Grelinette wrote:
That said, we know that science, in its approach, has a certain logic in terms of the search for efficiency ... and (financial) returns. Besides, science is often at the service of finance. science is expensive and it has to repay investments.
In short, even if you invest, you can do so in extreme practices that optimize results and guarantee returns on investments.
As you say, "we shake the bulls to collect the sperm" (we also do it on the horses).
This is the side of the male ... but the equality of the sexes wants that we also take care of the madams, so much so go get the eggs where they are the freshest and the best of their form, their youth and their health: the embryo!
Certainly there is the argument "to have better results", but in reality the real motivation for these extreme practices is how to make the most money possible. One can debate the fact that one implies the other, but the real debate, in my opinion, is that all reflections and analyzes on the merits of a scientific practice are based primarily on the money, and this approach opens the door to all the deadly drifts.
It has been said and repeated: this is the paradigm that must be changed!
I do not disagree!
I have repeatedly underlined the problems posed by the fact that we no longer had the means to fund public research (which is not necessarily "independent" - let us not be naive; but there is nevertheless place for free researchers; what there is not in a private lab).
Changing the paradigm is something that I write (it's in my book) and that I started by practicing with writing it, in my vegetable patch.
So I'm not against it at all!
However, I always take care to denounce real things and avoid falling into an emotional communication, which very quickly leads us to the side of fake-news. And fake-news, even for a good cause, I don't believe it!