Kanigel states that in the 1960s, the Government left scientists free to explore. Do you think this was the case? And if so, is it still the same to day? How much direction should the government provide?

On p. 131 Kanigel states that "Government support for basic research left scientists free to explore whatever they wanted, regardless of how relevant, or irrelevant, it seemed." Do you think this was the case in the 1960s? And is it still the case today? Is it productive to allow scientists the freedom to research whatever interests them? How much direction should the government provide?

I think the freedom of scientists to explore in the 60's may have been true. Only a scientist can truly answer that question. Today, my opinion is, that science is based on specific purposes and financial gain. Financial backing is needed for research so a scientist must have a end-game or the research won't come to fruition.

While scientists made enormous strides in the sixties, the research itself seemed to be based on the needs of the country, on business interests or on a group willing to explore something new. Now we have more disparate interests then in the 60s, but all require funding whether from government or private. Further, there are still issues of science that government discourages based on values. This post may be rambling, but I don’t think science is squelched as much as Kanigel states, just as it wasn’t as free as he claimed.

Yes, I think this is probably true and probably still goes onto day though there are a bit more bells and whistles that can occur with investigative reporting that can bring to like excesses, or so I believe. A recent novel, Take My Hand, by Dolen Perkins-Valdez, discusses how in 1970s Alabama young black girls were being sterilized under government auspices, I think illustrates that "stuff" happens that shouldn't. I'm all for exploring things but scientific exploration should be ethical and done for the betterment of all.

Everything today seems to be more politicized and economically motivated rather than
exploring for the sake of exploring, however, I do believe that in the past, some "experiments" were done at the sake of others well being and in that case, there should be some type of government checks and balances. It's a two edged sword.

I think that Kanigel misperceived scientific research in the 60s. Perhaps because they were exploring things less known it appeared that they were given free-rein. Knowing some friends who became research scientists in the 60s and hearing their stories gives me a totally different perception of this topic. There was certainly a focus on defense and military capabilities considering the times (think cold-war, Cuban crisis, Vietnam, etc., etc.) but there was certainly regulation and secrecy attached to those efforts. Were there reckless experiments? Yes, because they didn't realize what they were doing. There was disregard for certain societal and cultural groups and there should have been better safeguards in place to protect them from exploitation. Hopefully, we've learned from those experiences!!

I cannot knowledgeably say whether scientists were allowed to freely explore at that time. I do doubt that it was completely free exploration. I often think of the book Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton where the idea of science and scientists creating without some responsibility can lead to doing something just because you can and the consequences can be devastating.