I feel compelled to point out that Mr. Lamb's pledge appears to demand that large chunks of public decision-making--essentially every decision affecting human life, human quality of life, or the environment, given the ubiquity of science--be made without regard to either values, ethics, or morality (as each tends to be rooted in religious belief) or to relative costs versus benefits (as we tend to like to push the costs to businesses). That strikes me as a pretty terrible approach.

I have to be honest - I would very much prefer that no one in D.C. did anything with science, except to end any experiments that are explicitly in violation of someone else's civil liberties (i.e. instances where someone was imposed upon without giving consent). End all public funding for science, and allow the private marketplace to take over.

Which one of you is sarcastic and which one isn't? It's so hard to get this one the internet without the appropriate sarcasm tags on.

@3 I'm with you there, if read sincerely my mind boggles!!

@1 "values, ethics, or morality (as each tends to be rooted in religious belief)" I have these. They are certainly not rooted in religious belief. In fact looking at history when applying the different flavours of 'faith' they tend to apply massive blinkers to these traits. Most of our most horrifying atrocities are commited in the name of faith.

@2. One point really. Pharamaceutical companies.

Whilst British, Im all up for more weight on the pursuit of science for the pro reasons in this article. With knowledge we can make informed decisions, and sciences gives us both the knowledge and the possibility of enabling this knowledge. Quite frankly since the industrial revolution and the boom of science (if you will) we have only skimmed the surface, ignoring the most basic prinicple of cause and effect! Like children with a new toy. Now its time to grow up, look deeper, and find ways to clean up our mess.

Governments have a good reason to fund science because what they support doesn't have to be directly useful as a product. Their funding advances human knowledge, but doesn't generally abandon it if it does not appear to be a profitable line of research like a private business would.

Comments 1 & 2 are some of the most bombastic and unexamined claims that I have come across in awhile.

@1-See pretty much most of the philosophical tradition. You will find many philosophers make excellent arguments for morality that do not require religion. Also see evolutionary biologists, who make some pretty good arguments also.

@2-Unless you are the reincarnation of Adam Smith, don't even pretend that you actually understand all the implications of making science only private sector. Sometimes it works (space travel) but we know it also doesn't (as someone already pointed out, pharmecutical companies). There is no simple private/public sector solution to increasing scientific research, so don't pretend like you have seen the future and can solve the problem with a metaphorical wave of the hand.

While I agree that some basic science can be supported by the government, I don't really want the government paying unless there is a specific, and beneficial, goal. I love learning but we need to maximize the utility of our limited resources. Not that pure science doesn't have utility, but not all of it is worth funding, given that the money has to come from somewhere.

I also agree with Herb1. To me, pure scientific decision making is tyranny of the worst kind --- well-intentioned.

Finally, science as a seemless web??? The linked article is interesting, but not all that conclusive. It's also from 1971.

I was unclear and hadn't logged in and so can't edit. I'm fine with basic research to a point. We need it and there's no easy way to get it. But there's a limit. I am most certainly not against more research, far from it.

(As a graduate student, research may be frustrating but is definitely a good thing.)

I'm for this in wide principle but it would fail in the narrow parts. It ignores the very real problems that occur when science becomes politicized. Pure scientific inquiry is already put in jeopardy when it has to compete for funding. Especially since that funding is decided by flawed human beings.

thanks, @images8dream, for putting into words what i could only shake my head in dismay over.

It sounds great, as long as you don't dig into it too much. You can't really separate science from business or partisan concerns, in many cases.

For example, we have the technology to replace every car with an electric car, and replace all fossil fuel-burning power plants with hydroelectric plants, wave energy generator farms, solar-thermal collector fields, small photovoltaic systems, wind farms, and (until those methods are improved) modern mini-nuclear reactors. Not the 50's-era breeder reactors that were meant to make weapons-grade uranium or plutonium (e.g. the plants at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima Daiichi), mind you, I'm talking the new ones that can run at a much lower temperature on what we call spent fuel rods.

So not only would we drastically reduce pollution and greenhouse gas output, but instead of pumping a billion dollars a day into the Middle East just for oil, we could start exporting it. Replace every gas appliance with electric and let's export natural gas, too. Further, geothermal heat pumps can drastically reduce demand for electricity meant for heating and cooling.

Obviously, though, this won't happen any time soon.

Scientific Materialism is, in the final analysis, merely another cult.

I could go on a rant over science getting unfairly targeted again and again but I wouldn't be saying anything new. So let me talk about an aspect of science that one cannot quantify on a spread sheet. Inspiration or just a sense of wonder. This aspect, this product, of science doesn't happen all the time - generations have passed between events in the past - but within our current time we've been spoiled by it seeming to happen regularly.

Today we think nothing of seeing an airplane flying over our city. There was a time when an airplane passing over a city would bring all activity to a standstill because people had to see the marvel of a man flying. Taken as mechanical routine today, in the early days aviation was seen as the sport of daredevils. That's a fitting term for those who chose to defy the will of God. (If God had intended Man to...) And, while we think of aviation as an engineering feat, the secret of flight and developments in flight came about through controlled application of scientific methods. (Maybe not always controlled - air racing was fun.) And aviation brought about many changes to our culture and lifestyle.

Today we are living in another period of awe and wonder. The various space telescopes are showing us wonders that we couldn't have imagined them before we saw them. People are looking at these images and reflecting upon them. Some point to them as proof of God. Some would disagree. What is important is that people are looking at them and thinking. Some kids are getting inspired to get into the sciences. That's always a good thing.

But, could the growing tide against science also be a good thing? Or, at least a necessary thing? Could we be playing with fire around another keg of powder like the revelation that the Earth was not the center of the universe? From today's prospective it seems silly to think of suppressing such knowledge but try to think of the question from their point of view. Most people believed what thair forefathers had believed for as far back as anyone could remember. Their beliefs were strong and would be strongly defended. Could uncontrolled flow of that information have led to strife and warfare between believers and non-believers? Did the church do civilization a favor? Who really knows. Though it is worth thinking about.

Today we are probing all extremes of our physical world and universe. We are mapping DNA and we are mapping the locations of planets in the cosmos. What breakthroughs are we nearing? What powder kegs are we playing around?

While I believe that too many have corrupted religion for personal or political gain, I also believe that religion or spirituality plays an important part in our continued growth as a species. The scientists, the engineers and the alchemists give us that sense of awe while the priests, clerics and wisemen give us a sense of caution. At least, that's that way I feel it should be, but I see us letting it fall out of balance.

Okay. So maybe I did get into a bit of a rant. Well. This issue is too big for a sound bite ot twitter response.

Why do so many not openly value science?

Almost everyone on Earth cannot open their eyes without seeing the results of what science has developed, nor can we live without it.

Science today is in essence fundamental to human developement and survival, how can anyone not greatly value science?

Science: "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". Isn't that what we humans have been doing for the past thousands of years.

Denying science is denying what it is to be human!

Denying science is denying what it is to be human!

In a way I think that's the point. Some people have particular beliefs about "being human" means, and can't tolerate any challenges to those beliefs. Even acknowledging the existence of different beliefs can be one of those intolerable challenges (see "heresy", "infidel", etc.).

I don't think there's a country on Earth where you'd be able to get even a significant minority of people to sign on to the basic principles of this pledge. But maybe I'm wrong? I hope so.

@Herb1:

Actually, the pledge says "science should be pursued" regardless of other factors, not that decisions should be made regardless of other factors. Science is a way of finding things out, not a particular set of decisions.

Also, you seem to imply that there can be no morality without religion, which is plainly false, as well as insulting. In fact, many countries with largely secular populations (in Europe) have lower crime rates than the more religious U.S.

This may be due to other factors - but clearly their lack of religion has not led to everyone lacking morality or whatever.

Also, the real-world problem we have is business externalizing their costs onto everyone else, through disregarding their impact on the environment for example. This is because money can be used to gain great political influence. Which in turn makes it possible to make more money, sometimes without even doing anything productive or useful, and the cycle continues.