Salaries of Scientists Drop
earle.jones at comcast.net
Sat Dec 20 15:27:47 EST 2003
In article <sXREb.2006$IM3.1597 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Noelie S. Alito" <noelie at deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:bs0cvp$86a3o$1 at ID-117948.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Dag Stenberg" <dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:brshok$b5e$1 at oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> > > In bionet.neuroscience dkomo <dkomo at concentric.net> wrote:
> > > > jsp wrote:
> > > >> During the past two years, the salaries of
> > > >> most scientists have decreased significantly.
> > > >> See
> > > >> http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/sciencesalaries.html
> > >
> > > We were never in it primarily for the salary anyway.
> > Yeah, we know: The big money is in reselling lab
> > equipment and supplies.
> The big-'profits' are in creating artificial stimulus-response
> situations re. 'drug' use.
> It's also an ab-use of everything that Neuroscience is.
> The 'profit'-seekers 'just' hijack our Science.
> It's been so curious to me that no one speaks-out
> against such.
> It's exactly analogous to any run-of-the-mill
> organized crime, after all.
> The 'silence' that's prevailed speaks volumes
> with respect to the coercive dynamics that
> are in-place.
> All the more reason to stand-against-it.
Perhaps I missed an earlier post of yours, but what I read above is
difficult to understand. Would you please expand on what it is you are
trying to say?
For example, you say "The big-'profits' are in creating artificial
stimulus-response situations re. 'drug' use."
Are you talking about companies like Eli Lilly, Bayer, Syntex, Hoffman,
etc. -- the big drug companies?
And your last line, "All the more reason to stand-against-it". Stand
More information about the Neur-sci