US Can't Meet The "Grand Challenges" of Physics

BlueSky writes "A new report paints a troubling picture of the state of physics research in the US, which the authors believe has dire consequences for the competitiveness of the US. 'The report identifies six key questions that will represent the grand challenges that materials science will face over the coming decade, the ones most likely to produce the next revolution. But it also raises fears that those challenges will be met by researchers outside of the US. It highlights the fact that government funding has not kept up with the rising costs of research at the same time that the corporate-funded research lab system has collapsed. As a result, US scientific productivity has stagnated at a time when funding and output are booming overseas.'"

Comments

And who can weee thank for this?

[pair-a-noyd]

The Bu$h regime and his anti-science fundie pals..

Re:And who can weee thank for this?

[Kierthos]

Yeah, well, Bush and his cronies haven't helped at all, but they're hardly the only administration to blame. Basically, we're looking at the results of at least one generation (more likely two or three) of neglect by the federal government, the corporate sector, and our own education system.

Bush is no more the sole responsible party for this then Clinton was, or Bush the Elder was, or Reagan was.

Re:And who can weee thank for this?

[bhmit1]

Bush is no more the sole responsible party for this then Clinton was, or Bush the Elder was, or Reagan was.

And lets not forget congress, who makes the budgets, isn't innocent either.

Re:And who can weee thank for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also let's not ignore the People who actually elect the members of Congress.

Intelligent Design Advocates

[Pao|o]

When you have so much Intelligent Design/Creationist proponents in positions of power it is natural that science education will suffer. There's always importing more Indians/Filipinos/Chinese nationals to do the heavy lifting.

It's like having Satanists run a local Baptist Church. No good will come of it.

Re:Intelligent Design Advocates

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

When you have so much Intelligent Design/Creationist proponents in positions of power it is natural that science education will suffer. I'm sure the war on terrah isn't helping either - we waste $5B a year on just the useless TSA alone, then there are the hundreds of billions spent on the iraqi occupation. That money would have gone a long, long way if spent on something productive like basic research. Instead, the only return on investment has been negative.

Not science but nationalism

[Anonymous Coward]

This has, in truth, very little to do with science per se. The precise location where scientific research is conducted has little bearing on the science itself. There are important political, economic and strategic concerns, but the import of this article, as it always is, is more a matter of American exceptionalism and nationalism;

Re:Not science but nationalism

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I rephrase the article a bit:

"A nation with a history of major scientific output has heavily cut back on research funding. The government has not increased to meet higher costs and the corporate research labs there have been disappearing. Other countries are increasing their own funding for research and there is hope that the added funding elsewhere will compensate for this loss of scientific interest."

Now, when a major research entity (yes, the US has in the past been a big spender on scientific research) mostly cuts out of the game, it is news. Yes, the article is about how the US will be left behind, but that doesn't mean it has no impact on science as a whole.

More developed nations, more research

[MathFox]

We see some rapidly growing economies in Asia... China and India are the biggest, but many of the smaller countries there have shown remarkable advances over the years. From a humanitarian point of view it's good to see the poverty reduce and the money available for research increase.
Globally the state of physics research is good; it's even growing in the USA, but just growing harder world-wide. This will mean that the world will be able to solve its most pressing problems bar one: the hunger for money of the US corporations. The US should be so wise to realize that they'll be the third or fourth biggest economy of the world in a couple of years and start specializing in a few markets, leaving bulk production to China and India.

Re:More developed nations, more research

[ScrewMaster]

We are specializing: it's called "intellectual property law" and we're exporting it left and right. Of course, it doesn't do anyone any good except the human refuse at the top of our corporate food chain, but there it is. IP law sure as hell isn't going to provide for the people of this great nation either ... only one thing will do that: industry.

The problem with the idea of "leaving bulk production" to another nation is that you just sacrificed your independence and control of your own future, because you are now an economic satellite of another power. That's not a good position for any country to be in. Bulk production is what feeds, clothes and houses your population, and any nation that is totally dependent on imports for those things is just asking for trouble. Our "captains of industry" (hah!) are currently hooked on cheap labor and import goods from China, the implicit assumption being that China can be trusted to continue doing business that way. Two things argue against that: one, China is not, after all, allied with the United States at any level and two, without the ability to create wealth we won't have any money to buy the stuff with anyway. At some point in the not too distant future we're going to wish we'd held on to our manufacturing base and the technical people who maintained it.

You have to realize one important fact: China has systematically stripped America of the heavy machine tools we spent a hundred years building, and collapsed the domestic industries that used them. A lot of it can't even be made anymore: the capital costs are too high. Big stamping presses, textile machines, all sorts of heavy equipment that we no longer know how to make have been sold off cheap to Japan and China. Some if it they are using for their own purposes, the rest they simply bought because they didn't want us to have it. So even if we wanted to become self-sufficient again we couldn't do it, not within any meaningful time frame. We are going to regret that.

The Bleak Future of the U.S.

[ActionAL]

I think this article helps us understand the path that our nation has walked down and the consequences of its destination. I see a bleak future as the gap between the rich and poor expand and the rich elite become less likely to grow America and more interested in growing their assets internationally by whatever means to achieve their profits.

Ultimately we will face a day when another nation has far exceeding power in weaponry because of their advances over us in physics, chemistry or nanotech/engineering. Then they will be in position to enforce their will upon us like we do to other nations today.

Our nation has become the big dumb bully rich preppy that we all fought against in high school.

Re:The Bleak Future of the U.S.

[Guppy06]

"Similar to what happened with Britain's navy. Once their expensive battleships ruled the seas until it became glaringly obvious how vulnerable they were to a few cheap aircraft. It wasn't the end of Britain but it did severely damage her ability to project global power. HMS IHaveBigGuns could no longer be confidently sent off to threaten some city unless it was accompanied by an even more expensive carrier group to protect it."

Except that there are plenty of examples from WWII where aircraft were shown to be not all that great against ships armored enough to survive hits from 16" shells (not to mention bristling with antiaircraft guns). Consider the effort it took to sink ships such as the Bismarck or the Yamato, or how several surplus and captured battleships remained floating even after two nuclear blasts at Bikini.

Battleships didn't go away because an airplane can sink them, they went away because airplanes can sink destroyers and other such smaller capital ships at a greater range than a battleship. Battles like Midway were notable for how the engagements took place with the fleets nowhere near gun ranges, not "ZOMG, you sunk my battleship!"

It wasn't the aircraft carrier that brought about the demise of the Royal Navy (the British could build aircraft carriers too, after all), it was getting smacked around in two different oceans by two different enemies for the better part of a decade as part of the bloodiest conflict in human history.

"or a stealth missile platform that can be maneuvered close enough to a carrier group to sink most of it."

Yes, it's called "a submarine."

"Who ever can afford to fight longest will win."

That plan worked so well in Vietnam and is doing wonders in Iraq.

"If I can sink your billion dollar battlegroup anchored off my coast using a few million dollars worth of missiles"

Note the phrase "off my coast." The main point of these carriers is the same as the main point of the battleships: to project power. So long as these engagements happen off your coast and not our coast, the cost will still be justified.

"I don't see anyone developing new offensive technology in the short term such that the US is being threatened but I can see a day in the not so distant future when carrier groups can no longer be sent to a region for fear of being sunk or air campaigns are not a viable option because most the planes are likely to shot down."

Those regions already exist. Any of over half a dozen European powers, Australia, and even our neighbor Canada have the military resources, technology and skill to smack down a carrier battlegroup that threatened its territory with near impunity. It would take a lot of US blood and lucre to, say, bring a war to Sweden. But all these countries, as well as others that might be capable of the technological breakthroughs that you envision, are all BFF with the States (which is why you overlooked them). The cultural and social environment needed for such technological breakthroughs to come about tend to be similar enough to our own to greatly mitigate the human causes of such a conflict.

And why is this a problem?

[einar2]

As long as there are enough other countries realizing the importance of scientific research, I do not see a problem.
It does not really matter who is doing it as long as it gets done.

Maybe some people cannot swell with national pride but who cares about that...

Re:And why is this a problem?

[dvice_null]

It means that American companies will fall behind on the market, so they need cut costs -> Less jobs -> More poor -> More crimes -> Less tax dollars -> Less education -> Less people buying stuff from American companies -> Less Jobs -> More poor -> More crimes -> Eventually the USA will fall, like Soviet Union.

Someone predicted the fall of USA some years ago to happen in the year of 2025. But once Bush was elected to be a president, he adjusted his estimation down to 2020. And then Bush was re-elected...

What?

[richie2000]

Science stagnating at a time when IP rights are stronger than ever? How can that be? I thought lots of patents on everything would virtually guarantee a scientific advantage! You mean to tell me that all those patent lawyers have been LYING?

Re:What?

[dcollins]

The second I saw this story my first thought was, "Don't worry, as soon as some other country achieves a scientific breakthrough the US will denounce IP as an unholy restriction on our freedoms and just steal it back."

Re:I Love this

[Mr2cents]

Am I the only one who finds that Americans are more and more comparing themselves to the old Rome? Quite pompous, IMO. Together with the fact that they are spending more on weapons than the rest of the world combined, this starts to worry me.

The biggest threat to America

[mbone]

The biggest threat to America is, without a doubt, our execrable education system. At University it is world class, but the levels below are basically third world.

Global Warming Advocates too

[fishdan]

As scary as this sounds, there are a lot of the same anti-intellect, anti-science people in the the global warming movement too -- and I'm not saying this to hurt the movement. I'm as pro-green as they come, but because of my understanding of science, not because someone said that the sky is falling. When I hear people say that global warming is a FACT that cannot and should not be challenged via the Scientific Method, I get pretty frightened. All challenges to any theory make it more accurate. Intelligent Design is not a theory because it cannot be challenged. Global Warming IS a theory, and a pretty good one, but it's SIGNIFICANTLY weakened by the morons who follow it blindly, and refuse to let others analyze it critically! There are a lot of fair minded, rational people with science backgrounds who believe that taking actions to reduce carbon emissions is a good thing for the planet, who don't want to throw out the scientific method. We're willing to work towards a better understanding of climate change through science, and in places where the current theory doesn't quite fit, we're very happy to say "yes -- the science here is inconclusive." It doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong. It doesn't mean that we should not reduce carbon emissions. It doesn't mean that our cause is not just. We're not afraid of people attacking the theory of global warming. Quite the opposite, when holes are found it means that MORE study should be done. I have a terrible feeling this is going to be misunderstood, but I'll throw one more paragraph on here. I completely support the idea of SIGNIFICANTLY reducing the use of fossil fuels. In my personal life I try to be as green as possible. I take public transportation everywhere, I've started/improved recycling programs everywhere I've worked. I truly believe that we can take action to improve the suitability of the earth for humanity. I just don't want the lies of "scientific consensus" and "the time for debate has passed" to put a chill on the GREATEST accomplishment of mankind -- the scientific method. The next time someone says "there's no time for debate" please think about the fact that you could debate AND be green at the same time.

Re:Global Warming Advocates too

[Guuge]

There may be zealots in the environmentalist movement, but they're not anti-intellectual. That's something else entirely. An anti-intellectual is trying to debunk the scientific process and show that knowledge is not acquired by reason but by faith.

A Global Warming zealot actually agrees with science. They may be fanatical, but they view science as an ally on the one true path. Hence they are not anti-intellectual.

Most of those who fanatically oppose environmentalism are anti-intellectual, however. Sadly, some have responded to them by becoming zealots themselves. It's to be expected, given the political climate.

In conclusion, pro-science zealotry is bad, but not as bad as anti-intellectual zealotry.

Challenges

[mdsolar]

To me it is interesting that the challenges all seem to be cross-disciplinary.

* How do complex phenomena emerge from simple ingredients?
* How will the energy demands of future generations be met?
* What is the physics of life?
* What happens far from equilibrium and why?
* What new discoveries await us in the nanoworld?
* How will the information technology revolution be extended?

How can dicipline specific funding mechanisms address these issues effectively? I think, generally, unless funding agencies are willing to entertain joint proposals (say biology and solid state) these questions will be hard to address. How can you be sure that proposals don't get rejected just because they seem out of field?
--
Electricity without rate increases: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Don't forget about String Theory and Patents

[Proudrooster]

The Physics world has moved into a wierd age. Phds. are now granted to people who produce equations and theories which can not be validated with experiments. Note: I did not say proved, I said validated.

One the other said of Physics world, applied physics, you have the patent wars slowing things to a crawl. In fields like fusion and nanotechnology innovation is being stalled by patents. If you aren't writing a patent, you are figuring out how to get around someone else's patent. The amount of time wasted on patents is sad. The patent system needs to change such that the obvious and trivial can no longer be patented. Just because an invention occurred in nanotechnology or biotechnology does not mean it should be granted a patent simply because it sounds really, really technical.

In our society, we now value feeding corporations and lawyers more that we value knowledge and innovation. Meanwhile other countries like China, who do not respect our Copyright and Patent process pirate our products and will soon leap ahead of the US in physics research because they aren't encumbered by the capitalistic IP game.

The immigrant physicists

[dpbsmith]

Don't forget the immigrants. It wasn't just money that got us where we are today.

The United States benefitted enormously from an influx of European physicists in the 1930s and 1940s, some of them escaping Hitler's Germany... Not to slight Harold Urey or E. O. Lawrence or Richard Feynman... but, call the roll of the people who gave us the scientific lead that led to our superpower status: Leo Szilard, Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller, Isador Rabi, Stanislaw Ulam, E. P. Wigner, Hans Bethe... and don't forget the German scientists recruited just after the war, Werner von Braun. Immigrants, every one of them.

In today's anti-immigrant and xenophobic climate, we've actually been kicking out graduate students and postdocs with Middle Eastern origins and generally making their lives miserable with red tape and problems with student visas. With that sort of treatment, they'll probably end up pursuing careers somewhere other than the U. S.

Litmus Test

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a great litmus test for anybody to be taken seriously would simply be asking them how old the Earth is.

If they say it's 6000 years old, you can disregard anything that person says for the rest of their life.

Re:Litmus Test

[Danny Rathjens]

Most people are indoctrinated into those types of irrational beliefs by their family - and the family typically controls interaction with non-family by enrolling them in religious private schools which reinforce the same indoctrination. So asking someone their beliefs before they've had a chance to experience the world and form their own opinions means you just get the answer based on that indoctrination. Obviously some people never overcome that original brainwashing, because humans - and many other animals - have learned to survive by learning from their family. But at least give them a chance to grow up before discounting them for the rest of their life. :)

We should all be lawyers

[walterbyrd]

There is no way that lawyer jobs are going to be offshore outsourced. And there is no way that there will ever be too many lawyers, because lawyers create the very problems that lawyers solve. If you are smart enough to be a physicist, you are certainly smart enough to be a lawyer.

Lawyers control everything: lawyers are judges, lawyers are politicians, lawyers are lobbyists, and of course, lawyers are lawyers. No way the social/political climate will ever turn against lawyers - not in the USA.

Lawyers are also among the highest paid professionals, second only to physicians - and that could change.

Get smart. Leave that technical baloney to foreigners. If you are not smart enough to be a lawyer, be a professional litigant. Msft is always looking for professional litigants.

I predict, that in the near future, everybody in the USA will earn their living by suing one another.