A comment on Gentlemen’s rules are out, scientists: it’s time to unleash the beast

As others pointed out, this is a good article but for the unecessary and inaccurate statement "This is not blue sky research, not theoretical explorations at the edges of science, but health and medical research. Could any science be more obviously in the public interest?"

One particular example, that is so much more in the public interest than medical research is the issue of climate change - if we stuff up the environment of our planet enough we won't have to worry about medical research! Or we will have to worry a great deal more.

As an aside, the growing stranglehold that the self-serving medical research establishment has on funding is exemplified by their arrogance in having a website called just Research Australia (http://researchaustralia.org/). By highjacking the name "Research Australia" together with their narrow vision "a national not-for-profit alliance of organisations and companies that are committed to making health research a higher national priority" it implies that medical research is the only kind of research that should be prioritised! Shouldn't it be called Medical Research Australia or Health Research Australia?

I would also strongly disagree with Will that "Medical research is, however, the issue of the day". I would venture that the investigating and ensuring the health of our planet as exemplified by climate change research and the development of sustainable technologies are the issues of the day. Without a planet that can support our way of life we cannot support our life!

A comment on The perseverance of the nation-state

 A comment on the article The perseverance of the nation-state by by willjgrant which advocates for the persistence, in terms of relevance, of the nation-state.

I'm a little short on time so just a brief comment without any supporting references. More of a gut feeling I suppose. Talking just about city-states or nation-states or multi-national-entities (corporations?) I think is too simplistic. Think of each of these entities (and they are dynamic rather than static) as interacting actors in an environment. Depending on the scales, interaction & actors being talked about, there will be different social, legal, physical and practical issues that are relevant. In a sense, I think, each of us are city-states (or nation-states) in microcosm. In terms of the issues we have, we have wants and needs - how to define the distinction is a fun exercise. I don't see we can ever satisfy all wants - possibly most of all needs - but at the very least we can hope to balance the issues important to all of the actors. Of course, being a biased human entity, I would think that entities such as people and collections of people are more important than legal and corporate entities. Of course, there are issues about the needs of the individual versus the needs of the many  - Spock versus Kirk dilemma - (Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan) - but one would hope we can - especially in the era of social media - make sure that everyone has a continuing voice. Whether we listen and understand and act is another question!
P.S. Of course I have used one supporting reference above - beam me up Scotty!