Slashdot Mirror
How Important is Research Funding?
slowtonejoe75 asks: "I have friends and family working as physicists for the government at national laboratories funded by your tax dollars. Since Bush has been in office, funding meetings for these labs with the DOE (Dept. of Energy) in Washington have turned up dry. The Bush administration is clearly not interested in hardcore research unless it has to do with missles, bio-chemistry, and security. I understand that there are some priorities in life but I see this whole focus shift with respect to funding to be a real step backwards as far as the advancement of science. I want to know where the Slashdot community would place funding if they had their way?"
I'd say just go with what the Science Advisor says, unless we need something specific like Iron Working for Swordsmen or Democracy for the trade bonus.
I don't think it is the governments responsibility todo "General" research with my money.
... both parties are guilty of pushing forth the agenda to help their own pet projects.
If the research represents technology for defense, or security... I am for it, but just pork barrelling our dollars into random research projects, that then get sold into private industry so that I can buy back the result of the research I funded pisses me off.
Spending in the US is completely out of control. We need someone to clamp down on this insane tax and spend matra
Civ II experience says...
First get your government going, and get the basics of living working. Done that.
Next, democracy, by way of a monarchy. Done that.
Finally, 20% luxeries, 30% taxes, and 50% research. Also, turn any excess population into scientists, except as necessary in certain cities. Placate the masses with temples and cathedrals and coliseums, as necessary.
As my experience in Civ II shows, this is an easy way to first make numerous advances, and then kick everybody else's butts as you expand your empire - err, democracy - across the globe.
My personal agenda is ocean and space exploration [not exploitation] but I don't want to start a thread about feasibility; what we should spend it on something like this, and so forth. Please do not reply to this post about research for space funding.
I have noticed an increase in spending for infrastructure and information security; not just airport and other physical security. Note a recent 109 million dollar contract awarded for a security team by the agency with the "second largest" computer network in the government.
Employed or unemployed, many of you IT folks that would like to get in on the ground floor of an info security project may want to look around at this. I know I may have just shot myself out of a job opportunity very close to home [and if you read my journal you'll see I'm working very FAR from home right now but still count myself lucky to have a job - at least until January]. If you pay attention to where government money is going (listen to NPR, watch some national news and read! read! read!) and don't mind working for them as a contractor, there's some opportunities out there.
I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
...in my bank account.
:)
Now, you didn't specify I had to have any enlightening goal.
I believe gov't spending is best focused on areas that while important do not perform well enough in the market to attract private funding. Many long-term projects and pure research fit this description. Concrete examples are space exploration (I favor astronomy and probes over manned flight, on a bang-for-the-buck rationale), basic biological research (genome project, medical research, niche or long-shot vaccines & medicines, etc.), big-capital-investment projects (supercolliders and such).
There, is that vague enough? Seriously, good gov't funding can provide benefits from boosting young researchers to providing the massive infrastructure for the big ticket labs.
Of course, the gov't's involvement in national research is already huge; the NSF is down the street from me, and NIH/NIMH not far away; look at their websites for an idea of what they are underwriting. Every researcher I can remember seemed to be preparing grant proposals for the gov't. I hope that the short-term shift in administration priorities to what it views as immediate goals does not cause too much long-term loss. I think the administration is mostly sincere in its belief about what is important, but that it is short-sighted. (My 2.)
Finally, I don't suggest research should be socialized. Government spending is complimentary to private spending, not its substitute.
My funding priority would be the making of high quality porn to be distributed across P2P networks.
C:\>
This is good news the government should not be doing basic research there are plenty of university people that are in the proper enviroment for basic reseach and have a large amount of slave^h^h^h^h^h er, er I mean undergraduate/graduate assistants. If the government wants to feed some money to university and research institutes its a much better use of money. Government labs should only be dealing with real nation issues, weapons, food (agriculture) and even in those areas it should be supervising outside researchers, the government has no clue an only makes things more difficult (US or any other country) your research friends would probably be a lot happier in a university or other research lab anyway.
Since Bush has been in office, funding meetings for these labs with the DOE (Dept. of Energy) in Washington have turned up dry.
;-)
Maybe it's just the timing here. What if Gore had been in office when 9/11 happened? Well, besides the fact that we would have still been talking about doing something, as opposed to actually doing it I mean. Perhaps the funding has dried up simply because the funds have been redirected to other areas, such as defense.
Priorities have to be made, and someone has to suffer a lack of resources. If it's Lawrence Livermore they work for, then maybe if they stopped losing $1 million plus worth of equipment, they could get budget for an airplane trip to DC.
If this article confuses you, don't worry. It was posted yesterday in a much clearer fashion.
Don't you know that there is no legitimate role for Government in the marketplace? Advances in Science and Technology come from the heroic vision of lone entrepreneurs, willing to risk all they have.
The market always provides the solutions to the problems that they persuade us we have.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I'd fund only stuff that is likely to eventually make a profit.
Miss*i*le. Pronounced as in "Miss, I'll just go outside" (miss-i'll).
It's just like how bloody yanks can't pronounce "aluminium", and as a result spell it wrongly too. It's "al-you-min-ee-um" - *not* "al-oo-min-um".
The third last letter of both words is "i".
I'd like to see funding for the following:
1. Where are the dead pigeons? This could take billions to solve
2. What happened to the "fry guys?" Hamburgler is back, but the fry guys are still missing.
3. Three-dimensional porn. I mean, here is a HUGE untapped market.
4. Long term effects of cruise missiles on sand dunes. Since they seem to be exploding in the desert a lot, this might be a worthwhile investigation.
5. Finally, where is Osama? Maybe he knows where the pigeons are?
I don't think it is the governments responsibility todo "General" research with my money.
One of the problems with your post is that you never really define what you mean by "General" research. You follow this sentence with the following statement:
If the research represents technology for defense, or security... I am for it, but just pork barrelling our dollars into random research projects, that then get sold into private industry so that I can buy back the result of the research I funded pisses me off.
Using this as a reference, I'll assume you mean the government should only fund research that has immediate application to "important" areas such as defense. There are a lot of problems with this viewpoint. First, is how to draw the line between "general" research and "applied" research. Almost every scientist can do some wordsmithing to claim that their research has some concrete benefit now or in the future. So one could place a time barrier and state that only research that will pay off in new technological improvements within the next N years should be funded. The problem with this is that long-range research never gets funded. Another problem is that estimates of how long it will take the basic research to generate improved technology will always be wrong and scientists will give overly optimistic estimates so they can get their funding. There's also the big problem of identifying what research that seems pretty "pure", "general", "theoretical", whathaveyou, will produce useful "applied" results. I can't imagine the snide comments that mathematician George Boole must have endured when he developed an algebra assuming only two digits: 0 and 1. But today Boolean Algebra, as it is known today, is very applied stuff. Fourier faced similiar problems when no one recognized the practical importance of Fourier series and transforms when he introduced it.
Your statements also indicate that you are really upset at government research assistance for commerical technologies. The problem is that American companies are very short sighted. Their stockholders demand that they not engage in risky, long-range R&D developments. Without government seed money, most American companies wouldn't tackle the "big problems". Other governments, however, are more than willing to use their resources to give their companies an edge. The MagLev train is an obvious example. This idea was developed at MIT and they went so far as to develop a minature prototype. However, funding went dry. The governments of Japan and Germany saw the potential and began developing the technology in cooperation with their native hi-tech companies and they quickly leapt ahead of the US in the development of viable technology. The US is starting to gain back some of the ground now, but if the US government had funded this thing throughout, the US would be a lock for the first nation to bring this technology to the worldwide market.
GMD
watch this
Yes, Celera did do a genome. But the public consortium also did one which is equivalent or better in most scientific terms and vastly superior in one important respect: it is public domain.
While non-profit researchers can obtain free access to Celera's genome data, it is a pain in the ass to deal with their legal department, and the data is viewable in a sub-optimal interface. The public genome is easily and readily available to anyone and everyone with a web browser.
I had nothing to do with the public human genome project, but I use their data every day in my research as do thousands of other researchers. To suggest that the government pissed away money on that project is simply wrong.
It seems clear to me that everyone benefits from the public genome project in particular, and public science in general. Why should we enrich a private company for basic scientific information which is needed by all researchers (both for-profit and non-profit)?
Much good has come from gov't funded pure research. Much good could still come from it. Too bad Bush has his head up his ass. I do agree with one of the previous posts that having gov't funded research go into the pockets of private companies is crap.
I don't see any companies funding much research that is going to benifit society at large instead of their pocketbooks. And they shouldn't. That is part of what gov't is for. There are too many people who profess a belief in capitalism and have had no contact with Adam Smith.
If the research is in the area of high energy physics, then I can see why there may be a lack of interest in funding.
While R&D based on pure intellectual curiosity is wonderful, it also seems to me that one can satisfy curiosity AND work in a field like biochemistry that has a much larger chance to benefit society.
Look at your computer. If it wasn't for people being curious about the nature of light (wave or partcle) you wouldn't have a computer. That simple curiousity also lead to the production of nuclear weapons and to our understanding of stars. If we don't give money to pure science we won't get any great technological advances. Corporations are not going to give much money because they want short term profit. Government needs to give money or there will be very little and that means no spaceships or giant particle accelerators and many many fewer of more basic research facilities. Also fewer people could make a living at research. Not like it is easy to now.
This puts my political views in conflict with my professional views.
Politically speaking, I don't think the government should be paying for anything that isn't directly related to protecting the country and enforcing the laws. It's the job of corporations and universities to do this research.
On the other hand, as a physicist, I know that corporations and universities can't or won't pay for all the research that is currently done. One could argue that most of it is useless; however, one never knows what research is going to pay off. If we did, it wouldn't be research.
Simply put, if we want things like cheap, clean energy, real cures to cancer, and profitable space technology, the government is going to have to lay down some cash to get things going. You might point at all the companies doing research in those areas (such as General Atomics, Armadillo/John Carmack, and countless biotechs), but they are all using technology that was originally poineered through support of the government. Consider environmental research, which most private sources have very little economic reason to support, but the government has very real political and economic reasons to support.
Ideally, these things would all be done with private money, AND they would be done in an open manner. Science is no good if everyone doesn't have access to it. Once science is done purely with private money, science could end up "closed source". Some areas, like computer research and health care, alreay are.
Look at what is discussed on this site regarding the control companies want to have over the research they have done in these areas. Do we want everything to end up like that? Imagine if the government started funding more open source software research. Would that NOT lead to some great things?
Private donations might work for the Ivy leages, but for most research universities, government support allows us to take the risks that lead to the really big payoffs, without completely screwing the students with tuition.
I'm obviously biased, but in my opinion, there are very few ways money could be better spent than on basic research. For those who say the government shouldn't be paying for this stuff, I agree with your principles, but from a utilitarian point of view, it needs to happen.
Maybe it's just the timing here. What if Gore had been in office when 9/11 happened? Well, besides the fact that we would have still been talking about doing something, as opposed to actually doing it I mean.
What do you mean? You mean that if Gore was President, he wouldn't have just swept the report under the rug suggesting getting Bin Laden like Bush did? No, that doesn't sound right... Hmm, guess I don't know what you were saying. Do you?
Perhaps the funding has dried up simply because the funds have been redirected to other areas, such as defense.
Perhaps? That seems like a certaintly. We have just boosted that budget by better than 10% and are something like double the rest of NATO combined. That's a hell of a lot of money.
*I* think maybe we should cut it in half, fund basic research and, orthogonally, quite shoving our culture and will down the collective throats of every nation that doesn't have a white, male, christian leader. Then *both* problems are solved! (and, sadly, I'm only half joking).
I would certainly not advocate placing the funds into American research. There is some serious research going on in Russia, and even a tiny amount of money would really make a difference there, but historically the US can not support Russian research... Japan is not so hot any more, the "3rd world" countries are not producing much of scientific results. Sorry to say, but the only reasonable thing is to invest in European research, preferably Scandinavian. As this is Slashdot, we all must agree on the importance of research in electronics and computer science. Therefore, please send all the money to the Danish Technical University (DTU), directly to my office. I will take care of the rest of it...
on more guns and bombs and tanks and planes so that idiots like you have the freedom to whine on Slashdot about how there's not enough of my money being spent on 'basic research', instead of being too busy praying to Mecca five times daily - in between your duties as Chief Eunuch in the sultan's harem - to have much time for anything else, even if it were allowed by the religious police.
then maybe if they stopped losing $1 million plus worth of equipment, they could get budget for an airplane trip to DC. ;-)
You mean like the FBI got its funding cut for losing all those laptops & guns? Yeah, right. ;-P
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
From after WWII through the 80's, things were different: there was a lot of money - usually government money - going into nuclear and then particle physics research. There were lots of new academic positions being created in physics departments, and most of these were basic research.
In the 90's things started swinging the other way. The Superconducting Supercollider was canceled. New nuclear physics positions completely dissapeared early in the decade, and by the end of the decade a lot of particle physics positions were being cut back. Some schools eliminated their physics department entirely. Suddenly physicists that always had ample research funding from the government were looking at other areas of research. In retrospect, it became obvious that the post-war boom was not "normal", it was the exception.
Afghanistans sliding back into chaos. And this is no ordiniary country. It has borders with six others, each of which can be a base for future criminal / terrorist bases if ignored like Afghanistan was during the soviet times. The Taliban are already recruiting people and preparing for the next round. Do not forget Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are still at large and possibly quite busy.
So Afghanistan should be reconstructed and nursed till the first generation passes through school and take on the reigns of power. This is a far better investment than spending another 17 billion in the future chasing the next bin laden (or the same one?).
And then science has to be given priority. Mainly in the theoretical areas like nanotech, quantum computers and the Big Science labs like LANL and BNL. You do not become and remain free by pointing guns in all directions ready to pull the trigger. You cherish the benefits of freedom and lead civilization and technology forward. This is the only way conspiracy theorists in orthodox muslim countries realize they dont have a case. America has done very well since the WWII in this regard. Dont change it.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So, according to this, it seems providing for the common defence comes before promoting the general Welfare. Now, I'm all for the general Welfare (as opposed to welfare ;) but given a limited pool of resources, my views are the same as the Preamble's.
Where would we be w/o advances? With gov. funding, look how far we've gottten; why cut down now?
I've worked for two different government funded labs, so I'm a bit biased, but I think that government funded research is vital for the long term health of our country.
The great thing about working in government funded research is that you have the ability to fail. Failure can be good. Unfortunately, in the commercial world, failure is bad, and must be avoided at all costs- if you fail, you go out of business. But if you don't fail sometimes, you're not pushing the envelope hard enough, not taking any risks. Unfortunately, there has been much movement in the government to divert resources to private industry- to people looking for short term profit.
Private industry looks for short term gains- long term is 5 years, 10 years (or more) out is just too far. The government can afford to look that far out, or farther. That is where the neat stuff happens.
Someday, I'll be back there, back to making cool stuff, and trying to avoid the politics as much as possible.
I would set aside X amount of money for scientific research, groups wanting money for research in a specific area would write a proposal, which would then be reviewed by a group of other expterts in that field (who were not also applying for funding).
All Funding would come with the stipulation that the a percent of any profit resulting from the research would go back into the fund for a set number of years. Eventually Government would not need to use any out-of-taxpayers-pockets money to fund research, it would help eliminate friviolus spending etc.
On a side note, all people serving elective offices would have food/housing/etc payed for, plus get maybe $2/hour in pay, and accepting "donations" from buisnesse/lobbiest would be punishable by death.
If the opposite of pro is con, what is the opposite of progress?
Technology stimulates the economy with real improvements in productivity. The US has to stay ahead of everyone else if it knows what's good for it.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
I am the poster of this story. The friends and family I am speaking of work for BNL (one of the bigger labs). Their positions are in High Energy, Solid State, and Theoretical Physics.
...To angry for a real sig right now...
If you don't see the value in general research (or commented that we should spend more money on bombs or CowboyNeal merchandise... You should have paid more attention in school pal.
SlowToneJoe
Bush was in office before 9/11. As soon as Clinton left office the funding dried up. This subject doesn't have as much to do with 9/11 as you might think.
SlowToneJoe75
Peace out... Or war in... Which ever your prefer...