mercedo's Journal: The Neutrality Of Academics

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.

Public and Private

[Morosoph]

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

Re:Public and Private

[mercedo]

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.

Great Risk...

[Morosoph]

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 inte

Re:Great Risk...

[mercedo]

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 differen