Correction: An Anomalous Rise in Public Knowledge
Secrecy News last week misquoted a line in President Obama’s inaugural speech. He did not say: “And those of us who manage the public’s knowledge will be held to account….” What he said was “And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account….”
The erroneous reference to “public knowledge” was also published by the Washington Post, United Press International, and other news outlets. It may have originated with a mistake by the FDCH transcription service.
The text of the inaugural address on the White House web site says “public dollars,” not “public knowledge,” and it is clear from the tape of the speech that that is correct. Thanks to reader LD for questioning the discrepancy.
There must be lots of historic events that were mistakenly transcribed and reported.
“You can’t make an anomalous rise twice,” said J. Robert Oppenheimer, according to the official record of his momentous hearing before the Atomic Energy Commission in 1954.
But what Oppenheimer actually said was “You can’t make an omelet rise twice” (as noted by Philip M. Stern). Oh well.
The Oppenheimer case is to be reviewed once again in the latest episode of PBS’s American Experience tonight.
By better harnessing the power of data, we can build a learning healthcare system where outcomes drive continuous improvement and where healthcare value leads the way.
In this unprecedented inflection point (and time of difficult disruption) for higher education, science funding, and agency structure, we have an opportunity to move beyond incremental changes and advocate for bold, new ideas that envision a future of the scientific research enterprise that looks very different from the current system.
Assigning persistent digital identifiers (Digital Object Identifiers, or DOIs) and using ORCIDs (Open Researcher and Contributor IDs) for key personnel to track outputs for research grants will improve the accountability and transparency of federal investments in research and reduce reporting burden.
Research funding agencies should apply the content of grant applications to AI tools to predict the future of scientific and technological breakthroughs, enhance peer review, and encourage better research investment decisions by both the public and the private sector.