Big Science has a Twenty-Year Plan

Earlier this week, Energy Secretary Spence Abraham laid out the Office of Science's 20-year plan for building and upgrading the U.S.'s "Big Science" facilities. Twenty-eight programs got the nod, in all. The top priorities -- fusion, and a massive supercomputer. Other goals on the wish list include studying dark energy, high-speed atomic-scale imaging with an electron laser, and fulfilling several particle-physics dreams, including a collider to rival CERN's LHC. Here's the press release and the full list (PDF). Your grandchildren may write school papers on the discoveries these tools will make...

Comments

But consider mthe big IF...

[DynaSoar]

We had one of those projects going: the Superconducting Supercollider. That went tango uniform as quick as you can say "policy shift".

All kinds of things can be announced for all kinds of reasons. Mostly the announcements are so you can hear the politicians make announcements and see what forward thinking people they are.

I don't even believe it when I'm told I've gotten my own grants -- not until I see the check has cleared the bank.

A collider to rival CERN's LHC?

[daveschroeder]

Hmm, maybe we shouldn't have killed off the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), after 14 miles of tunneling were already completed and two billion dollars were spent.

The eco-dumbasses talk about it alternatively as an unnecessary geek-scientist's playground, or as a wasteful front for the military-industrial complex.

What it would have been is a window into the most fundamental building blocks of the Universe. And now apparently we want to try again, even though we should have finished it the first time around...

I'm glad about the focus

[alphakappa]

It's heartening to note that the report gives so much importance to fundamental research unlike most of the research that happens today which is so geared towards creating marketable products or intellectual property. While the latter is also good for all, science will stagnate in the absence of fundamental research . This 20 year outlook is definitely a pat in the back for schools all around the country.

My Penis is Bigger Than Yours

[bitsformoney]

"Big Time" projects look to me mostly like they are built to show off. The particle thingy has to be there not because there's some valuable insight to be gained, but because the US can't let Europe possibly have a bigger one.

Same with supercomputers. Supercomputers are so 80s/90s. Decentralization is the thing of today, but, say, creating a grid network of 10,000 computers is not so easy to compare to some Japanese mega-thingie.

I sometimes wonder, if you took just 0.1% of that money and gave it to a random bunch of OSS developers, how much progress would come out of that.

Grandchildren

[Salamander]

Your grandchildren may write school papers on the discoveries these tools will make...

Not likely. I'm all for research, but most of the stuff on this list is "big science" only in terms of the money that will be spent, not the knowledge that will be gained. There's tons of biotech, materials-science, computing, optics, and other research that would be more rewarding. The most appalling omission is that the Department of Energy doesn't seem to think that battery technology - the thing holding back deployment of many other technologies - deserves even one project. Nothing on portable fuel cells, microturbines, biodiesel, wave power, or other energy-related technologies either, except fusion. What is the Department of Energy thinking?

There might be a few things in there to write papers about, but if we spend all of the money to fund these projects there won't be any left over for schools...or paper, for that matter. The only way my grandchildren will be writing papers on this stuff is if I or my children move somewhere with a sane science policy.

It's about effing time...

[snilloc]

... the DOE started pouring some serious cash into fusion research.

We should have been going balls to the wall on fusion since the energy crisis... of the SEVENTIES! Maybe we wouldn't have had it by now, but maybe it would be a lot closer.

Academics in the 50's (!!!) were writing about how US dependence on foreign oil (specifically Persian Gulf/Arabian oil) was just asking for trouble. Then OPEC bites us in the ass. We freak out a bit (price controls, wear more sweaters), but when the "crisis" (largely self-inflicted; read some economics books) abates, we go back to business as usual, just waiting for our dependence on foreign oil to bite us in the ass again... as it has several times to varying degrees.

Re:How immutable are these plans?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Unfortunately, both stereotypes are to a large degree true. Finding politicians of either major party who are willing to champion science for its own sake and the long-term benefits isn't easy. Right-wingers do object to science that treads on their ideology (which, given the pervasiveness of both right-wing ideology and modern science, is a hell of a lot of it) and left-wingers do object to spending money on blue-sky research vs. short-term giveaways. And anti-intellectualism is always a good selling point in anyone's campaign.