" programmers who got
tired of shelling out the big bucks for bits of code and waiting
in line at some dumb terminal? Ya, in the business world
consolidation is still king, but is it always such a good idea?
YMMV, I am sure there are any number of good arguments for the
creation of the agency as well, I just can't think of many
that would negate the detriments.
I'd link to the actual letter and proposal, but it is closed
source, pay per view, and the summary says not much at all.
Despite all the gents involved with this proposal being past or
present tax payer very well paid guys and them talking about tax
payer paid stuff that is going to be expensive, this article at
Sciencemag is off limits unless you pay for it. That's just
annoying in this case.
While it looks like there are some good people behind the idea...
I am scared of some 24-year-old young-earth-creationist press
officer, representing this super-agency, deciding whether data is
"on message".
Also, I loves my NOAA the way it is.
(Also embarrassed for MSNBC... Using the prefix
"uber" is so 1996.)
I think it may cause libertarians' heads to explode, but I
have to make a case for bureaucracies here. Bureaucracies
aren't necessarily bad, particularly in the context of career
civil service. Those guys are an asset to a society. I've
admired NOAA, in particular, because of their resistance to
corporate forces like weather.com and accuweather - forces which
periodically try to lock up data from taxpayer-funded research.
Every few years, they try to make the case that NOAA
shouldn't be in the business of running public ftp servers,
and should instead let them be gatekeepers. NOAA rocks for
fighting the bastards, and (pretty much) keeping up with
technology to distribute raw data.
My guess is that the bureaucrats of the other Earth-science
agencies want a bigger piece of the cornucopia of pull and
funding that the Federal global-warming apparatus is destined to
become.
Proposal to Create a Super Earth Science Agency
Several former top heads of various US science agencies are proposing the creation of an integrated overall Earth Sciences agency. In particular they want to merge NOAA and the Geological Survey, with much closer collaboration with several additional agencies.
And the combined agency would provide a strong group on behalf of science, he said, working in collaboration with the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy and National Institutes of Health.ed.z.: I would be against it, I would rather keep seeing different groups of people studying similar problems to see if their results and recommendations jibe with each other. Yes, it is duplication of effort in a lot of cases, but this is research that leads to policy, the policy and implementation part costs 10 or 100 or 1000 times as much as the basic research, so it is important to get it right this first time, and the only way you can do that is to make sure it doesn't all come from the same place with one overall political appointee "head honcho" guy signing off on the reports. We've already seen what political motivation can do, so we need all the scientific "biodiversity" we can get. I see where they are coming from, and I can see that it makes some sense from their perspective, but looking from the outside back in at them, those guys can't see the problems that such an overall single agency can come up with it. Sometimes, bigger is just not *better*. What has reinvigorated man in space more lately, another space shuttle launch, or a dozen companies all going into space with private research and interests? Who is really coming up with revolutionary car design, any of the entrenched Detroit big three, or a few dozen smaller wild eyed dreamer "dare to be actually great" small companies? What has revolutionized software and computers, the same big mainframe corporations from the 50s and a few closed source operating systems, or hundreds of companies making computers by the millions yearly and the ability to actually craft your own personal operating system for cheap or free due to the work of hundreds of thousands of widely distributed and enthusiastic "wild eyed dreamer" programmers who got tired of shelling out the big bucks for bits of code and waiting in line at some dumb terminal? Ya, in the business world consolidation is still king, but is it always such a good idea? YMMV, I am sure there are any number of good arguments for the creation of the agency as well, I just can't think of many that would negate the detriments.
I'd link to the actual letter and proposal, but it is closed source, pay per view, and the summary says not much at all. Despite all the gents involved with this proposal being past or present tax payer very well paid guys and them talking about tax payer paid stuff that is going to be expensive, this article at Sciencemag is off limits unless you pay for it. That's just annoying in this case.