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

$300 million sounds impressive

[Jonathan]

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.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[BWJones]

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...

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[joocemann]

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.

Re:Math and Science teachers?

[REJOSU]

I won't post with the audacity to state such an incredible stereotype, but...

In America, the quality of math and science teachers is decreasing overall because of this fact. Why take a job paying such a pittance when you could take a potential lab or research job that would pay more?

This leaves us with the students who were the worst in their studies teaching. Obviously this isn't true of all teachers, it does however, seem to be a trend that is developing.

I have friends who in college had aspirations to become doctors and engineers, however after they couldn't cut it, changed their majors to education.

Two are biology teachers, one is a chemistry teacher, and the four are social studies of some variety or another.

And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Cathoderoytube]

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.

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.

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>