Talk:History of science policy

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Policy Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

User:JackyR and others have compiled some preliminary notes for building this article: User:JackyR/Funding of science

Hello, I've started adding some meat on the bones. It might be biased towards recent stuff (and away from the Mode 2/Triple Helix kerfuffle) because of the nature of my work, but I think the structure is sound.--Dagonz 09:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global science funding

Anybody aware of a global list of science funding per capita?--Cogsys 00:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Science funding - neutrality

During some investigation I did on Passive Smoking, I came across some information that may be relivant for this section. There would appear to be a strong link between sponsorship of research projects and business. With regards tobocco companies, they have funded research into discrediting anti-smoking research. On the flip side, the drugs companies are providing funding for research to prove the dangers of smoking. Tobacco companies and drugs companies are in direct competition in that they are both fighting for a market for the delivery of nicotine either via smoking or via Nicotine Replacement Therapy. I would assume that much of the funding of science into controvertial subjects such as this would share a similar profit motive.

I'm not sure if any feels that this subject should be investigated further for this section. Heres the section where I first discussed this Talk:Passive smoking#Research Sponsorship Munta 12:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a study in the news in the last week or two on the bias produced by who the funder is. That'd probably be good to include.--Cogsys 12:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I have moved this article from Funding of science to History of science policy since that title better describes the article content. Antony–22 (^talk/_contribs) 05:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of science policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912083212/http://webcast.rice.edu/speeches/19620912kennedy.html to http://webcast.rice.edu/speeches/19620912kennedy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]