Most Helpful Customer Reviews
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Riddled with mistakes and flawed arguments but an interesting contribution to the debate, 18 April 2009
This book builds upon the authors previous work looking at how science is funded. The author is the vice-chancellor of Buckingham University one of the very few private universities in the UK. So as you would expect given this position his argument is that science is better funded privately than by public funds.
His presentation is very biased and there are numerous mistakes in the text and in the facts and examples he uses. His worst mistake is confusing science with technology as applied science is something very different to the theory, but he is right in some cases that theory follows practice rather than the other way around as contended by governments. He is also right that funding academic science often gives poor results compared to industrial funding but that is the nature of academia which is much less focused especially towards short term goals.
So in the end I think he provides an interesting set of opinions and with more careful presentation of the facts and less emphasis on trying to sell the book (sex has nothing to do with it except for some very tangential and artificial points) then he might find more supporters for his argument.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not quite what it seems, 16 Aug 2009
I like reading about sex, have a passing interest in science, and who doesn't like to turn a profit now and then? So I thought this might be a book for me. Turned out to be a long tract against the public funding of scientific research and in praise of private and voluntary funding of R&D. It asserts the primacy of technology over 'pure' science, the victory of Adam Smith over Francis Bacon. No sex then, but I read it through to the end anyway. The romp through the history of science (from prehistory to modern times), and the funding of science in particular, was entertaining enough. Other reviewers, no doubt more erudite than me, have said that Kealey's arguments are flawed, and that many of his facts are not in fact facts. I even spotted one or two mistakes myself, which does suggest that those other reviewers are right. Never mind; this was an interesting book. Am I wiser and better informed for having read it? Who knows? How many stars will I give it? Well, no-one else has given it three, so here goes...
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A disappointing and frustrating book, 28 Jan 2009
One starts this book thinking it will be a well researched and well argued historical analysis, but soon it becomes apparent the author is more interested in pushing his views that private enterprise is good and government action bad. That would be acceptable were it not for the fact that he skews the evidence, ignores or minimises those items that would undermine his cause and avoids difficult questions.
For example, the author praises the rise of the Dutch Republic in the 17th century as an example of the success of laissez faire policies, but the Dutch decline through the 18th century is dismissed as "they were invaded". True, but not till 1795, by which time the Dutch Republic was a shadow of its former self. As the Dutch had followed the same laissez faire policies through the 18th century decline, it would have been interesting to analyse why the results were so different during the second hundred years. No such luck though.
The credit crunch inevitably causes some of the assumptions the author is working with to be more critically examined, and that too undermines his approach
I would have welcomed a thorough analysis of science and markets, this book though isn't that.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|