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

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;

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.

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.

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: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.

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.