Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US House Approves Over $300 Million For Science Agencies

Posted by Soulskill on from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.

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.

12 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. $300 million sounds impressive by Jonathan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But it's not. I'm on grants totalling over $1 million myself. If we could avoid land wars in Asia (so presciently predicted by Wallace Shawn in _The_Princess_Bride_), we could have billions to spend on science.

    1. Re:$300 million sounds impressive by Shikaku · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would like to inquire exactly how you get these type of grants. I'm all ears. I'm a computer science major in college right now.

    2. Re:$300 million sounds impressive by sokoban · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would like to inquire exactly how you get these type of grants. I'm all ears. I'm a computer science major in college right now.

      Do something where you use that kind of money to do meaningful research. This past year for example I was working on a small molecule X-ray setup which cost over $500k just in equipment.

      Also, writing grant proposals helps.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    3. Re:$300 million sounds impressive by FriendComputer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The small company I work for goes through the http://www.sbir.gov/ program. It includes grant solicitations from DOD, NIH, and others. It can be pretty cutthroat but we've been doing okay funding R&D activities with it for almost 10 years.

      --
      ----- Rooting out Commie Mutant Traitors since 1984
    4. Re:$300 million sounds impressive by Jonathan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would like to inquire exactly how you get these type of grants. I'm all ears. I'm a computer science major in college right now.

      Basically you go to the web site of a relevant funding agency like the NSF and look at their current "call for proposals". Once you find one that is relevant to what you want to do, you write a proposal detailing what you want to do, how much it will cost, and why it is important. In practice you should either have a doctorate in a relevant field or be well on the way to getting one before writing a grant. Also, it helps if you are working at university or research institute because such places have grants offices that can give you advice on how much things are likely to cost. This is important because an unreasonably high or low budget is likely to doom a grant proposal.

    5. Re:$300 million sounds impressive by Anpheus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except we don't need it. It's mostly for show. We have enough nuclear firepower to wipe the floor with any real nation that decided to oppose us. Are you seriously suggesting that if we engaged in a war where aircraft carriers were truly necessary and -under threat- that we would hold off on the nukes? We'd have to face an actual military foe for that.

      As nice as it is that we can just roll over whatever dinky (or even not-so-dinky) country in the world because our military spending is through the roof, it isn't even necessary. We don't need more soldiers, we need smarter, better ones. We need soldiers that understand the role they are in, and commanders that are going to lead them by example in doing so. I mean no slight to our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in other conflicts past and current. Rather, the enemy has changed, and our military has not. We still have overwhelming firepower, for what? We don't need to take out a city, we need to find the -one guy- who wants revenge, who has some political or religious vendetta against us.

      Instead we send boys off to their death, to risk life and limb against an uncertain adversary. And for what? They're so terrified out there because they well and truly never know when their life will end abruptly that they are close to snapping. We have soldiers coming out and bravely admitting some of the criminal activities that are occurring with the complicit support of their commanders. Drop weapons are placed on the bodies of innocent civilians to hide the fact that they were killed merely because they appeared threatening. Mosques are shot at out of revenge, not because of apparent threat. These boys and girls we are sending are ill-prepared to deal with the fact that people around them are dying for no reason whatsoever in a pointless ground conflict that has no apparent end.

      I'd be terrified too. I'd probably want revenge too if some faceless Arab took my friend's life suddenly and with the utmost cowardice through the use of something like an IED. Every single day I'd have to decide whether or not I think that guy walking towards me might be wearing an explosive belt. Every day I'd have to live with the fact that I don't know the people around me, I can't understand them, and that my target is going to look exactly like a civilian.

      Offense is not what we need, we need strategic and tactical advantage. We don't have it. We're fighting Joe Arab.

    6. Re:$300 million sounds impressive by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except we don't need it. It's mostly for show. We have enough nuclear firepower to wipe the floor with any real nation that decided to oppose us. Are you seriously suggesting that if we engaged in a war where aircraft carriers were truly necessary and -under threat- that we would hold off on the nukes? We'd have to face an actual military foe for that.

      You didn't ask me, but yes, the US would hold off on the nukes when we're fighting someone with similar nuclear weapon firepower. 20 years ago the USSR had that power. 20 years from now there probably be other nuclear powers. It's not static.

      I'd be terrified too. I'd probably want revenge too if some faceless Arab took my friend's life suddenly and with the utmost cowardice through the use of something like an IED. Every single day I'd have to decide whether or not I think that guy walking towards me might be wearing an explosive belt. Every day I'd have to live with the fact that I don't know the people around me, I can't understand them, and that my target is going to look exactly like a civilian.

      The classic projection argument. Pretend it's something you'd do, and that somehow makes the argument true. Then again, maybe you would do this, which means that it's a good thing you aren't serving in the US military.

    7. Re:$300 million sounds impressive by The+Spoonman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Imagine even one year of spending where $800 billion goes to sciences and technology

      Extrapolating...extrapolating...okay, we've jumped from 20% efficiency of solar cells to over 40% in the last 5 years or so with just a couple of million dollars being spent by companies in research. I'd say we could easily hit the "magic" 80% mark with just a fraction of that money, which would completely eliminate the need for any other kind of energy source AND have enough money left over to rebuild the infrastructure to implement it. This would eviscerate the monetary stockpiles of our "friends" the Saudis who are funding a large portion of the terrorism and spark a new age of financial independence for the US. We might even be able to build artificial lakes with palm tree islands and indoor ski resorts in our own deserts with the money saved!

      Naah, I think I'm happier sending kids off to their death to protect some rich white guy's shares in the oil industry. That seems more American to me. I mean, just think...if the kids manage to come home alive with most of their limbs, they'll be able to afford a community college education with their GI Bill money and thus earn a subsistence wage in a cubicle until they die.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    8. Re:$300 million sounds impressive by mako1138 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Go talk to a professor about doing research. They would be the ones to know. Even as an undergrad, you might be able to draw a salary working on a grant project.

    9. Re:$300 million sounds impressive by The+Spoonman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now we use "smart bombs" and are affraid of "collateral damage."

      Yes, because we've come to realize that simply attacking and destroying the military bases without hitting the schools next to them is just as effective as blowing up everyone and letting "god" sort 'em out.

      4000 or so (i haven't been keeping up) in Iraq in 5 years, and people think that's an unacceptably high loss.

      One is an unacceptable loss in this war since we're only doing it so Gee, Dubya can finally feel like he's earned his father's approval after being a loser fuckup all of his life.

      It's also nice that it;s not important enough for you to "keep up with", but important enough for you to try and justify. Perhaps if your family contained one of the 4415 (the last known name we have is a 21 year old kid named Jason Cox from Elyria, OH) soldiers, 435 contractors or the unknown tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of Iraqis killed you'd pay more attention?

      The problem in Iraq isn't military, its political, and its not in Iraq, its on the cable news.

      No, it's that we let the clueless and ignorant vote and we end up with people like Gee, Dubya.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    10. Re:$300 million sounds impressive by sunhou · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Go talk to a professor about doing research. They would be the ones to know. Even as an undergrad, you might be able to draw a salary working on a grant project.

      Definitely. I'm a prof. in a math dept, my work is in mathematical biology (population ecology and epidemiology, a combination of mathematical models and computer simulation models), and I've had about 10 undergrads working with me this past year. It'll probably be going up to about 15 students, thanks to another grant I just got.

      If you are a motivated undergrad, you should seek out such opportunities. When I was a student, I knocked on a lot of prof's doors looking for work. One project led to the next. Once you get a good reputation, faculty will look for ways to support you.

  2. You wouldn't believe the waste in Defense Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I spent 20 years as a military officer. I can tell you that *well* over 50% of the DoD budget is squandered on stuff that doesn't do anything to defend our country.

    Every military organization knows that its budget is a "use it or lose it" proposition: if all of your allotted money isn't spent by 30 September, you'll get less money next year. So, of course, all of the money is always spent, regardless of real need. The end-of-year spending sprees are mind-blowing: there is intense organizational pressure to buy, buy, buy anything to "get the money spent." If you're good at shovelling money out the door, you're rewarded with ... even more money next year. Repeat this selection process for a few decades, and you've got yourself some seriously wacked-out budgets.

    As if the terrible money management weren't bad enough, we still have a military that spends most of its time preparing for a replay of World War II or the Cold War. And every weapon system that served us well in those conflicts now has an entrenched bureaucracy dedicated to ensuring its continued growth: the fighter mafia, the bomber barons, the submariners, the naval aviators, the tankers, etc, etc, etc. These bureaucracies make darn sure that "their" systems aren't downsized or (god forbid) eliminated, regardless of modern relevance. We're going to have aircraft carriers forever (or until, like battleships in WW2, their utter worthlessness gets painfully demonstrated in combat). And while we fund these relics of missions past, we don't significantly adapt to meet TODAY's mission: less than 0.1% of GIs are trained to speak the language of the peoples whose "hearts and minds" we're currently seeking to win.

    We spend a lot of time thinking up ways to beat the Chinese and the Russians, and we outspend them both by an order of magnitude. Meanwhile, the Chinese don't seem much inclined to invade anyone (except Taiwan, but the US doesn't even recognize it as a country), and I don't think anyone seriously thinks Russia wants to "liberate" the workers of the world anymore. But we still hold a loaded gun to the (former) communist heathens, just in case.

    So, basically, we're maintaining a huge offensive force under the guise of defense. The world rightly sees this as a statement: "if you do anything we don't like, we can come and kill you." This may be a good thing for our national power, but I'm not sure that in this day and age, it isn't counterproductive to our security.