Seeing Red

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Does our resident astronomer consider this proposal too drastic?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Something like that has been tried. 15% of the time on certain major telescopes was reserved for special projects by astronomers in the host countries. But somebody still had to decide which proposals were the most worthy, and mainstream criteria were used in making those decisions. I fear it would be the same for deciding which amateurs got the time. -|Tom|-

Tom,

While not good would that still be better than amatuers getting no time?

I guess the key then is to make sure the astronomers aren't allowed to do the picking and choosing. Put all the proposals on a list and treat it like the Lotto.

You guys are opening a new can of worms not related to science here. The use of time and money are management problems not science issues.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
You guys are opening a new can of worms not related to science here. The use of time and money are management problems not science issues.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This IS related to science and the practice of it. How science conducts itself is intimately related to how it progresses in general. If scientists themselves face no public review then all you have is a modern version of the nobility.

Anything can be related to science but getting into debates on matters like how money and such is used is not science.