Slashdot Mirror
British Government Slashes Scientific Research
asobala writes "The British Government has slashed the funding of scientific Research Councils by £68 million. The Research Councils most affected by this include the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, which has been hit by a £29 million reduction in funding, and the Medical Research Council, which is seeing a £10.7 million reduction in funding. The response of the BBSRC biological research council announces that the council will have to cut 20 new grants and reduce expenditure on new equipment."
Funding for the physical sciences (among others) in the United States has been facing a lot of difficulties lately as well. Failure of the congress to pass the new budget has caused a crisis in science funding from agencies such as the NSF and NIH that supply much of the money for taxpayer funded research in the states. This threatens to close major facilities*, delay new projects and leave thousands of government scientists out of work.
Concerned citizens are encouraged to write to their congressmen to not forget the cause of advancement in the US. Instead of bemoaning the loss of the US edge in the sciences , speak up!
It seems hardly a coincidence that the US and UK are allies in the misguided Iraqi Invasion, as well as the fight against adequate science and research funding. With all the money diverted into these misguided efforts, no wonder science funding is suffering all over (There's only so much of it to go around!)
* Example from the nytimes.com article:
"Among the projects at risk is the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, on Long Island. The $600 million machine -- 2.4 miles in circumference -- slams together subatomic particles to recreate conditions at the beginning of time, some 14 billion years ago, so scientists can study the Big Bang theory. It was already operating partly on charitable contributions, officials say, and now could shut down entirely, throwing its 1,069 specialists into limbo."
Pure science can't really fund itself. Applied science does fine, because applied scientists can turn their science into products and services.
I don't respond to AC's.
And please pay close attention to the 3.4bn value halfway down. This is not a "slash" in the budget, its simply the government calling back some of the buffer money thats left at the end of the year. It will have an effect, and some people may be out of funding as a result, but lets not blow it totally out of proportion. With luck some of that money that was previously "wasted" in Rover might make it into future science budgets...
I always cringe when I read something that sounds like it has been taken from a red top tabloid - "slashed". I almost expected the byline to read "phew what a scorcher!".
As for the story - it is due to the DTI having to pay extra costs as a result of the UK car manufacturer Rover going bust. It is not some vast cutback, and the
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6384499.stm
BBC story give a far more sensible view that the summary does. It is a 1 year cut due to an overspend, and will be restored (with an increase on top of it) next year. I am no fan of the current Labour government and their lying ways - but they are sensible enough to realise that increasing funding in science and turning the UK into a "knowledge based" economy is not only one way for the future - it is the *only* way.
I'm a fan of getting the State out of science entirely[...]
That would be because you're an ideological fucktard who values a 'political belief system' more than the vast social and economic gains humanity has seen through government sponsored pure research. Government funded research paid to develop the very tool you're using to post endless (usually offtopic) screeds about 'anacrocapitcalism.' Not that you'll see the irony.
Since when did stupidity become fasionable on Slashdot?
You have no idea what this research will lead to directly, or indirectly via supporting technologies. If funding bodies were as short sighted as you, you wouldn't be here now since the web wouldn't exist. It was developed as a supporting technology at a particle accelerator (CERN).
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well, in Britain's defense, that money is much better used at its new recipient, the Ministry of Silly Walks. They've been in need of additional funding for quite some time now to compete with foreign, Silly Walking threats.
Because while pure science may not have many direct benefits, its indirect benefits may include opening new areas of research for applied science--which does give benefits.
The problem with that is you have no idea what pure research is useful and which isn't. Here's a quote I found that is a good sum up:
Pure science has been held up as a beacon of hope, as a way to allow scientists to pursue their own intuitions, and thus to find totally new solutions to old problems. This is seen in contrast to applied science, where short-term goals do not allow sufficient room for finding really new approaches. Indeed, the irony here is that the best applications of sciences are ultimately based on pure, rather than applied research.
FYI. 'Pound' is short for 'pound sterling' (the official name for the currency), which in turn is short for 'pound of sterling silver', which originally determined the currency's value. The 'squiggly' is based on the letter L, which naturally is derived from the word 'librum'.
Which corporation was it that invented the Internet again?
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
"it has gotten to the point that I don't even bother talking with them as all I'll hear is how the didn't get a certain grant or how they have to figure out a way to keep one for the next year or three."
Have you considered that this may reflect increased competition caused by ever-shrinking budgets?
"let the market produce what the market has a demand for, not for pie-in-the-sky results"
Government funds science that has no obvious application precisely because the free market would not. The government understands that expanding human knowledge is in the public interest, whereas you do not. Well, it used to, anyway... thanks to people like you, pure research is increasingly seen as less worthy of funding than, say, attacking sovereign nations without cause. Thanks.
Almost all significant research in physics and physical chemistry is done with government funding. But thanks for trolling this thread with wild misinformation.
Pure science is discovering that ions exist, and that you can use ions to push things around.
Applied science is a guy realizing that if he does it just so then the ions can push a spaceship.
Without the discovery of ways to generate high velocity ions, the second guy wouldn't have invented an ion engine.
I suspect that in the long run, pure science will get done, most likely after a lull of 20-30 years when companies have "run out" of things to invent from the current crop of discoveries. Someone will end up trying something totally new and just swallow the risk of an expensive failure, but I doubt it will be anything along the lines of building multi-billion dollar particle accelerators just to find out if there are any other dimensions (who knows, maybe there are, and maybe they could even be made useful, but the expense of finding them and the risk of finding out that they aren't there or that they're not useful... it'd be almost impossible to justify the cost).
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Wasn't it AOL?
I don't think you understand how modern science works.
Most government investments into fundamental physics, biology, astronomy, computer science, applied math, and many other types of research would never occur, and corresponding research never made, in any private context, because private corporations can find absolutely no incentive for it (save for exceptions like IBM and Bell Labs, which are still very limited in scope and dwarfed by the US scientific establishment). Moreover, the long-term consequences of this research and the experience acquired by people who perform it are unpredictable and would be precluded in a private context, where results are not nearly as widely published and shared across the community.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
"Most US advances are not made with government money. It just doesn't work that way."
Open up any science journal of your choice. In the acknowledgements section of each article the funding that supported the study will be stated. If you found a journal where even just 10% of the articles were supported in part or in full by non-governmental funds, I wouldn't believe you until I had that journal in my hands to verify it.
Government funding of research is only half of the story. When I am funded by the government, I am expected to publish my findings so that other researchers may learn from them. Contrast that to industrial researchers, who often if they find something of interest it becomes a trade secret. Sure that company the corporate scientist works for might use that knowledge to generate a better, cleaner, faster, whatever product which ain't a bad thing at all...but they might just stuff it in a report in their knowledge base and sit on it forever. Either way, nobody outside the corporation knows exactly how they do that voodoo they do so well, and those corporate scientists will be basing a large part of their background knowledge for their study on publicly funded research. Goverments cut public funding of science at their own peril.