Slashdot Mirror
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.
Shouldn't that be the Department of Education's concern?
As far as I can tell, the problem with math and science teachers is that almost all of them can make more money in another profession. Teaching is crappy pay when you consider all that a science or math major has to go through to get their degree.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
Yeah, when you consider that the DOD unclassified budget is around $408 Billion, appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan are another ~$170 Billion and DOD classified projects are another ~$35 Billion.... in comparison, $300 Million is a *tiny* drop in the bucket. But $300 million might help some labs to avoid closing down...
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Yeah, when you consider that the DOD unclassified budget is around $408 Billion, appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan are another ~$170 Billion and DOD classified projects are another ~$35 Billion.... in comparison, $300 Million is a *tiny* drop in the bucket. But $300 million might help some labs to avoid closing down...
I think the results would be *AMAZING* to see if the opposite were true. Imagine even one year of spending where $800 billion goes to sciences and technology, and $300m goes to the DoD. Think about that... Think long and hard about what could change, what huge serious things we could actually accomplish when we focus on something other than war.Yes, its hard to imagine not killing others for some reason or another; we can do it. Seriously think about just chilling back and watching huge amounts of your cash go somewhere productive.
If the US government gave a rats ass about Science they'd crush creationism once and for all. It seems like a hypocritical gesture to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars for science R&D and allowing creationism to be taught in science classes. Which is effectively sabotaging the next generation of scientists. Teach the controversy and all that crap. Isn't the expanding earth theory a viable alternative to gravity? Crystals work better for treating cancer than Chemo Therapy, sin causes Aids. It's all valid when you don't think about it.
I have nothing compelling to say
It's not like there is a machine where you put money it and it outputs scientific truths on the other side. Science is not about throwing lots of money at once - it's a long distance thing. You need skilled manpower, you need equipment (that has to be produced) etc. etc.
DO increase the budget, use billions to do that, but don't expect that the year you throw 100 billions on science you will suddenly cure cancer. However, a promise of extra 5 billions, guaranteed and inflation adjusted for the next 20 years, would FOR SURE make a difference.
Of course, if you decide to give science extra 100 billions for the next 20 years, I won't protest either :)
The big problem with the WWII analogy is that we are now the other side. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they needed oil. The difference is they were trying to break up the oil embargo we imposed on them, whereas Iraq was not imposing an oil embargo on us. And obviously Japan didn't invade Texas and take the oil to "repay" Japan for the cost of the invasion. So, yeah, the problem is political. You can't win when there are is no reason to be there and no criteria for victory, and your losses are already more than you could possibly gain.
This is the kind of thinking that gets us into trouble.
Imagine that funding is like water, and it flows through various pipes. Now imagine users of funding for some particular purpose are hooked up through those pipes through small diameters hookups, because they are organized around the assumption that they have to make do with, say, 100 gallons/day. Their interior plumbing is all designed around using on that order of water a day.
Now, you tell them, "I'm going to give you 10,000 gallons per day, for the next month." They don't have time to reorganize their water usage; they can barely use more than 120 gallons per day, and even that would be a challenge in the short run. Even if they could reorganize to use 10,000 gallons per day, by the time they were close to finished they'd be back down to 100. So they rush to put safety releases that throw away 9,890 gallons. They realize that it's a shame that 9890 gallons are being wasted, but that way they at least get ten extra gallons to do something productive with. In truth, they'd be more productive if you offered them 120 gallons instead of 10,000 gallons, and they'll be lucky to get as much good done as if you'd left them alone.
Lest you think this is some kind of theoretical model, let me assure you I've been part of this kind of scenario, as a vendor working with low levels of government groups where the rubber meets the road, and having that work suddenly become a political priority.
Most of the groups saw no money, because it would have taken too long to figure out how to get it to them. Where they did, they couldn't use it to extend their programs, because it was a one time windfall, so they went on a buying spree, going for more expensive equipment even if less expensive would have served them better. Probably 95% of the money was diverted at higher levels where it was funneled to vendors who didn't have any specific domain expertise, but were equipped to absorb large amounts of federal funding rapidly. In some cases mid level organizations, unable to get the funding onto the ground fast enough, spent money on support systems for the lower level. This wasn't a bad strategy, but the people didn't know how much the things they were buying should cost, and didn't have time to find out. The results were sad, but predictable.
Even if getting 10x the work done costs 10x as much (which it may or may not), you can't get 10x the work done by spending 10x as much, much less 100x as much.
It would make more sense to take that 10x money and put it in escrow, dolling it out in a bell shaped curve over five years or so, peaking in year 3. If you had 100x the money, it would make sense to take it and create an endowment that ensured more money would be spent annually.
I'm a political liberal. I think the government should spend money on all kinds of important public priorities, such as public health, scientific research and so on. However, since supporting these priorities is important to me, I'm keenly aware that there isn't enough money to do everything we'd want. Every penny wasted on something, even if that thing is itself important, deprives another priority of a penny. Sometimes the priority starved can even be the priority on which the penny was spent.
The Federal Budget should be organized into an operational budget and a capital budget, and operational costs should be paid for out of current revenues. Capital expenses can be paid for out of deficit spending, but crash programs on capital expenses should be discouraged by limiting growth in any capital category to a fixed percentage, say 20%.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.