The Neutrality Of Academics

The Neutrality Of Academics
2006.03.30 8:40

Kyoto University medical professor Mr Shirakawa was fired as a way of punishment from the University by accepting donation which is $450,000 worth, from a pharmaceutical company. He claims he did nothing wrong and it was lent not given to him.
I understand he's nothing wrong. Why he had to be fired? It is based on a severe misunderstanding by the University board.
Since Kyoto University had been a national University, it had been run by government fund entirely. It was only recently that the body changed from national to 'independent administrative body', it is now officially not a national but a publicly run, but it doesn't make many differences. Anyway the University has been running from public fund, not from private sectors.
So you know if public bodies accepted donations from private companies, etc. strictly speaking it is violating rules and regulations. In some cases it might be regarded a form of bribe. The University fired him for fear that the donations affect results of his study. The board thought academics has to be neutral from all sides.
The idea itself was not bad, not bad at all. But in the first place is there any academics which is far from the influence of society? I must say because the University has been funded entirely by the government, has the University done something against the policy of the government? The fact was because it was government fund, the University had done nothing against the national government.
The neutrality of academics is an illusion. Get him back to his respected position and accept donations from other companies too. That's much better to strike a balance both from public and private interests. There's no neutrality, neither public nor private.
List all Journal entries
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Neutrality Of Academics Preferences Top 4 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 4 comments 0: 4 comments 1: 4 comments 2: 2 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Public and Private(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2006.04.01 0:13 (#15033932) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2006.04.24 18:35)
There's a real risk that we lose sight of the fact that there are other legitimate interests, such as the investigation of nature or the pursuit of truth.
The pursuit of truth should count as giving purpose to the people at large, but this is a hard one to argue with the religious, for whom the greatest purpose and "truth" is given by the creator, and all else is subsiduary to that. Result: crude utilitarianism rules, since other purposes cannot compete.
To serve your fellow man is promoted above truth in a religion of love, and as the religion claims universality, none can have other priorities, unless they find their own funding. In general, serving your fellow man is a great good, but the evil is done in making that prescription universal. Nowadays, making a claim to truth that competes with God is "arrogant", vis: the debate on evolution and creationism.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org]
Re:Public and Private(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2006.04.01 4:45 (#15036304) (http://mercedo-compl.../2006/04/zen-ya.html Last Journal: 2006.04.28 3:11)
Truth is not one. Governmental people, judicial people claim they are in truth side. But I believe public side is in the first place already biased. If we were helped by only public side, and we just failed to accept donations from private side, that's the very definition of 'biased'. He was fired from this biased idea.
It is still far away for them -public people to realise they are not representing any neutral entity at all.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
[ Parent ]
Great Risk...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2006.04.01 7:30 (#15037797) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2006.04.24 18:35)
Is the politicisation of everything.
Truth (the nature of nature) can sometimes be in opposition to both the democratic will, and to capital. I would venture that this is most likely when religion is involved. It is important to remember that there are more than two sides.
You cannot achieve balance by making the private influence match the public. In fact: balance is the wrong end, as it is likely only achieveable with an equal drenching of ideas from previously identified influences.
If you're interested in truth, you want minimal influence, even if the residual influence is one-sided.
And I disagree with you: reality is singular; it is not a matter of opinion.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org]
[ Parent ]
Re:Great Risk...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2006.04.02 1:19 (#15041960) (http://mercedo-compl.../2006/04/zen-ya.html Last Journal: 2006.04.28 3:11)
Politics is a result of balancing two or more interest groups, so there's no truth can be found in politics. Yeah, that's right, yet we all are influenced from various sides at the beginning, which is just an inevitable thing.
We both are raised up in different environments. You are Briton, and I am Japanese. English is your native tongue but not mine, when I was able to handle with only my native tongue and after I learned how to read and write this universal tongue, my 'truth' has been completely different from one another.
I mean there's no general truth that penetrates my entire life. I myself have repeatedly experienced in my entire life a Copernican change or other revolutionary ones, or just a paradigm shift before and after I had religion.
We tend to evaluate almost everything from our consistency in ourselves-whether something is for or agaist our 'nature of the nature' but in the first place is there any 'nature of the nature' and is it really based on purified form of reality? In you it is singular and I am hardly imagine how reality exists in singularity since I believe there are many 'truth' according as how we were raised up, how we acquired the notion of generally acceptable common knowledge.
I believe in the first place it's irrational not to say absurd for us to position ourselves in 'neutral', since we all are biased, then my conclusion-we are in the first place 'biased' so by adopting many different sources, we can mend our biased viewpoint.
Nature of the nature is something that we can't be achievable, so it is my standpoint that we can only be achievable relative truth by accepting as many sources as possible. We cannot purify the core of nature of the nature, but can make more round sphere by acceptance, adoption, that even leads to tolerance to others and other's viewpoint. It is more preferable than the core which is something unattainable.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters