Slashdot Mirror

The problem with anecdotal evidence, is that people arguing the exact opposite point can pull out a dozen examples too. In this article John Derbyshire pulls out a dozen examples of why Obama is trying to kill science in the United States. It's not convincing to anyone who knows about National Lab Day, Educate to Innovate STEM initiative, Computer Science Week, data.gov, and the Policy Forum on Public Access to Federally Funded Research... but this is all anecdotal too, a better resource would be an overview of all the projects being funded by the stimulus package or trends in government funding of scientific research.

However, I do completely agree that Tyson is being unfair to the American government. In fact, this is the same guy who previously argued Republicans were doing a great job of funding American science. The real issue here, and the one we are dealing with most in computer science, is American Culture's antipathy and outright contempt for science and academia. Kids aren't going into Computer Science, Physics, Chemistry, etc, because they are afraid of being associated with "geeks." The kids all want to be gangsters, models, and sports stars... not realizing how unrealistic those dreams are and that only a miniscule percentage of people succeed in those arenas.

We need a culture change, we need to be proud geeks and make others envy us. It'll help us out in the long run.

This is something that I could never understand (as a space nerd...) Would it be harder to take something like an Atlas 5 (that's got literally hundreds of flights under its belt) and modify it for human space flight then to build a completely new rocket (granted taking bits from lots of different rockets)? Especially with the Ares 5, I think it should just be an Atlas 5.

That's what happens when, to put it in Mike Griffin's words, 'new questioners lacking subject matter background appear'.

This article is highly amateurish and just about content-free.

1. Myth: The US already has satellite killers.
The Space Review: No they don't! (no citation given)

2. Myth: The US wants to deny space to those it considers hostile.
TSR: No they don't! (no citation given)

3. Myth: The US is planning to place weapons in space for the purpose of ground attack.
TSR: No they aren't! (no citation given)

Myth: The US ballistic missile defense systems have the capability to shoot down satellites.
TSR: So what, the Russians have the same capability!

TSR: Let's confuse the issue by only talking about boost-phase BMD intercept!

Myth: The Russians have declared a moratorium on ASAT weapons testing.
TSR: No they haven't! (no citation given)

I stopped reading at this point.

This whole article is nothing more than a fact-free propaganda screed.

I can't believe Slashdot even bothered to post it...

Serious question. Is there an international treaty that says they don't have the right to attempt to get a satellite up into space?

Not a treaty as such, but a decree titled "US National Space Policy" claiming space for the US. IOW, the Bush administration claims the right to deny US adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to its national interests.

We all know the number one reason any nation tries to get a satellite into orbit is so the rest of the world knows that they can drop a bomb onto anybody else's doorstep

You're kidding, right? Number one reason? Any nation? Yeah, you're either kidding or you're .. what's the next step after paranoia? Ah, that would be hysteria, I guess.

You're allowed. The better question is, why aren't the media making a little easier to find?

There's more to the policy than what the media is quoting. For example, these two points that are immediately before the oft-quoted "deny use of space ..."

The United States rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space;

The United States will seek to cooperate with other nations in the peaceful use of outer space to extend the benefits of space, enhance space exploration, and to protect and promote freedom around the world; ...

You can find the full text of the space policy here. I know this is Slashdot, but read the entire thing before you go making a snap judgment.

I agree. It says something about the system when:

1. It's necessary for anyone in politics (ie. anyone appointed to positions, let alone politicians themselves) to align themselves with one of two parties in order to get anywhere significant. (The polarisation of US Federal Politics speaks for itself here.)
2. It's seen as some kind of redeeming feature of a person in a powerful position, if they've openly declared that they're aligned with whatever major party is not the one that's currently in power. (eg. Dr John Marburger is the director of the Whitehouse's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) "and a democrat".)

It's a shame that the party he's from is being made to somehow be an issue yet again. I'm sure it's one of the things he'd want to be noticed, but all that continuing to highlight this does is to reinforce the system as it is, which is one of the big reasons that US Federal politics is so messed up.

http://www.smdc-armyforces.army.mil/SpaceJournal/A rticle.asp?AID=10 http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/fs/fs-5.html http://www.smdc-armyforces.army.mil/ for anyone wanting to read up on why and whither the u.s. feels it needs space technology

"Non-military" GPS? I assume you're talking about Selective Availability (SA), which has been turned off tentatively for about 16 years, and was permanently turned off in 2000.

With SA disabled, non-military users enjoy essentially the same accuracy as military users. With systems like Differential GPS and WAAS, civilian users can get accuracy of 1-3m in 3 dimensions, just as the military can.

Well, he's co-author on a paper with J.H. Marburger, back in 1978 (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v17/i1/p335_1) - Phys. Rev. A 17, 335-342 (1978). The same John H. Marburger who is now science advisor to President Bush:
http://www.ostp.gov/html/_aboutostp.html#jhm. Does this make him more credible by association? (Or Marburger less credible...?)

What an incredibly misleading article.

The US is not sixth in percentage of wealth spent on R&D, as the article says, when defense and corporations are factored in.

Ironically, many of the things the author listed as examples of US inventions/improvements on inventions, came from defense spending: the jet engine, computer, radar, jumbo jet, internet, lasers, and GPS. None of those things would either exist or be what they are today without US defense spending. You would think giving those examples, he would factor in defense spending into some of his funding stats.

He is also being disingenuous by including complaints about Bush, and then only including statistics from the '06 budget. If you look at the budget from since he took office, both defense and regular R&D have increased absolutely incredible amounts.

Here is Federal R&D Spending with defense included:
http://www.ostp.gov/html/budget/2006/Charts/Federa l%20R&D%20Spending%20Chart.pdf

Non-Defense Federal R&D Spending:
http://www.ostp.gov/html/budget/2006/Charts/Federa l%20Non-Defense%20R&D%20Spending%20Chart.pdf

Obviously, the second one is what the author was looking at. That tiny little decrease after 5 years, under the Bush administration, of very high increases.

How the hell can someone write an article, much of which blames the president, without even mentioning an approximate 40% increase in federal R&D during his administration?

What an incredibly misleading article.

The US is not sixth in percentage of wealth spent on R&D, as the article says, when defense and corporations are factored in.

Ironically, many of the things the author listed as examples of US inventions/improvements on inventions, came from defense spending: the jet engine, computer, radar, jumbo jet, internet, lasers, and GPS. None of those things would either exist or be what they are today without US defense spending. You would think giving those examples, he would factor in defense spending into some of his funding stats.

He is also being disingenuous by including complaints about Bush, and then only including statistics from the '06 budget. If you look at the budget from since he took office, both defense and regular R&D have increased absolutely incredible amounts.

Here is Federal R&D Spending with defense included:
http://www.ostp.gov/html/budget/2006/Charts/Federa l%20R&D%20Spending%20Chart.pdf

Non-Defense Federal R&D Spending:
http://www.ostp.gov/html/budget/2006/Charts/Federa l%20Non-Defense%20R&D%20Spending%20Chart.pdf

Obviously, the second one is what the author was looking at. That tiny little decrease after 5 years, under the Bush administration, of very high increases.

How the hell can someone write an article, much of which blames the president, without even mentioning an approximate 40% increase in federal R&D during his administration?

Regarding the document that was released on February 18, 2004 by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), I believe the UCS accusations are wrong and misleading. The accusations in the document are inaccurate, and certainly do not justify the sweeping conclusions of either the document or the accompanying statement. I believe the document has methodological flaws that undermine its own conclusions, not the least of which is the failure to consider publicly available information or to seek and reflect responses or explanations from responsible 3 government officials. Unfortunately, these flaws are not necessarily obvious to those who are unfamiliar with the issues, and the misleading, incomplete, and even personal accusations made in the document concern me deeply. It is my hope that the detailed response I submit today will allay the concerns of the scientists who signed the UCS statement. I can say from personal experience that the accusation of a litmus test that must be met before someone can serve on an advisory panel is preposterous. After all, President Bush sought me out to be his Science Advisor - the highest-ranking S&T official in the federal government - and I am a lifelong Democrat.

Greenwatch, not a member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' lists UCS as part of the 'radical left': here

The Washington Times says here that the UCS is funded entirely by the left:

The New York Times' reporter James Glanz, for example, identified the Union of Concerned Scientists simply as "an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and often has taken stands at odds with administration policy." The Washington Post characterized the critics as "two groups of prestigious scientists." Unfortunately, we're likely to see a gushing torrent of this kind of a "blinders-on" reporting from now until Election Day. Anyone who has taken Journalism 101 -- or Propaganda 101, for that matter -- knows reporters have a duty to delve more deeply into the background of the critics. If the media had taken the trouble to dig a little further, they would have known the Union of Concerned Scientists is partially funded by a secretive philanthropy called the Tides Foundation, a clearinghouse that funnels money into a variety of left-wing groups including MoveOn.org, a Web site devoted to defeating President Bush this fall. The Tides Foundation also has received more than $4 million in recent years from the Howard Heinz Endowment, whose board is chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry.

This hasn't been true for several years. Selective availability was turned off during the Clinton administration.

The new performance standard codifies a change announced last year to discontinue DoD's ability to decrease GPS accuracy. See http://www.ostp.gov/html/0053_2.html

This announcement just when the ground war in Afghanistan is starting. Didn't they originally decrease the accuracy specifically for military reasons?