Slashdot Mirror
Private Donor Saves Fermilab
sciencehabit writes "In what has to be an embarrasment for the U.S. Department of Energy, an anonymous donor has ponied up $5 million to keep the country's only remaining particle physics laboratory operating efficiently."
is that it's probably no embarrassment at all.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
It's not an embarrassment for the DoE, it's an embarrassment for the Bush Administration and the Republican party in general- despite driving this country's yearly deficit deeper and deeper and pushing our total debt to record levels, they can't even fund worthwhile projects with it.
Of course, the Republican party's low appraisal of science probably has a lot to do with it- after all, what good is science that might change peoples' minds about something (FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP) when there's Muslims to kill?
Care about privacy? Read this!
Thank god for rich people
Seriously, how much sympathy can you garner for an institution that can't stay solvent with a $320 million budget and damn near 2000 employees? $5 million is about 1.5% of their total annual budget, and this is what keeps them running? That's not a sign of poor support from the government, that's a sign of serious mis-management. Yes, it's probably very expensive to run a place like Fermilab, but you can't bitch when you're getting a third of a billion dollars straight from the pockets of the taxpayers every year.
It's an unfortunate reality that taxpayer funded institutions are often horribly inefficient, and pay little attention to keeping their costs down. Why should an organization that has proven that it's incapable of setting its books right, an institution that has a budget of over $160,000 per employee, play on our heart strings when they let people go? Sharpen up the operation, and then come cry when you run out of cash.
his funding sources -- largely fundamentalist Christians -- don't give a hoot about particle physics. After all, "science" already contradicts Truth as they know it... or as it was re-written... or something like that. The literal word of God, only (mis)translated 3 or 4 times over the years...
Ignoring for a moment the argument about whether or not the government should be funding this lets just talk about the full article v.s. your post... From the full article "Fermilab's financial crisis began in December, when the U.S. Congress passed a last-minute budget for the 2008 fiscal year (ScienceNOW, 19 December 2007). Legislators whacked Fermilab's budget from the $372 million requested by the Department of Energy (DOE) to $320 million, $22 million less than the lab had received in 2007. To balance the books, lab officials said they would have to cut about 200 of the lab's then-1950 employees." You have gotten so used to bashing Republicans that you really are missing the point that both parties are corrupt and extending government beyond the constitutionally defined limits. Then each side argues about how they don't like the cuts and/or spending that was pushed from the other side and we all end up so worked up that we miss the point that the government should not be doing any of this stuff.
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
Assuming the donor was a US citizen, this shows what's great about the US. Someone who valued the research freely decided to fund the research. The government did not need to forcibly confiscate the $5 million dollars from innocent taxpayers against their will.
Gifts freely given enrich both the giver and the recipient. The people of the US excel in individual generosity.
Hmm, government has basically always funded basic science research, whether that be a strong central government or the local lord. There isn't a huge amount of incentive for businesses to fund basic science research as it infrequently leads to a positive ROI in the nearterm. That doesn't mean that there isn't a societal good from basic science research, the last 100 years of technological advances are proof to the contrary, but the private sector just doesn't have the right conditions to do it so the only place left are private foundations and government and private foundations don't have nearly the resources to do it (I guess you can argue that the foundations would have more resources if the government took less but I don't buy it).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Sorry for feeding a troll, but two points:
:(
1. Research (even esoteric) can have completely unexpected practical applications. Remember the steam engine? For hundreds of years it was nothing but a novelty, and then whammo! Industrial revolution. Just because something has no clear immediate practical applications now, doesn't mean squat for the future.
2. Compared to how big a proportion of your 'tax dollars' goes to funding despotic regimes, terrorist cells we use against 'other' terror cells, and kickbacks to the arms industry, I think you can wear the tiny percentage that goes to 'esoteric' research.
I'm sorry, but I wish people had a bit more perspective on these things
http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
Yes, and universities would never have an incentive to invest in such research to attract the best and brightest students and faculty... oh wait, universities flock to such projects. No, no, clearly we must continue demanding the funding at gunpoint from our own citizenry. I'm sure if we voluntarily asked the public for donations they would be too greedy to fork over a cent!
"Saved" Fermilab? Give me a break.
They might have had to lay off 200 employees. Out of TWO THOUSAND. Because their budget was "slashed" by just 22M (less than 10% of the budget.) Christ. It's not embarrassing, and the lab was in no danger of being "lost."
Please help metamoderate.
Emphasis on small government? Please, oh please, tell me that was sarcasm. No one, Demoncrat, Repugican, Lieberterian, or Interdependent, is dumb enough to believe that.
You can sort of understand cutting funding to things like behavioral sciences or research on frogs or something. Their benefits are not always obvious to the layman.
You can also, given their ideology, understand why they want to de-fund climate research. That sort of thing leads to uncomfortable implications about John and Jane Doe's lifestyle in the exurbs.
But de-fund particle physics? Really? The successors to the folks who brought you the wonders of the atom bomb and who do all kinds of cool death-ray and weapons-applicable research (roughly)? To put it in terms even Bush and Congress should understand, "You like the boom-boom? They make the boom-boom."
How is it they cannot grasp that de-funding these facilities leads directly and quickly to the loss of our technological and military edge?
It's bad enough that they killed the supercollider. But killing the last of our first-rate physics labs is just plain nuts.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I can think of three techniques off the top of my head that one can only do at a lab like Fermilab:
ARPES, Muon spin spectroscopy and neutron scattering. Materials scientists live and die by these techniques - and they investigate things like improved materials for hard drive read heads, new steel alloys, materials for solar cells, everything.
The sad thing is that if this money hadn't come along, it could have completely destroyed Fermilab. People think research produces papers which anyone can read and become an expert. How many people became great Java programmers after reading one book or a few papers? None - it takes practice, and many years at that. If you have to fire any of these guys and gals, they will never come back, and that knowledge is very expensive to lose. You can hire someone and train them, but it takes time, and many of the little secrets never make it into the published literature.
This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue, it is a societal one. Year after year, administration after administration, we as a society have been saying "we don't really consider science/education/research all that important."
Just look at the trends: companies are increasingly seeking out technical professionals overseas because they're churning out greater and greater number of graduates with science/engineering degrees with China pushing out 600,000 such graduates compared to the US' 70,000 per year; and how can we compete in biotech when the majority of our citizens can't grasp genetics nor do they even believe in evolution (we beat Turkey though!)?
With the way we've been funding education and paying our teachers, we collectively give educators the big middle finger tipped with stinky poo every year. We're making these choices as individuals so we all have a hand in this appalling state of affairs.
That's called a pure democracy, and it doesn't work. There's a reason we're a republic.
The government can't save you.
s/particle physics/that shockley guy's "transistor" thing/g
This is what happens when you give people mod points and say you have 3 or 5 or however many days to spend them. It's like giving an 8 year-old $10 and turning them lose in the candy store. You're not going to get any change back, and they sure as hell didn't think most of their decisions through, but you can really only blame yourself for being dumb enough to give the kid the money in the first place.
As someone who works at the collider at Brookhaven National Lab, I'm curious what standard they use to call it 'the country's only remaining particle physics laboratory'.
Congress controls the nation's purse strings. They had their chance on the Iraq war too. Not long after the election when the Democrats took a majority, it was time to vote in Iraq funding. It's not a perpetual thing, it periodically has to be re-approved by congress. So what this means is that if they failed to pass a bill that granted funding, it would be cut off. There wasn't the ability for the president to veto, since no bill = no funds.
Many people hoped that they'd use this opportunity to put a limit on the Iraq war. The bill could be worded to say you get funding, but only if a withdrawal date is agreed to or the like. That was indeed what was talked about and the president was not happy. Looked like a showdown was coming, but the president had no power. He could veto a bill he didn't like but lacking a funding bill, the money would run out and it'd be over by default.
So what happened? Congress sold out. They wanted their own pet projects. Chief among them is a minimum wage increase (which may sound good, but is proving problematic in areas of the country with low wages and cost of living) but others as well. They said "Ok you give us our pet projects, we'll support your pet war." Done and done, funding was passed and we are where we are.
So this as well is not a presidential issue. The president doesn't get to write laws. If the president doesn't like a bill, he can veto it, but that's all. However in terms of funding bills, continual vetos means the budget will go away by default.
People need to stop scapegoating all the nation's problem on the president. This idea that when Bush goes away, everything gets better is bogus. He has no small share of responsibility for the problems we face, but he is not at all alone. Congress is also heavily at fault. So hold your representatives accountable, don't just whine about the presidency. Blame where blame is due.
When Congress cuts the budget, there's nothing the administration can do. This is patently wrong, as anyone who uses DOE funded national labs knows due to the weekly emails from lab personnel asking us to lobby lawmakers on their behalf. You're probably expecting me to say that it was Bush's fault, but I won't say that, either. Here's what happened:
1) Congress decided to increase funding to natural sciences. Republicans and Democrats agreed on it. The Bush administration (which does have heavy, heavy influence in the Republican-sponsored budgets in congress) agreed with Congress. Things looked good.
2) Democrats in Congress and the Republican Congress/Presidential administration started fighting about funding for veteran-benefits (D's wanted more, R's wanted less), the war (D's wanted a timeline for withdrawal, R's didn't), and several other issues. They needed to compromise, as usual.
3) The compromise they reached ended up cutting the funding increase that they ALL had supported, and which was already being spent. Instead, funding for natural sciences was cut. This is why the DOE, NSF, etc. are in their current situations.
Why did the politicians cut something they all agreed was worthwhile? I'm going to speculate that it was because they didn't really care about it much one way or another, and also because research funding is such a tiny part of the budget with virtually no lobbyist support that our esteemed leaders essentially forgot about it.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Umm, both houses are (D)
Not exactly. More precisely, both houses have a slim Democratic majority, and they're more or less pressured to continue budgeting for policy recently created and executed by the R's.
Without the momentum of those policies -- especially without certain high-profile foreign military adventures -- it's pretty clear the budget picture would look pretty different. Heck, just by introducing competitive bidding on Iraqi reconstruction contracts, it's plausible to suggest the budget picture would look at least $5 mil different. And all that's to say nothing of the Bush tax cuts.
I'll still agree that this makes the Democrats somewhat complicit. Congress does have the authority to simply refuse to fund the war -- or to provide only limited funding for it, opting instead to fund other things, at least in theory.
But in practice, it's pretty obvious where that was going to go.
And it's always important to remember that for the most part, legislation doesn't happen without executive influence while the houses of congress are this closely split.
we all end up so worked up that we miss the point that the government should not be doing any of this stuff.
I don't agree. It's certainly an easy out -- you definitely don't have to worry about public accountability or effective government anymore if you simply say the government shouldn't be doing/funding anything -- but in so doing, you effectively throw out one of a somewhat limited array of societal tools for getting things done.
Tweet, tweet.
really?
at what point in history has a pure democracy ever been tried?
As far as I can tell, the reason we're a republic is that people who have power tend to believe they deserve it, and to believe that people who don't have power, shouldn't.. at least, not too much.
Do you have examples to the contrary, beyond the theoretical?
They are around but you can't really tell at a glance can you? The few I know are NOT happy with the destruction of their country, despite their dislike of Sadam, and neither should you be. If there are fewer immigrants from Iraq in the future than there were in the past or from other countries in the past it's because in the past we liberated people and today we do the opposite.
Democracy is bad enough in itself - if it got any purer, the mediocrity will be a little too overpowering.
Have you heard the expression 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'?
In unrelated news, Evil Corp CEO Doctor Evil announced that no changes would be made to Fermilab's existing projects following Evil Corp's philanthropic donation. However a new project, Project Deathray was announced.
Just kidding. It doesn't really seem bad to me. There are probably enough billionaire nerds in silicon valley to fund a decent percentage of basic research. And actually good US universities are staggeringly rich by academic standards. It seems like the way to go is to try to migrate funding from the federal government to university foundations and private donors.
Maybe there should be some sort of intellectual property device that allows for pure research. Fermilab would get file for them and engineers would license them. It would be hard to do though, the physics that allowed for semiconductors was in the 1920's and 30's decades away from the engineering R&D that made them in the 50's and 60's. So it's hard to see how to use IP licenses to pay for the physics. Unless the physics is about time machines of course, then the engineers could pop back a few decades and pay the fee.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Just FYI: the first recorded steam engine was made in the first century BCE, so it did not precede the industrial revolution by 100s of years but 1800 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
Sometimes, the most important work is the one that shows what doesn't work. Just keep that in mind when judging the work that's done in a field you don't understand.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Presentation matters. That political news is almost indistinguishable from the sports page does not inspire sober and genuine thought about the issues. Then, an electoral system designed to disenfranchise up to and sometimes more than 50%-1 of the population does not inspire informational news coverage nor accountability. Public referenda on big issues in Switzerland seems to usually get the right thing done.
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Yes, and yes. The USA has been largely taken over by religious fundamentalists. To the extent that they don't rule outright, their influence is still pervasive, and moves the entire country in that cultural direction. Science and scientists are openly held in amused contempt by about half of Americans, if not more.
They respect engineers and people who can make stuff, but science for science's sake seems pointless. As Ronald Reagan, the official saint of the Right Wing, said, "Why should we fund intellectual curiosity?" That's not a gaffe--that's a normal right-wing attitude towards intellectual curiosity, i.e. basic science.
You can make an argument that Christianity itself isn't inimical to science. I won't agree with you, but I acknowledge that you can make a case for that. You can't, however, make a case that religious fundamentalism isn't harmful to science. The hostile relationship between fundamentalism and science is glaringly obvious, and there just isn't much to talk about here. As long as fundamentalists are running our culture, our downward spiral regarding science education will continue.
We'll still be on top for a while, but only because our initial lead was so great and we still have so much more money. I don't think they'll turn us into Afghanistan anytime soon, but they're going to keep trying.
Tyranny of the majority. If we had a true 1:1 democracy, black people probably still wouldnt have rights and being gay would probably be illegal. Just because a majority of people can agree on something doesnt make it right.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
How can you be so blinded to that fact?
1) The Democrats have a very, very slim majority. This is usually not enough to get anything done because the party is full of people who wear a (D) but are truly (R) in spirit.
2) Many of the Democrats opposed the science budget cuts. Many Republicans supported it. Both parties share blame here. You should actually investigate this for yourself. Do some research before you open your mouth next time.
3) The funding cut was a purely political move. Both sides wanted it because it makes BOTH sides look bad. This wasn't done by the Democrats, it was done by DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS!
4) Most PhD holders (ie the physicists working in these labs) are themselves DEMOCRATS. More Democrats see the good in doing scientific research. More Democrats support it.
Politicians - working together to better screw you.
Placing the blame on a single party is meaningless and stupid. It makes you look like a moron.
Though, there is variation in any population, so I suppose you do have the choice to turn your back on about 2 million years of human evolutionary success and just be a selfish git. ;p
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
To quote Benjamin Franklin, "What use is a new born baby?".
Throughout the history of science and mathematics the development of many technologies has started many years before in esoteric areas of research. For example: developments in number theory leading to Public Key and other Cryptography, work in sub atomic physics leading to nuclear power (and weapons), quantum physics leading to the current and future developments in microelectronics and photonics, General Relativity to GPS, etc.
The point being that no-one, not even an expert in his field is capable of predicting what will develop from some obscure area of mathematics or physics.
The fantastic advances mankind has made rest on the shoulders of those giants with the intellectual curiosity to explore new subjects, or to look at existing subjects in a new light.
The OP was voicing a sadly prevalent attitude that reflects a decline in the funding of subjects that don't show short term gains, such as the ability to kill people more efficiently. Unfortunately for the USA this is simply one more step backwards whilst developing countries elsewhere are making large steps forwards.
Yes, the left is more socialistic. I'd be glad to respond to an argument as to why that might be a bad thing, but I'm afraid that "goofy" doesn't quite suffice.
Socialism doesn't work for two reasons. Public ownership is a myth and trading rationing for scarcity is not really an improvement.
Public ownership is a myth. Someone does own the property that is made public and that is the institutions that administrate it. They use that property to dole out favors and powers and so it creates a tremendous abuse in the allocation of resources, which, is generally what we see in countries that have gone socialist.
Both socialism and capitalism try to deal with the fundamental problem of scarcity. Capitalism says that whoever has the most money gets the resource, that is, prices go up on it. We see this in America today - the price of oil goes up as the commodity becomes scarce. Socialism, by contrast, takes the same finite resource and merely redistributes based on some idea of fairness as determined by the bureaucracy.
What happens, though, is that, because there is no price incentive, there tends not to be any reason to solve the problems of that shortage of the resource. That there is a bureacracy means that advancement is political and is disconnected from solving the economic problems at hand. So what you get in socialism is a lot of finger pointing, a reduction in the amount of the available resource, then dishonesty and finally some increasing degree of repression as the government must crush anyone who dissents from their world view.
history has shown, again and again, that socialism fails, so, its not even about the bile distaste for those who are like the idea of ceding one's economic freedom to a "like minded" bureaucrat. It simply doesn't work.
This is my sig.
"That isn't a straw man, but a battle over epistemology and the nature of rationality. ID advocates want to redefine science to include the supernatural."
It's a straw man in the sense that it distracts from much more important practical issues. I actually agree with you about ID, but I'd prefer we focused our efforts on giving kids a strong basic education and letting them make up their own minds about the subject.
"I'm not sure which science you're referring to. The global warming issue is mainstream consensus in the climatalogical community."
Sorry, "Consensus" is not a synonym for "Correct". I didn't even mention the subject, but, yes, right now there's arguably a consensus for some kind of anthropogenic climate change. That certainly doesn't mean we stop asking questions or doing research. In the 1850's the best medical minds of the day concurred that miasma caused epidemic diseases. Many biologists in the early 20th century sincerely believed that sterilizing mental defectives and preventing interracial breeding was vital to the health of society. There was consensus. There was data. There were models and theories based on the best evidence available, maybe with just a little harmless fudging thrown in to clear up that pesky ambiguous data. Those theories were sanctioned by the state and enshrined by law. They were also wrong.
I really don't want to get into a global warming debate, except to remind you that theories come and go all the time. Read through the Wikipedia entry on superseded scientific theories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
Some of the more recent items on that list were things I learned in school as scientific facts, and I'm only in my 30's. Being dogmatic about science is not a good idea.
"Trying to discredit science by saying "it's been politicized" every time it doesn't agree with the Republican platform IS politicizing science"
And I don't think that anyone's political party is relevant to the science they do. Science is not ideology and it's not religion. I don't think the Republicans or the Democrats have a monopoly on bad science. If you argue Republicans have impeded, say, stem cell or climate research, then I can point to Democrats and Green "environmentalists" blocking safe, clean nuclear power for the last 30 years. And spreading disinformation about pesticides that could have prevented widespread death and suffering from malaria. And blocking the development of genetically engineered crops that could save millions from malnutrition. And both parties have screwed us over by insisting that only NASA can get Americans into space.
The problem in all these cases is that we have ceded control of the science to the government, and squelched out contrary notions as heresy unworthy of intelligent debate or funding. Demanding that the government take even more control isn't going to make either of us happy, because the government is not a reliable ally. And that is my point. If you can get past arguing about Republican boogeymen long enough to see it.
I hope he was wrong, because 'smart' is such a moving target. I read recently that in some standardized intelligence assessment the most common answer to a specific demographic (call it a 10-year old boy, but I'm just making that up) to the question, "What do a dog and a rabbit have in common?" the answer one hundred years ago was, "You use a dog to hunt a rabbit", but now the answer is expected/commonly, "they're both mammals".
I think the world is getting harder, and some part of the upper sigmas of the curve are up to the challenge, and will continue tobe, but to be smart enough to plan a society is really hard, and getting the maximal area under the curve there is even harder. I hope Plato's view is simply the pre-ox world view of Galton, and that we really are a smart race, in general.
Rather than try to get everybody to be smart and then plan out how the world should look, I think we do better to ensure that Government isn't powerful to maim, kill, and rob everybody blind, and then allow small pockets of society to do what they're best at, as specialists.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)