Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

GPR- Final presentation

Is science too competitive to be trusted?
by

Sean Barlow

on 4 May 2010

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of GPR- Final presentation

Is Science too competitive to be trusted? Yes Science is too competitive to be fair I drew this question from document 2 , in paragraph 4:
'science is too competitive to spend time raking over old results Introduction Growing number of competitions
International by scale
Massive implications on the world of science 'Most new drugs on the market offer no therapeutic gain over existing products' Standards of the industry are being lowered
Massive economic implications
Too worried about making a profit- Price competition
Joel Lexchin-Trusted Behind President Bush’s recently announced competitiveness initiative are statistics that predict China—with India in tow—will overtake the US in science’ Competition is negative in some leading countries
Based on reliable scientific advances and projects
Western world is too competitive but the eastern world isn't Seed Magazine- Trusted but unreliable It is fundamental science that lays the long-term foundations for innovation and prosperity.’ Good to encourage new breakthroughs but has a negative effect on 'simple science'
Scientists are trying to chase the 'big money' dream
Not as accurate as it could be CERN Magazine-Trusted No Science is not too competitive to be fair Seed Magazine-Trusted but
unreliable The scientific community is a fine example of survival of the fittest - only a select few have the attributes to be successful scientists do not need competitions to become better scientists
not much competition between the scientists
Only the best scientists make it to the top
Lablit website, article by Alexis Barr- Tursted The US are leading the rankings in percentage of papers among the top one percent This shows that competitive countries have won
This again reinforces that quality and the competition isn’t directly linked
Are countries like China too laid back with certain aspects of science?
Thomson ISI- Trusted Conclusion:
Competition is good to some extent
Countries behind on science can benefit more from competition
Overall science isn't too competitive too be trusted Bibliography:
CMAJ- Medical website http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/8/1120
Seed Magazine http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/chinas_competitive_edge/
National youth development trust http://www.nydt.org/home.asp?pid=765
Seed Magazine
http://seedmagazine.com/place/
Alexis Barr
http://www.lablit.com/article/501
CERN website
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/About/BasicScience-en.html
Thomson ISI Survey

Full transcript