US House Approves Over $300 Million For Science Agencies

sciencehabit notes that the US House of Representatives has allotted an additional $337.5 million in budget increases divided amongst four science agencies. NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science will each receive an additional $62.5 million, and the National Institutes of Health will receive $150 million. The money will help to offset the decision to reduce budget increases earlier this year. Early plans for the money include the training of new math and science teachers, and another reprieve for FermiLab's financial troubles.

Comments

Re:Spending that in Iraq every day?

[jlarocco]

In other news, $162 billion was just approved for the war in Iraq. Oh, and a few more billion for some congress people's pet projects.

<sarcasm>Good to see we have our priorities straight. Also good to see the democrats following through on their promise to stop funding the "war" now that they're the majority. I'd hate to think democrats and republicans were both equally useless.</sarcasm>

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[uuxququex]

I don't think we do ourselves any favours by trying to get things banned from teaching.

There is a lot we don't teach children. We don't teach them that the sun revolves around the earth. We don't teach them 2 + 2 = 5. We should also not teach them the fairytales of a few deranged retards that creationism is.

Science is based heavily on faith,,

It isn't. Don't fool yourself. What you might think is faith, is the gap between a model of reality and reality itself. Simplified it goes like this:

1. Observe a phenomenon that you can't explain with current theory;
2. Think what could/should be changed about the current model of reality (the theory) to make this fit;
3. With this new model, predict some other phenomena;
4. Experiment to check this;
5. If there is experimental evidence, hooray! You now have a better theory! If not, go to step 2.

With this, you end up with a better theory, a better model of reality. And YES, scientist KNOW that this is not the truth, that everyday a rival theory could explain reality better, simpler or more complete. This is the scientific method. No faith required.

There are always bits of evidence that don't fit our theories or models, and we have to be honest about that.

Yes, these gaps are what make good scientist go "hmmm, I wonder if...", right before they go off to do science.

Evolution isn't as obvious as people like to claim. If it is, then why did it take until 1859 for The Origin of Species to be published, which was more than 100 years after Linneaus described the systematic nature of biology?

The fact that the earth revolves around the sun isn't as obvious as people like to claim, If it is, why did it take until Galileo, which was more than thousands of years after the Greek had access to math?

The single most important handbrake on the development of human intellect has always been religion.