I do agree with the last thing, 'eureka' moments are saved to optimize benefits, and monetize protocols and systems, as opposed to simply sharing to optimize society. Like the DSM IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders- that should be free. That's the standard by which all professional use to determine interventions. There is lots of technology at this point should simply be public domain because society can't function without said tech.

'This is a big problem with scientists...' I am struggling with this one, but not dismissing your point- and I wonder if I made statements in this that need refinement. So, for example. I think there are arguments for atheism. Some of the strongest arguments in defense of atheism today is just look at the state of Christianity and Islam... Christianity has calmed down in its old age, but it was brutal. Not too many Tibetan Monks warring. If Communism supports atheism, then atheism has not promoted more human kindness- again, measured by the exodus of monks. Heck, the monks don't even want to kill worms...

There are arguments for each religion. there are scientist that are religious. There are scientist that are not. I read something today, where a journalist said 'I believe in science, so I am atheist...' and that was all it took for me to rant this thing out. :)

Oh, my friend, I do hope that most will find there is evidence for more, and if we actually employed science as it was intended- the evidence would be compelling... But then, would they have to hold back on eureka? If hell was the church's method for controlling the masses, is death academia's method for control?

As always, thank you dialoguing with me and provoking me into thinking better.