What is the problem with modern biological sciences (and maybe also other sciences)? Well, I will tell you. They have been professionalized. And what they have lost in the process is the acadamic part of science.

Please explain: 1.) What is the problem? and 2.) what does it mean to be "professionalized" and 3.) what's the "acadamic" part of science?

Once I have a good grasp of those concepts, perhaps we can discuss the topic.

Baron Max

Most science is professionalized.. when you mean the academic part of science, are you talking about, as a hobby? As a classroom endeavor? Also, in talking about science as if professionalism and academia are different, as you seem to be doing, I ask you... are they? This post needs to be expanded upon before we can talk about it.

I think the problem with science today is that they still dont know what the best pie is. Its a shame too, as it really has evolved from a pseudoscience to a true, academic, professional study.

I agree with the first two posts

however i think the problem with biological sciences is that there is too much red tape around and scientists are too worried about offending people

Take stem-cell research as an example

To me it seems a good idea to develop cures for diseases which we can't currently tread, make paralysed people walk again and create a hear for anyone who wants a trasplant

Some people don't, maybee it is because they want to see people suffer

Take stem-cell research as an example

To me it seems a good idea....
Some people don't, ...

And there we have it, huh?

Baron Max

Could you clarify your views Baron Max

Perhaps it's better that they were "professionalized" as you say (I, personally, am using the term to refer to the concentration of "professors" on research as opposed to teaching classes). The positive aspect of it: only those truly interested in the subject would be motivated enough to learn it themselves. It would lead to students who put more effort into the field because they are interested, not because the subject is easy.

Science, as taught in a university, are both professional (usually, i.e., if they are taught by a professional or a professionally educated professor involved in research and not just a stricly academic) and academic (supplemented by readings in academic books). Of course all schools, colleges, and universities have different curriculums, emphasis, and a wide-range of different faculty members.

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "professionalized"? A professional is simply someone who is engaged in a learned profecission. Whatever, the case, professionalized or not, the biological sciences have sure resulted in unforeseen rapid scientific, bioscientific, bioengineering, technological advancements and useful applications.

Many times Colleges and Universities lead in the research and development of new ideas. So when the professors aren't doing something in their research they teach. (academics)

It has been my experience that the professors involved in research are more knowledgeable, interesting to learn from, and enligtening that those that are not. They seem to have much more to offer.

Have you ever done research?

I have and your point being?

We're currently researching the underlying cause of familial renal disease in Norwegian Elkhounds to see if it is transmitted by a recessive or dominant gene and to try and develop a genetic marker for a simple test that breeder's can use. Our current hypothesis is that it is a monogenic, autosomal dominant disease with a late onset and variable expression (age-related penetrance).

Our parent organization is now conducting a fund raising campaign in collaboration with the AKC's Canine Health Foundation. Two years ago we had a research project up-and-running at UCDavis but funds ran out. That research is currently being continued at the University in Utrech, Netherlands. We'll know if we've reached our fund raising goal after our national convention in April, and where we're going from here. My personal role right now is to help disseminate the up-to-date results and information that we have found through our previous research from the head researcher's findings and to convince breeders to contribute and also to help collect blood samples.

My own personal research also includes trying to find ways of preventing and eliminating genetically-inherited hip dyslpasia caused from excessive inbreeding.

In the past, as a TA and RA, I have worked with researchers in other fields - geography and psychology - in collecting data through compilings from government sources and, in the case of the later, through door-to-door structured personal interviews with questionnaires.

Bullshit.
There's no way that you actually work in the field of genetics.
Maybe as a secretary. Or lab monkey.

I have and your point being?

His point, dear CosmicTraveler, is that Valich has shown himself to be... not very astute (to put it mildly.) He's a google-jockey.
And now he's a liar.
There's no way that he could convince me that he has a job in the field of genetics unless he is using 'we' to indicate that he cleans the bathrooms where geneticists urinate and defecate.

Aside from the above, in every graduate course I have ever taken we are assigned "research" projects. In our current Wildlife Management Class, our group has just finished a proposed "Mountain Lion Management Plan." If you pay the cost of copying and shipping, I'll be glad to send you the finished copy.

I have and your point being?
Yes. Really. To reiterate cosmictraveler's curiosity and concern: And your point being?