"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Open science good, FOIA snooping bad.

Open science good, FOIA snooping bad. It’s not complicated. But it’s not easy.

By me, on Medium:

Keep Your Damn Lawyers Out of My Notebooks

5 comments:

Tom said...

Revised to read: Open science best, FOIA for data sadly needed at times, political requests for personal emails abhorrent and not to be tolerated.

Michael Tobis said...

FOIA is grossly inappropriate. Scientists are not government functionaries and have no power except over their students and staff.

Tom said...

FOIA serves a variety of purposes and of course can be abused. However, large institutions may serve as an impediment to the sharing of resources that should be accessible to outsiders. The legitimate use of FOIA has uncovered real problems with research that would otherwise have gone, well, not unremarked as someone had to have suspected a problem or they wouldn't have filed a FOIA request, but unresolved.

Michael Tobis said...

I don't know of any unambiguous examples of that, and even if I did, I insist that it's the wrong tool for the job.

Tom said...

What's a better one?