Scientists Stage Funerals To Protest Against Cuts — a New Trend?

ananyo writes "Physicists, chemists and mathematicians in the UK are campaigning against their chief public funder (EPSRC) over reforms that they say threaten blue-skies research, kicking off their protest by toting a coffin to the Prime Minister in Downing Street. The reforms are a response to declining budgets and political pressure to focus science on areas that will produce economic benefits for the UK. Last month, over 2000 Canadian scientists marched to Parliament Hill with a coffin to protest against the Harper government's cuts to basic research and scientific facilities, which they believe undermine the quality of scientific evidence in government. With budget cuts to science expected in the U.S., is it time for scientists in U.S. — and perhaps elsewhere — to think about getting their retaliation in first and ready their coffins?"

Comments

Re:dang, is this really the first post?

[DanTheStone]

In response to your Subject, which is the comment version of a headline, "No".

Re:dang, is this really the first post?

[MiniMike]

Do you have a reference for that claim?

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an educated minority who does obviously but big business that can't make use of curiosity based research in the immediate quarter doesn't care, Joe Sixpack who is fearing unemployment due to a massive recession doesn't care. Political powers that are trying to "stabilize" the middle east by shooting at it don't care.

So who, with power, cares?

Re:Who cares?

[X0563511]

You outline the real problem: so many big businesses don't seem to care beyond the next quarter. Extreme nearsightedness, it seems.

You don't ever seem to see them taking a hit for the NOW, looking towards a payoff on the LATER. Always it's now now now.

Re:Who cares?

[emilper]

but big business that can't make use of curiosity based research in the immediate quarter doesn't care

oh right, Intel and IBM and all the others do not do "curiosity based research" at all ... that was typed on a computer with a processor made in a factory that will become obsolete in 3 years

can't do applied research without doing fundamental research too ... unless you research a new model of bouncy balls, and even then you might need to find better rubber once in a while

most of the research is done and paid for by businesses, they just don't advertise so much when they fail

Re:Who cares?

[deapbluesea]

Yeah, people like DeltaHawk who spent 20 years building a diesel aircraft engine in order to reduce fuel consumption and lead particulate without ever making a single sale sure are short sighted SOBs. Or perhaps you're thinking of those shortsighted morons in the Innovation 1000 study who spent $550B on R&D in 2010. Thank goodness we have /. to put a lid on hyperbole.

Re:Who cares?

[X0563511]

I said "So many businesses" not "all businesses."

You may want to work on your reading comprehension.

Re:Who cares?

[khallow]

Most businesses have no use for research. They're just not in a market where scientific innovation matters, such as restaurants or retail stores. Given that, what makes your observation relevant? Should I be concerned that my local Mongolian grill doesn't have a world class particle accelerator?

And for those businesses that do have relevant R&D needs, why do the research themselves, when they can socialize the risk by using government funding? If we're going to complain about the short sightedness of modern business, we need to keep in mind the public policies, such as vast amounts of government funded research, that create such environments.

Re:Who cares?

[amck]

We do a bunch of research of societal importance that needs to be done, but does not get done by private enterprise as it does not benefit anyone in particular enough.

e.g. Antibiotics. No research in antibiotics by big pharma. Not cost-effective. But we're living on borrowed time as we have no more antibiotics in the arsenal that haven't been adapted to _somewhere_.
Food. The "green revolution" of the 1960s-1970s delivered cheap, abundant food. Now development of new breeds is miniscule. Why should Cargill, etc. pay to lower the price of their products? but if we don't do the research now, there will be not enough to feed people in the 2030s onwards.
Anti-senescence / arthrtitis / dementia, etc: with extending life expectancy, we can't afford to have our generation retiring at 65 and living to 100. So I'll have to work when I'm 70 or 80. Ok, but will I be able to? Who's funding the research?

Practically the whole _point_ of government is to do things on a larger level than we (as individuals) can do, or as (profit-making) corporations care to do. Right now, the Right relies on the future security of the world being funded out of the charity of a few billionaires (the Gates foundation, etc), so that they can avoid paying tax ...

Re:Who cares?

[GameboyRMH]

Google does long-term work in secret but always downplays it and...keeps it secret because it scares investors.

Re:Who cares?

[khallow]

Practically the whole _point_ of government is to do things on a larger level than we (as individuals) can do, or as (profit-making) corporations care to do.

The "whole point" depends on your viewpoint. You won't get a group of people to agree on anything beyond law enforcement, roads, that sort of thing. Doing big projects, especially big projects that have costs way out of proportion to their benefit, isn't an agreed upon purpose of government.

It's worth noting that government isn't really doing much in the areas you mention either. So it doesn't make much sense to me to laud public research on that basis.

Re:Who cares?

[amck]

What projects the government does (e.g. just law enforcement, build roads, healthcare, etc) are obviously a political choice. Different groups and people will have opinions on this. What I'm arguing is that there are tasks: defence (eg. of a town/ nation), building railroads, etc. that are beyond the scope of individuals or even corporations, and that these get done by government.

The projects I listed above are science projects targeted in the EU by the "Horizon 2020" funding: targets that the EU has chosen to concentrate on with an 80 billion Euro budget. They are R&D goals that effectively are not being done by private enterprise, but are societally necessary. Science in the US has taken a backstep in terms of funding recently, so I don't know the relative funding levels in the US, but from all i've seen funding of these goals in the private sector (e.g.non governmental funded) is negligible.

Re:Who cares?

[Rich0]

That's because they're all run by MBAs who love NPV calculations. Anything of importance can be quantitated, and if it can't be, well, then it must not be important.

If you've ever used an NPV calculator with typical corporate assumptions you'll find that almost any kind of investment is impossible to justify. If you didn't sink that money into R&D you could be investing it in something else that has a 10% annual return! Of course, in reality those 10% returns don't actually turn out, especially since you end up not investing in anything but cost-cutting.

Re:Who cares?

[khallow]

The projects I listed above are science projects targeted in the EU by the "Horizon 2020" funding: targets that the EU has chosen to concentrate on with an 80 billion Euro budget. They are R&D goals that effectively are not being done by private enterprise, but are societally necessary

So what evidence is there that the EU can do better? Obviously, they can spend more, but what makes you think the mere act of spending is going to generate results?

Let me put it this way. I foresee in about five to ten years, a series of serious, introspective articles talking about the problems of Horizon 2020 and how the EU didn't quite get any newsworthy science out of the effort. Defenders will speak of the difficulty of science and how while the program didn't actually generate anything of note, they did make a lot of progress. Maybe they'll dole out the pablum about how scientific progress doesn't bring immediate returns, ignoring that that wasn't a problem with scientific efforts before the modern era of public funding.

They won't actually point out specific wins, being unable to, but probably they'll refer to the numbers of scientists vigorously doing research or related issues (the EU demonstrates its competitiveness by having a lot of people with degrees doing sciency stuff) or the percentage of research papers that come from the EU.

In any case, lack of any evidence of concrete advancement in these areas of science won't keep them from doubling down with a new and improved, larger program, perhaps a "Horizon 2030", where they spend more money on science and restart the empty ritual of research funding.

Science in the US has taken a backstep in terms of funding recently, so I don't know the relative funding levels in the US, but from all i've seen funding of these goals in the private sector (e.g.non governmental funded) is negligible.

As of 2006, it was much higher than the EU. Publicly funded research was similar in size between the two entities, privately funded research was much larger in the US.

Re:Who cares?

[amck]

So what evidence is there that the EU can do better? Obviously, they can spend more, but what makes you think the mere act of spending is going to generate results?

Let me put it this way. I foresee in about five to ten years, a series of serious, introspective articles talking about the problems of Horizon 2020 and how the EU didn't quite get any newsworthy science out of the effort. Defenders will speak of the difficulty of science and how while the program didn't actually generate anything of note, they did make a lot of progress. Maybe they'll dole out the pablum about how scientific progress doesn't bring immediate returns, ignoring that that wasn't a problem with scientific efforts before the modern era of public funding.

I'm arguing that govt (In this case, the EU, which I know the details of better) is funding research that society needs and the privately-funded research is not doing. The Horizon2020 project covers the period 2013-2020, and has set 7 goals, of which I listed 3 as examples, for which we (humanity) are simply not doing what we need to, to survive as civilisation: eg. avoid pandemics. We are coasting on the results of previous decades.

My argument is about the funding of research to make it happen. Note that it is not an argument over whether it is done in the public or private sector: private industry can bid in Europe for Horizon2020 funds (or its current equivalent, "Framework 7", the current funding project) as well as public sector scientists in academia, etc.

The evidence that private sector funding isn't sufficient is that nobody is doing it: the amount of research into antibiotics is pitiful. The work in vaccines for malaria, etc. too: the incentive for the private sector is insufficient. Anitibiotics pay cents, or a few dollars, for a dose. Anti-MS drugs or proposed anti-alzheimers pay 30-50 k$ per year. Big pharma is biased towards drugs that pay well, not the ones society needs.

Re:Who cares?

[khallow]

I'm arguing that govt (In this case, the EU, which I know the details of better) is funding research that society needs and the privately-funded research is not doing.

So what? My argument is simply that funding does not imply results either now or centuries from now. I think it's a harmful delusion to expect outcome just because money was allotted in a budget.

The evidence that private sector funding isn't sufficient is that nobody is doing it: the amount of research into antibiotics is pitiful.

That's evidence that there's no monetary motivation to research new antibiotics not that private sector funding of antibiotics research doesn't work. One should wonder why there's no value any more in saving peoples' lives from severe bacterial infection. That is, what perverse incentives have been created by our society?

Look at why antibiotics and vaccines) aren't interesting to drug makers. They're short term usage, mostly used in the poorer parts of the world, subject to obsolescence from disease evolution, and simply not needed in the case of antibiotics (or even will be considered for use) unless current cheap antibiotics fail. Even though people do need them and would be willing to pay for good new antibiotics, the return to be had simply doesn't justify the cost of developing the drug.

Here, the EU is throwing billions at a problem (ineffectually IMHO) that could be solved and solved better by lower thresholds to drug testing and use. This research is a kludge for patching over a problem from bad regulation of medical drugs (and also the risk adverse nature of modern medicine where drugs and treatments are prescribed which aren't needed, but which cover the doctor's ass).

Frankly, we should be seeing a lot more deaths and such from experimental medicine and health care procedures. The absence of such indicates that we are too risk adverse and that IMHO means we are killing people by slowing down the adoption of new practices and drugs.

Re:Who cares?

[amck]

Look at why antibiotics and vaccines) aren't interesting to drug makers. They're short term usage, mostly used in the poorer parts of the world, subject to obsolescence from disease evolution, and simply not needed in the case of antibiotics (or even will be considered for use) unless current cheap antibiotics fail. Even though people do need them and would be willing to pay for good new antibiotics, the return to be had simply doesn't justify the cost of developing the drug.

Here, the EU is throwing billions at a problem (ineffectually IMHO) that could be solved and solved better by lower thresholds to drug testing and use. This research is a kludge for patching over a problem from bad regulation of medical drugs (and also the risk adverse nature of modern medicine where drugs and treatments are prescribed which aren't needed, but which cover the doctor's ass).

I strongly disagree. Pharma is not interested in developing antibiotics because there is no profit. The problem is not thresholds for drug testing; its time. and antibiotics and vaccines are not needed "just in poorer countries". They are needed everywhere, now. (or antibiotics: on demand). We've only just dodged the bullet several times: we came extremely close to a global pandemic with SARS, but were lucky in how it spread. Tuberculosis, etc. threaten now.

It takes time to develop and produce the drugs. This isn't simply a matter of bureaucracy; even with flu vaccines, which we had for bird flu, would take 12-24 months of global production to get made and distributed if it hit tomorrow. But, short of customers, they will not be made. Hence getting them ready is a societal need that the profit motive won't directly solve.

Similarly with food: we don't have the strains of drought-resistant wheat, etc. to feed 12-15 billion people. Developing them involves known techniques that will simply take years to get sufficient seed stock, and work hasn't started yet. Again, time: we can't afford to wait until people are starving and willing to pay to start doing the necessary research.

That research has no guaranteed outcome is no just reason for not doing it. "It may fail" is an argument for a company or individual; on a societal or governmental level it translates to "We decided to let billions starve to death because we might not succeed". Thats not justifiable parsimony with tax money: its genocide.

Re:dang, is this really the first post?

[X0563511]

Yea, the fact that the actual first post is first. You know.... this one?

Re:How about the USA?

[SirSlud]

RTFA much? The coffin is not a mock funeral for the respective prime ministers, but rather for the 'death of science'.

Death of evidence

[Hatta]

This is intentional. They deliberately impoverish the intellectual community so that few will be able to question what government does. If no one has hard data, the government can do what it wants. If hard data is available, the government has to take that into consideration. Behind every anti-intellectual is an authoritarian.

Re:Death of evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Are you serious? There's an economic downturn. The government is having trouble funding programs. And the fact that they want to cut spending to a program that doesn't have immediate and clearly predictable economic benefit is because they're anti-intellectual?

It seems to me far more likely that the government just doesn't have the money. But then, I don't own a tinfoil hat, so I'm sure I'm just being brainwashed by their mind-control rays.

Re:Death of evidence

[Hatta]

There's an economic downturn. The government is having trouble funding programs. And the fact that they want to cut spending to a program that doesn't have immediate and clearly predictable economic benefit is because they're anti-intellectual?

Basic research provides the greatest ROI of any sort of investment anywhere ever. On top of that, government spending helps to stimulate economies. Creating solid middle class jobs filled by smart, motivated people is exactly the kind of thing that you want to do to get out of a recession.

Re:Death of evidence

[dfenstrate]

Or, you know, we could be in the middle of a worldwide financial meltdown where hard decisions have to be made.
Governments love to fund scientists, especially when those scientists come to conclusions that convienently give authoritarians the excuse to take more money and power.
Even considering that, however, sometimes, you just run out of other people's money to borrow and/or take.

Re:Death of evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Under Canada's current government it's not tinfoil-hat worthy to wonder if the government is cutting back on sciences as research to further their agenda.

Re:Death of evidence

[Hatta]

Or, you know, we could be in the middle of a worldwide financial meltdown where hard decisions have to be made.

All the more reason to keep these steady middle class jobs around so there's more demand for services in the economy. And we're not just talking about scientists. There's support staff, people who repair equipment, companies that manufacture reagents. If you're looking for a "shovel ready" project that will have positive ripple effects throughout the economy, basic research should be at the top of the list.

Governments love to fund scientists, especially when those scientists come to conclusions that convienently give authoritarians the excuse to take more money and power.

In the absence of scientific evidence, authoritarians can do whatever they want. See the War on Drug Users, the TSA. Very few authoritarian initiatives have any sort of scientific basis behind them. Authoritarians rule by fear, and people fear the unknown.

Re:Death of evidence

[cpu6502]

So what did we get out of the trillions of dollars spent on the moon landings & research? Velcro? That's a very very low ROI. Trillions spent for a few dollars worth of plastic.

>>>On top of that, government spending helps to stimulate economies.

Or it creates bubbles that go "pop" and make a crash. Like the government-backed mortgage bubble we experienced from 2002-to 2007. That was supposed to stimulate the economy but instead it wrecked it.

Re:Death of evidence

[sdguero]

I don't buy the authoritarian conspiracy theories. It's more about priorities and currently there is little to no interest in the general populace towards science and research. Just look at what is trending on facebook... People care about sports, taxes, gay marriage, gun laws, Beiber fever, religion, and about 16 other things before they care about scientific research (unless it's a "green" science, people are still somewhat excited about GW, nuclear power, and recycling because they have been so politicized recently). The general populace takes the things that science has provided to us for granted, and politicians/bureaucrats/whoever are either a) swept up in the same retarded things as almost everyone else, or b) aren't willing to risk their careers/family/livelyhood to stand up for the things that are truly important.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

Re:Death of evidence

[gmack]

All of that is true enough but it means nothing when the cost of borrowing is going up. Thanks to entire countries that went bankrupt during the last downturn, government debt is no longer considered safe and consequently the days of borrowing money forever are over.

The options are: make slightly painful cuts now or make devastating cuts later when the government runs out of money,

Re:Death of evidence

[frosty_tsm]

Really? Are you serious? There's an economic downturn.

Yes, and a big one at that. Just like there was 10 years ago and 20 years ago and ... you get the idea.

Just because there's a downturn doesn't mean we stop investing in the future. Had the U.S. done that in the 30s, we would have lost in the 40s (old aircraft, slow ships, old rifles, broken tanks, no nukes).

Re:Death of evidence

[NoOneInParticular]

So, you prefer research from non-scientists? Good luck with that ... Mali, here we come.

Re:Death of evidence

[Hatta]

I don't buy the authoritarian conspiracy theories. It's more about priorities

It's not a conspiracy theory and it is about priorities. Authoritarians don't value knowledge, so they place it at a low priority. Conservatives don't have to meet in secret to hatch a plan to kill science. They just follow their own self interest in not funding people who are likely to oppose them with facts.

currently there is little to no interest in the general populace towards science and research. Just look at what is trending on facebook... People care about sports, taxes, gay marriage, gun laws, Beiber fever, religion, and about 16 other things before they care about scientific research

Exactly, bread and circuses. What else would you expect from an authoritarian anti-intellectual culture?

Re:Death of evidence

[Hatta]

So what did we get out of the trillions of dollars spent on the moon landings & research?

We got the best aerospace industry on Earth.

Re:Death of evidence

[Hatta]

Cutting research when the economy bad is like eating your feet when you're hungry. Sure, it might make things slightly better in the short term, but now you're stuck in a very bad place with no way to get out.

Re:Death of evidence

[stanlyb]

Ahhhh, the middle class, just like the aliens, everybody knows they exists and yet no one seems to have seen them....

Re:Death of evidence

[stanlyb]

And the best petrol burner ever... Well done, really.

Re:Death of evidence

[sdguero]

So by "they" in your original post, you meant "conservatives." And you are saying the the general populace wants to like science but is somehow being tricked into liking other less important things by a small group of conservative authoritarians?

I don't buy that. And I'd argue that both sides of the political spectrum are equally to blame. The SSC and SEI projects were shut down under Clinton's watch, and the Obama administration cancelled the Ares program in 2010 (even though they didn't cancel the construction projects to build a bunch of components that will only be mothballed). I'm sure there are plenty of republican administration cancellations, but I would argue that both sides have done there fair share of crapping all over science/research in the USA. Look at which party Elon Musk has contributed too (hint, it's both parties in equal amounts).

I don't think voting for one side or the other is the way to change things. I think a lot smaller than that.... Take a kid to see a rocket launch, donate to a kickstarter project, or post a cool vid of the Mars landing on facebook. Speaking of, I really like this one that I saw linked on /. a few days ago: :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s

I don't have faith in the government to get us anywhere fast unless it's a war on something.

Re:Death of evidence

[bzipitidoo]

What?! You don't know what we got out of the moon landings? Seriously?

The moon landings were propaganda first and science second. They demonstrated the superiority of capitalism over communism, thereby helping to perpetuate the economic system you apparently love so. We also got a few nice scientific advancements out of the affair, sort of as a side bonus. Don't go laying the expense of all that on science.

Makes me sick how conservatives' vision has withered to nothing. What grand projects and great achievements would you conservatives have us do next? Apparently nothing at all, because that would make it harder to balance the budget. You whine that we can't afford it. You'd kill the James Webb telescope if you could, despite the huge contributions the Hubble has made to astronomy and physics. You did kill the Supercollider, and now look what happened. We did NOT discover the Higgs boson, the Europeans did. When you can be persuaded to open the vaults, do you do something noble and great? No, you prefer to stomp around the world and shoot up a bunch of Muslims, Africans, Asians, and maybe a few Latin Americans and Europeans, carrying on as if kicking the butts of a bunch of poorly armed terrorists and drilling a few more oil wells is the height of our aspirations. The only thing you seem to respect is force and money. Sure showed those Iraqis, didn't you? Do you understand how much money Iraq cost us? More than all the bailouts we've done in the past 5 years! Are the only past accomplishments of the US you can relate to the elimination of slavery in the Civil War, and victory in WWI and WWII because they were wars? What about the transatlantic cable and the telegraph and telephone system? The transcontinental railroad? The light bulb? Electrification of the entire nation? Refrigeration? Radio and TV broadcasting? The Interstate highway system? The Internet?

Pooh-poohing the moon landings, Jesus H. Christ!

Re:Death of evidence

[jpapon]

If we didn't get scientific gain (which we did) or prestige (which we did) out of the Apollo Program, you're acting like the money spent was lost. It wasn't... it was spent on building a massive American aerospace industry. It was spent on salaries for hundreds of thousands of workers.

The Apollo program had all the benefits of the Military-Industrial complex without the downside of having to kill people or conduct atomic tests to avoid looking like you're wasting money.

Re:Death of evidence

[jpapon]

I don't understand this argument that cutting science funding is good, but raising taxes on "job-creators" is bad.

I'll accept that raising taxes on millionaires might (MIGHT) result in less jobs being created through new investment.

Now you need to accept the obvious fact that cutting science funding WILL result in less jobs. You know, those jobs you're cutting. Jobs that were doing the best possible thing they could be in terms of real economic growth - research which will lead to new technology for the future.

Now you have thousands of unemployed scientists. You've squandered one of your most important resources, the intellectual capital of your country.

Good thing those rich guys still have so much money so that they can POSSIBLY invest it in generating jobs. Hopefully they don't decide to invest it in things like financial derivatives or foreign economies.

Then we have less revenue from the scientists paying taxes AND we don't have as many jobs. Sweet plan, dude.

Re:Death of evidence

[CrimsonAvenger]

Or, you know, we could be in the middle of a worldwide financial meltdown where hard decisions have to be made.

We are NOT in the middle of a worldwide financial meltdown.

What we ARE in is a period when a very large fraction of the populace are realizing that they're overextended on credit, so they're busy paying down their debts like mad.

Which means that rather than buying the latest in cars/computers/whatever, they're paying off the last ten years worth of spending more than they made.

Once they've paid their existing debt down to manageable levels, they'll go back to spending, and businesses who aren't selling can go back to selling and hiring....

Note that the only reason I'm not doing that is that my wife and I did this ten years ago. Amazing how little a mortgage crisis means when your mortgage was paid off a decade back, and you don't have to worry about car payments because you paid cash for your cars or did without....

Re:Death of evidence

[CrimsonAvenger]

Had the U.S. done that in the 30s, we would have lost in the 40s (old aircraft, slow ships, old rifles, broken tanks, no nukes).

It should be noted that R&D in the USA had almost no funding at all until...1939-1940.

Why? Because the US Military was, as is usual in peacetime (well, was usual pre-WW2 - the rules have changed since then) starved for funds.

They had to develop tank warfare doctrine with trucks as stand-ins for tanks, since they had no tanks made later than about 1920.

The M1 Garand "officially" replaced the 03 Springfield in 1936, but virtually the entire Army and Marine Corps began WW2 with Springfields.

The M4 Sherman tank began development in 1940.

The P-51 Mustang begain development in '39, in response to a British request for airplanes. The prototype wasn't flown until mid 1940, and production didn't start till 1941.

And on, and on....

On the other hand, the Navy got a slightly better deal, since they'd always been the "senior service".

Their "better deal consisted of (are you ready for this?) two (2) battleships laid down before WW2 began (both completed in 1923), seven (7) aircraft carriers (two completed in 1927, the rest in the mid-late '30s), ten (10) cruisers (only one in the '30s) and fifty-one (51) destroyers.

Note that three of the aircraft carriers and one cruiser of all that lot were not obsolescent by 1941. Or, in the case of the aircraft carriers, obsolescent as built, mostly - they were built under the limits of the Washington Naval Treaties, and tended to be too small to be really useful, or battlecruiser conversions.

So, for the most part, it was NOT our R&D of the '30s that saved us in WW2, it was our not getting involved (much) for the first couple of years of the war that gave our R&D of the '40s time to play catch-up.

Re:Death of evidence

[Crypto Gnome]

Like the government-backed mortgage bubble we experienced from 2002-to 2007. That was supposed to stimulate the economy but instead it wrecked it.

You sir are an idiot! (you belong in politics, clearly)

Throwing Money At People does not usually benefit the economy. At best, no long term benefit. At worst it backfires like the mortgage bubble.

As opposed to investing in "development" (R&D, Infrastructure, Education), which *always* pays out generous returns. Admittedly said payouts are usually in the mid-to-long-term, but you yourself or perhaps your children will (still) be alive in the mid-to-long term and you'd much rather be better off as a result, RIGHT?

Re:Death of evidence

[Crypto Gnome]

We got the best aerospace industry on Earth.

Famous
Last
Words

Any second now s/got/had/.

Re:Death of evidence

[blahplusplus]

"Really? Are you serious? There's an economic downturn."

For the little people. Perhaps you weren't paying attention to the secret trillions handed out.

See the following:

http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html

More here

http://dailybail.com/

Re:Death of evidence

[khallow]

Basic research provides the greatest ROI of any sort of investment anywhere ever.

Some basic research has provided incredible value and some has been money thrown down a rathole. Further, it's been rather easy to distinguish between the two merely by looking at short term return on investment. Say, paying Faraday to figure out principles of magnetism versus paying Lowell to look for canals on Mars.

Re:Death of evidence

[devent]

In an economic downturn the government should increase spending, because it is the only entity that have an infinite amount of money. It should spend that money on R&D, infrastructure and creating new markets.

I have no idea where the idiocy comes from to decrease government spending in an economic downturn. If the economy is down, the government needs to step in and revive the industry. That cannot be done with austerity programs.

Since the government is the biggest employee for example, austerity programs in an economic downturn leads to more unemployment, and thus weakens the economy more. Unemployed people tend to buy much less stuff.

But I do know where the idea comes from: from the banks, who's only interest is to get payed for the credits. They don't care if they put for example Greece for decades in recession, destroy social programs and widen the gap between the poor and the rich even more.

Re:Death of evidence

[amck]

Really? Are you serious? There's an economic downturn. The government is having trouble funding programs. And the fact that they want to cut spending to a program that doesn't have immediate and clearly predictable economic benefit is because they're anti-intellectual?

It seems to me far more likely that the government just doesn't have the money. But then, I don't own a tinfoil hat, so I'm sure I'm just being brainwashed by their mind-control rays.

No, it isn't. In the UK the ratio of national debt to GNP is a fraction of what it used to be in the 1950s and 1960s. The major infrastructure investments were made then, science bloomed. In the US, US bond rates are negative: people are paying the government to take their money.

Austerity right now is an ideological choice: they are deliberately starving the public sector.
In the UK at least the Tories have the belief that this will lead to all these workers being hired by the newly-freed private sector. It simply isn't happening.

Re:Death of evidence

[GameboyRMH]

To save money all basic research will now be conducted by the Insane Clown Posse.

Re:Death of evidence

[GameboyRMH]

According to conservatives the superiority of capitalism over communism was demonstrated by Reagan's game of economic chicken. The Russians crashed first. But boo spending, BOOOOOOO!

Re:Death of evidence

[sumdumass]

Perhaps he prefers research from scientists who's budgets aren't being cut?

Either way, the problem is that the ROI is years down the road when there is significant amounts of money to act on the discoveries and advancements. If the short term is not being looked at and the economy never recovers sufficiently, the ROI will be pushed down the road even further.

This is a catch 22 situation though. But it can be alleviated to some degree by increasing funding down the road when the money is available.

Re:Death of evidence

[riverat1]

Calling people with money to invest "job-creators" is a misnomer. The real job creator is someone with money in their pocket who's willing to spend it creating demand. There's tons of money lying around right now looking for some place to be invested but as long as this economic downturn lasts it won't be because there's not enough people out there willing to spend their money. Jobs will be created when there is demand regardless of whether there are wealthy people or not.

Can't cut anything...

[rgbrenner]

We can't cut social security because old people will starve in the streets.
We can't cut the drug benefits because old people can't afford their medication.
We can't cut the military, or our enemies will attack us.
We can't cut unemployment benefits, because people are unemployed.
We can't cut benefits to the poor because the poor need help.
We can't cut support to the bank industry because they need help to recover.
And apparently, we also can't cut science funding, or scientists will die.

The government is huge because people never want to give up ANYTHING. It's always "the other guy" who should pay.

Well when you have a massive debt, everyone has to give up something.. and that includes (unfortunately) scientists. Maybe those researching "blue skies" projects that have gone no where should be cut.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[ThatsMyNick]

Well across the board budget cuts are fine. But when science gets cut at the expense of the military(which ever keeps rising), it is not acceptable.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't cut social security because old people will starve in the streets.
We can't cut the drug benefits because old people can't afford their medication.
We can't cut the military, or our enemies will attack us.
We can't cut unemployment benefits, because people are unemployed.
We can't cut benefits to the poor because the poor need help.
We can't cut support to the bank industry because they need help to recover.
And apparently, we also can't cut science funding, or scientists will die.

The government is huge because people never want to give up ANYTHING. It's always "the other guy" who should pay.

Well when you have a massive debt, everyone has to give up something.. and that includes (unfortunately) scientists. Maybe those researching "blue skies" projects that have gone no where should be cut.

This is exactly why the US will follow Spain, Italy, Greece, and others because the politicians are too afraid to lose their jobs instead of doing their jobs. Two things need to done in the US.
1) Amendment: A Representative or Senator cannot serve more than two consecutive terms (and yes I know they serve for different time periods).
2) Amendment: Corporations, Unions, Lobbyist groups, Not For Profit, any organization do not have the same First Amendment rights as an individual.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[MightyMartian]

If you start chipping at those things which represent future prosperity, all you're doing is pulling down the walls. Rome started going down the tubes when it began debasing its currency. It meant ultimately less artisans, tradesmen, a less professional army, less civil servants and in the end, complete collapse.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[TheRaven64]

Well when you have a massive debt, everyone has to give up something.. and that includes (unfortunately) scientists

Science is not a cost, it's an investment. You don't fix the economy by stopping spending money on things that will give a return.

Maybe those researching "blue skies" projects that have gone no where should be cut.

The departments where people only do research that is guaranteed to work are usually the weaker ones. Good research addresses problems where the solution isn't known, where there are only some approximate ideas about what it may be, and where failure is likely. A big problem in academia today is exactly the attitude in your post - that people who do research that may fail should be penalised.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

This contradicts "The Law of Budgetary Circumcision."

You can cut 5% off the top of ANYTHING.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[MightyMartian]

I'm always curious as to why people think getting rid of professional politicians will help things. One of the great things that Britain has always had is a tradition of long-serving politicians who create a sort of central group of experienced men and women who have been in and out government. From these ranks you produce people like Gladstone, Churchill and Thatcher. It's ludicrous to force out your most experienced people in any profession simply because you think fresh air alone is enough to fix the problem.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[thrillseeker]

Investments are voluntary. Taxes are not.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[jpmorgan]

In Canada, where these protests occurred, the military's budget was one of the hardest cut.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[__aaeihw9960]

The problem isn't long-term politicians, the problem is that long-term politicians become easy targets for large money interest groups. Capping their terms is often viewed as the easiest way to end that entrenched issue. But, as with most things, there is no silver bullet. . . . .

Re:Can't cut anything...

[mcgrew]

Well when you have a massive debt, everyone has to give up something

No you don't. You can increase revenue. The 1% own something like 75% of everything, they can afford it. FUCKING DOUBLE THEIR TAXES! History has shown that high taxes on the rich do NOT harm the economy.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[MightyMartian]

But those politicians have districts and states. They are answerable to the voter. Rather than creating artificial barriers and basically throwing the baby (in this case the experienced lawmaker) out with the bathwater, it strikes me the better solution is try to encourage the voters to become part of the political process.

It's not as if first or second term politicians are not vulnerable to interest groups. The political process is poisoned by money from the very start. The solution isn't getting rid of professional lawmakers, it's dealing with the underlying problem.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[__aaeihw9960]

Okay then, other than improved voter participation, how do you suggest that we remove the billions of dollars of special interest money from the process?

AND, further, how do you propose that we guarantee that big media and the like won't skew the stories to condition people to think a certain way about the candidate of their choice?

And as a side note, I didn't say that I agreed with it, I was simply explaining it as you asked,

I'm always curious as to why people think getting rid of professional politicians will help things.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[serviscope_minor]

From these ranks you produce people like ... Thatcher.

You're right! We could do with someone to destroy the last vestiges of industry which have managed to thrive despite the best efforts of successive governments.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[__aaeihw9960]

History has shown that high taxes on the rich do NOT harm the economy.

They do when the rich arbitrarily make decisions to fuck the rest of us if we tax them more. Humans are one thing consistently: spiteful and greedy.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[MightyMartian]

Simple. Tax the living shit out of all political donations and disallow political advertising as an expense that can reduce net income.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[gl4ss]

well you have to either do cuts or debase currency.

that's just math.

(alternatively, raise taxes)

Re:Can't cut anything...

[VoidCrow]

Thatcher wasn't such a great example.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[dammy]

Ask the folks in CA, NY, and NJ on what happens when you soak the rich, they leave for states that don't have state income tax. If you wonder why the US is in such dire straights financially, all the smart money is flowing out of the US and into Asia. France is about to learn this lesson the hard way.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[MightyMartian]

In this situation, I think measured cuts and tax increases are by far the more sensible solution. Yes, tax increases do have a retarding effect on the economy, but that can be overstated.

Unfortunately, tax policy isn't developed by sensible people, it's developed by people more interested in short term political gain.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[JonySuede]

It was only made to pay for the Arctic unfriendly F35.
We should have started a program called Avrow Arrow 2 with that money, using every willing members of the original team as mentor to the most patriotic areonauthic PhD students (Yeah, select them on patriotism, but tell them that the selection is based on intelligence) ...

Re:Can't cut anything...

[deapbluesea]

History has shown that high taxes on the rich do NOT harm the economy

History has also shown that higher taxes != higher revenue, but that's not your point, is it?

Re:Can't cut anything...

[rgbrenner]

Who said they should be penalized? If your project has failed, you don't get to keep working on it forever. MOVE ON to your next project.

That is not a penalty. A penalty would be not allowing you on a new project because of your previous failure. No where did I suggest that.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[aurispector]

The root of all the trouble is the fact that we no longer seem to understand that the private sector has to lead. Government funds come from taxes and if you crush the private sector through taxation and regulation tax revenue dives. (Google "Laffer curve" if you need an explanation), You can spend all the tax money you want on research but if you kill the private sector you lose both revenue AND a huge alternate source of innovation that costs the taxpayer nothing.

The funeral shouldn't be for science but for the private sector.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[nimbius]

We can't cut social security because old people will starve in the streets.

yes. capitalism and its patterns and processes of social inequality have guaranteed only a select few will be able to retire. it hasnt solved retirement, and its best attempt (the 401k) has actually ruined more people than its retired.

We can't cut the drug benefits because old people can't afford their medication.

right, so we reformed healthcare in america and you bitched about the death panels and illegal aliens.

We can't cut the military, or our enemies will attack us.

we've made more enemies in 30 years than we have friends. the fix here is to start treating foreign policy seriously and stop shooting at the middle east to try and make it free.

We can't cut unemployment benefits, because people are unemployed.

we can cut unemployment benefits to the bone. Conversely it makes the Occupy protests in your city far more numerous, and far more violent, as there is no capitalist solution for these people either.

We can't cut support to the bank industry because they need help to recover.

King george inked the check for that one, and no we cant let banks fail because then rich people are made to eat humble pie and experience the same loss as the rest of us. thats unacceptable.

And apparently, we also can't cut science funding, or scientists will die.

not scientists, us. we as a civilization aside from our monetary constructs and our 9 to 5 jobs will be cutting something that cures disease, finds answers to our existence, and seeks to better life for everyone. Cutting science usurps the other proposed cuts, in my humble assessment, by orders of magnitude. Social scientists (sociologists) help identify the causes of and solutions to poverty, economists are in their own right scientists who work to prevent bank bailouts and stimulate jobs. political scientists help avoid the two costly wars incepted by king george and help turn our enemies into friends. biomedical scientists make sure advanced life saving drugs are invented, and agricultural science helps make healthy affordable food resistant to drought and disease with which we can feed everyone

what i havent heard anyone tell me is, what the fuck is this "massive debt" weve suddenly incurred? and why is it the same people who snored through two foreign wars under the most expensive president in the last two decades are suddenly so fucking keen to reduce "the debt" by cutting things that are unrelated to lemon socialism and foreign impreialism?

Re:Can't cut anything...

[Crypto Gnome]

Well across the board budget cuts are fine. But when science gets cut at the expense of the military(which ever keeps rising), it is not acceptable.

Actually the biggest problem is that those who are fighting to cut scientific research budgets argue that "across-the-board cuts are inherently fair". >

Which, to be honest, at first glance, does sound reasonable.

Until they propose a 1 BILLION dollar budget cut across *all* projects, and suddenly all scientific research projects are cancelled outright (their budgets were in the hundreds-of-millions) and the ONLY projects getting any further funding are The Military (which spends hundreds of billions annually and only just barely notice a budget cut of less than one percent).

Re:Can't cut anything...

[Crypto Gnome]

The departments where people only do research that is guaranteed to work are usually the weaker ones. Good research addresses problems where the solution isn't known, where there are only some approximate ideas about what it may be, and where failure is likely. A big problem in academia today is exactly the attitude in your post - that people who do research that may fail should be penalised.

Somebody give him a medal for actually thinking through the problem.

I would argue (I don't have hard facts) that MOST "scientific discoveries" are not actually found as a direct result of being sought-after. If not "most" then certainly lots-and-lots were accidental/coincidental or peripheral discoveries. There are SO MANY discoveries resulting from "WTF was THAT?" turning into something useful (Penicillin, Viagra, Teflon, Vulcanization of Rubber, Cellophane, Microwave Oven) rather than something that was actively being researched.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[rgbrenner]

2.5T in federal revenue 2012
3.8T in federal spending 2012

So unless you plan to raise taxes by 50%, you're going to have to cut something.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[Crypto Gnome]

History has shown that high taxes on the rich do NOT harm the economy

History has also shown that higher taxes != higher revenue, but that's not your point, is it?

The issue is not the official tax RATE, but the ease with which high-income earners (individuals and corporations) can avoid paying taxes. Offshore accounts, tax havens and other income-tax-dodging practices are the primary reason why ANY government has revenue issues.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[ThatsMyNick]

I definitely meant a percentage cut in every dept, not the same absolute amount. I never knew, it could be interpreted this way.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[fiannaFailMan]

Thatcher wasn't such a great example.

Wasn't she? For all her faults, she de-throned the trade union bosses from their positions as the most powerful men in the country with the ability to hold society to ransom at the drop of a hat. People younger than 20 might find this hard to believe but there once was a time in the UK when trade unions were too damn powerful for their own good, and it took someone like Thatcher to take them on. (Sure, she went a little too far, but the point stands.)

She made tough decisions that had to be made, euthanized obsolete industries, and put much of industry back into the public sector where it had a far better chance of succeeding.

She was also responsible for re-taking the Falklands back from a posturing dictator who thought he could distract his people from the poverty and beggary he had plunged them into by invading the islands thinking that the Brits weren't able to do anything about it. (Belgrano and other controversies aside, you have to admit she played a blinder on that one.)

General election hat-trick, longest-serving Prime Minister up to that point, a record unsurpassed until Blair. Not bad for a shopkeeper's daughter.

The cut-and-thrust of parliamentary politics ensures that only qualified people who know their shit can work their way to the front benches and get anywhere near power. Nimrods like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman would be laughed out of the House of Commons. Literally.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[JoeRandomHacker]

Well when you have a massive debt, everyone has to give up something

No you don't. You can increase revenue. The 1% own something like 75% of everything, they can afford it. FUCKING DOUBLE THEIR TAXES! History has shown that high taxes on the rich do NOT harm the economy.

--

"The tyrant fears the laugh more than the assassin's bullet." Heinlein, Our Fair City

I don't suppose you realize that when you take something away from someone because you want to, then you become the tyrant? The ends justify the means? Is that really what you want?

Re:Can't cut anything...

[manu0601]

History has shown that high taxes on the rich do NOT harm the economy.

True, but we need to restore the inability to move money abroad in order to avoid taxes. Money movement has been regulated in the past and this is not a detail

Re:Can't cut anything...

[manu0601]

The root of all the trouble is the fact that we no longer seem to understand that the private sector has to lead. Government funds come from taxes and if you crush the private sector through taxation and regulation tax revenue dives. (Google "Laffer curve" if you need an explanation).

The curve does not discard the idea of raising taxes. It just raises the question of where we are on the curve today. If we are left from the peak, then increasing taxes will help

Re:Can't cut anything...

[mcgrew]

I don't suppose you realize that when you take something away from someone because you want to, then you become the tyrant?

Where did the rich who you work for get that money? From YOUR labor; your labor generated the wealth that they accumulate and control. If you steal twenty dollars from me, and I then pick your pocket for five, who is the thief?

Re:Can't cut anything...

[JoeRandomHacker]

I don't suppose you realize that when you take something away from someone because you want to, then you become the tyrant?

Where did the rich who you work for get that money? From YOUR labor; your labor generated the wealth that they accumulate and control. If you steal twenty dollars from me, and I then pick your pocket for five, who is the thief?

And are you a slave, or did you get paid for your work? If you give me something that is worth $20 to you, in return for $20 cash, and it happens to be worth $21 to me, there is no theft.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[mcgrew]

Yes, it doesn't work for state taxes, but should for Federal taxes.

If you wonder why the US is in such dire straights financially, all the smart money is flowing out of the US and into Asia.

Tnat's not because of taxes, it's because of other business costs: labor and the environment. The people who run thos big companies are sociopaths and should be kept on a tight leash. Unfortunately, they're keeping government on a tight leash.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[__aaeihw9960]

That's the idea. . . .

Re:Can't cut anything...

[JoeRandomHacker]

And are you a slave, or did you get paid for your work? If you give me something that is worth $20 to you, in return for $20 cash, and it happens to be worth $21 to me, there is no theft.

Then likewise, if you give government $20 dollars in tax (and yes, you gave it, you implicitly agreed to do so by staying and obeying government... nobody said you can't rebel), and government gives you something in return that's worth $19 to you, it is also not theft

Nonsense. If I come to your home, explain that I will ruin your life if you don't pay me, and understanding that fact, you give me the money, then you haven't "implicitly agreed" to anything. That is called "complying under duress", and we all do it to get by. That doesn't mean what I did wasn't wrong or that it shouldn't be changed.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[fiannaFailMan]

She "incited" the Falklands war? How did she do that? She had actually made defence cuts leaving the South Atlantic less defended.

Re:Can't cut anything...

[gmyuriy]

The departments where people only do research that is guaranteed to work are usually the weaker ones. Good research addresses problems where the solution isn't known, where there are only some approximate ideas about what it may be, and where failure is likely. A big problem in academia today is exactly the attitude in your post - that people who do research that may fail should be penalised.

FULLY SUBSCRIBE TO THAT... and btw, historically, the only effect of "focusing research on the problems that will benefit economy" was to hurt the economy but what would you expect from politicians, knowledge of history?

We're broke, you know

[crazyjj]

Actually, (with the U.S. government at least) we're worse than broke. Broke would imply we at least had nothing. We would actually have to earn about $15 trillion to be broke.

So no, we DON'T have the money. We have these pieces of paper that SAY "money" on them. But they only work because no one has figured out yet that they're worthless.

Re:We're broke, you know

[trout007]

On the plus side we only owe $15 trillion of those pieces of paper that SAY "money" on them. And like you said they are worthless. So we really owe nothing and are in fact broke.

Re:We're broke, you know

[MightyMartian]

Oh Christ, would you fucking Ron Paulites shut the fuck up. Jesus, none of you know a fucking thing about economics, just mouthing "fiat currency is baaaaad" like semi-retarded sheep.

The value of a fiat currency isn't based on nothing, it's based on a huge number of factors, including net economic output, GDP and so forth. Much more sensible than basing it on how much fucking gold the government is sitting on, which is utterly arbitrary and has little or nothing to do with the actual economic life of the country.

Re:We're broke, you know

[cpu6502]

How do you know that guy is a Ron Paulite? You don't know that, anymore than you know what color he is. You're just setting-up random strawmen and knocking them down, rather than addressing the man you responded to.

As for fiat currency:

The fact it has lost 97% of its value since 1913 is reason enough to seek something better. The gold-backed dollar the Founders created may not have been perfect but it was certainly better than that. It lost only 1% of its value from 1810 to 1910. A monetary supply that holds its purchasing power is far superior to one that holds virtually none (today's dollar is only 3% of a 1913 dollar). And yes I am a Paulite. Also a Jeffersonian. Madisonian. Liberal. Constitutionalist (the supreme law of the land).

Re:We're broke, you know

[SillyHamster]

The value of a fiat currency isn't based on nothing, it's based on a huge number of factors, including net economic output, GDP and so forth. Much more sensible than basing it on how much fucking gold the government is sitting on, which is utterly arbitrary and has little or nothing to do with the actual economic life of the country.

The value of a fiat currency is really one thing: Trust.

Lose that trust, and in an instant your paper money goes from being valuable to being no better than toilet paper.

Trust being immaterial, though, I'd see why people make the mistake of thinking it's based on "nothing".

Re:We're broke, you know

[dammy]

More like $15.889T as the US spirals past the point of never being able to pay it back: http://usdebtclock.org/

Re:We're broke, you know

[MightyMartian]

Based on what? Money in circulation? I mean, what's your metric here? How does it make any sense?

And yes, the guy is a Ron Paulite, as is the lunatic that just posted a reply to your post.

Re:We're broke, you know

[MightyMartian]

And you can't devalue metal-based money? My favorite example of how stupid it is to peg your currency to metals is what happened in the 19th century when China, who held much of the world's silver, began seeing a massive outflow due to unfair trade and opium sales. It caused a general depression in most currencies because the supply of silver suddenly jumped through the ceiling. Effectively a large increase in supply on the market can lead to severe downward pressure on a currency, based on nothing more than the supply itself, not because of the issues it might cause for manufacturing or other industrial processes.

All forms of trade are inherently based on trust. Trust that you haven't mucked with the medium of exchange.

Re:We're broke, you know

[sdguero]

I think anyone who knows what the term "fiat money" means, is more informed on economics than average.

Historically, fiat currencies work great and boost economic output; for a decade or so. Then hyperinflation hits and they fall apart. The stronger the economy, and more dependent the rest of the world is on it, the longer it lasts; but no fiat currency has ever avoided inflation. http://www.europac.net/voices/experience_teacher_fools

That said, there are some great opportunities in times of inflation or hyperinflation. Like if you have a lot of debt to pay off (i.e. a recent home purchase), or can provide a basic service like transportation, lodging, or food production; that will inevitably cost a LOT more. Those who are worried about inflation or god forbid hyper inflation would be smart to keep their mouths shut and invest in the things that will hold their value in that kind of market. Those who think the good times aren't over should continue to spend spend spend on fancy cars and vacations to Europe. Only time will tell whether or not your confidence in the current system is overly optimistic.

Re:We're broke, you know

[SillyHamster]

Wasn't saying that.

But there is a difference between metal and paper based money. Back in the day when metal coins were actually made with their value in valuable metals (or something close to it), trust wasn't as big a component, because the coin actually had some value in of itself.

Contrast that with a paper bill - the paper doesn't have the "innate value" of gold/silver/whatever. You could recycle it, I guess, but what do you do with a paper bill besides money or collecting? That's what makes it fiat, it's a promise based on the trust without the material itself holding value.

All trade relies on trust, but fiat currency requires more trust, because paper money does not have the innate utility any random commodity has.

Re:We're broke, you know

[SillyHamster]

Both currencies rely on trust. But one of those trusts is more fickle than the other.

If governments could print gold, gold probably wouldn't have the value it is given.

Re:We're broke, you know

[SillyHamster]

Uh. You can't eat paper bills either. You can't eat a house, or a car, or a computer, or a book. Somehow, those things all have value to people all the same, and can be bartered for food, or traded for money which you trade for food.

For whatever funny reason, there is a large demand for gold by humanity in general, both now and in the past. That demand intersects the gold supply curve in a way that makes gold very valuable. For whatever reason, the value of gold has also been stabler than the value of any paper money. This is observation, not theory.

If you want a theory, I theorize that gold will continue to be stabler in value than paper money in the future, because gov't can't print it.

Re:We're broke, you know

[devent]

Governments have infinite money supply. Why people buy that "we are broke" nonsense. A government is not a commercial entity, it is not a firm. It cannot go broke. The worst thing for a Government can happen is you make a money reform and just delete all loans.
Also the USA can just increase the loan ceiling to $100T or whatever.

Sure the banks will all cry and whine, but in the end, what should they do? Invade the USA and take over?

No nation ever paid off their debts.

Re:We're broke, you know

[SillyHamster]

There is sufficient demand for gold for it to have a large value to much of the population. It doesn't even have to be evenly distributed among the population; as long as I can find a buyer for gold at the price I want, it doesn't matter if there's 1 potential buyer or 1000.

When you say "unused", simple ownership is in of itself use. Sometimes we buy things just for its potential, not for the actual use itself. Think of insurance or airbags. Most go unused, but people buy it because it helps hedge their risks. When paper money inflates, gold is (relatively) stable in value.

Gold money doesn't have a history of stability. It was always supplemented with silver and sovereign debt as needed.

I meant it in a relative sort of sense, compared to paper currency. Paper currency can drastically lose its value. Gold has not and probably will never do so. It's possible people could collectively decide that gold is worthless, but that's much less likely than for any country's paper money.

The Cult of Science

[Antipater]

Claims of arcane knowledge. Doomsday prophecies. Now they're ceremonially delivering coffins to world leaders!

I wonder how long before they start devouring human flesh?

Wouldn't a giant urn be more appropriate?

[MiniMike]

Maybe they should use a giant urn instead of a coffin, to represent the result of the giant flaming failure of the future ahead of us under proposed budget cuts to basic scientific research? It would symbolically include the future economy as we fall further and further behind other countries in scientific knowledge and capability.

Re:Wouldn't a giant urn be more appropriate?

[gman003]

Less graphically iconic.

An urn is just a jar. Not as visually unique as a coffin. A coffin may be just a box, but it's a very particular box. An urn can really be any shape.

Not to mention the fact that, at least in the western world, coffin burials are far more common than cremation, and thus death is more strongly associated with coffins than urns.

Try being in humanities

[MartianTJ]

Then complain about the cutting of research funding. Sciences are getting a tiny fraction of the cuts we're getting.

Re:Try being in humanities

[HornWumpus]

Learn to say 'do you want fries with that', same as your students.

Re:How about the USA?

[MightyMartian]

Man. I didn't RTFA, and I thought it was about staging scientists funerals, or funereal scientists stooges! Why can't the articles be about what I think they're about?

Re:How about the USA?

[SirSlud]

If you don't have anything informed to say, you could try saying nothing at all.

Re:Because these scientists are Special

[serviscope_minor]

And they shouldn't be subject to economic downturns eh?

Absoloutely, the best way out of an economic downturn is to make sure you don't develop anything new.

Also, you and the idiots who modded you up are idiots.

The real think that's pissing off all the victims of the EPSRC incompetence is that the EPSRC fucked up its advocacy efforts and got much heavier funding cuts than the other members of RCUK.

So, basically, you and the mods have no idea what you're talking about and decided to mod up inflammatory crap anyway.

Might be

[csubi]

I have yet to see a developed western country where political leaders realize that cutting back on research will harm future competitiveness of their country.

Products and services made with cutting edge technology are harder to copy and less likely to have production delocalized to places where workers are cheap and relatively unskilled.

Without strong basic research you won't have discoveries that can be applied to problems and result in the new technology. Interestingly enough, China invests like crazy in research funding - maybe this will bring back jobs and we will be making T-shirts for the far east 40 years from now...

Re:Might be

[csubi]

There is no point of educating scientists if the private sector does not need them.

Here you suggest there is no need for publicly funded research but let's just consider the following :

Watson and Crick were publicly funded scientist when they discovered the structure of DNA. This started the era of molecular biology and enabled, among others, the production of human insulin, instead of extracting it from pigs, 20 years later (1956 --> 1977).

The company Genentech was started with recombinant insulin as their first product and became extremely successful but: it was not the industry and scientist working in the private sector who made the discoveries necessary to start producing the product - they were working in academia / government.

Of course this will not convince you based on your beliefs in invisible hands and such.

Re:Might be

[stanlyb]

And this helped companies like Monsanto "invent" GMO, which caused all these funny diseases and nuts allergic reactions, and supper weeds, and bees dead by thousands, but who care??? As the french guys like to say, even if it is shit, if you make it "a la flambe" i will eat. Oh, i am not french, just for the record.

Re:Might be

[stanlyb]

The insult is not that the foreign worker gets 15% less (and i think that in many cases it is even 50% less), but that the Canadian worker is getting 18% more (funny math) for the same work if not less, and for the same education, if not less. Funny, ain't so?

Re:Might be

[csubi]

Monsanto did not invent GMO : scientists in the 60's, 70's started inserting pieces of genes into E. coli, a basic step in manipulating DNA. At the same time, there were intense debates how to handle this and what the consequences might be. Monsato, a private company took this much further and personally I don't agree with their approach.

Funny is, there is a big difference between a plant that has a resistance gene to a herbicide and the golden rice project that could prevent hundreds of thousands of kids from going blind every year.

In the first case, if the inserted gene escapes, it will make other, regular plants resistant to the herbicide - clearly bad.
In the second case, the only problem that could arise is that some weeds would start producing beta-carotene.

So there is difference between GMO and GMO.

cut military spending

[Dan667]

no cuts to science funding needed. Problem solved.

Re:cut military spending

[Mashiki]

The Liberals in Canada spent years gutting the military. To the point where it was putting the lives of the soldiers in direct jeopardy. I could fill the entire comment box full of stories with from friends and family who were or are in the military about the flying, riding, doomed death traps that we gave our servicemen and women up here. And to be honest? It got so bloody bad, we were renting military equipment from the US and UK because ours was so unsafe.

They're welcome to put on whatever song and dance that they want. But, in Canada there's no dearth of availability to funding if you can prove your research is viable.

Re:cut military spending

[Meeni]

To some extent, these are one and the same. DOE, Darpa and DoD budgets are massive contributors to science funding in general, even in pure academia (aka outside national labs).

Re:cut military spending

[__aaeihw9960]

And there's the problem; it always comes down to morals and opinions. Is the life of a scientist or the life of a soldier more valuable?

Is it better to spend $10 trillion on guns, barracks, flak jackets, soldier pay and pensions, health care for vets and the like, or on chemicals, labs, lab-coats (I don't really know how scientists dress anymore. . . .), scientist pay and pensions, and health care and the like for people trying to do science? (does one 'do' science?)

One is not inherently more valuable than the other by any means - both have their appropriate place in society; our opinions dictate which we see as more valuable.

Re:cut military spending

[gmack]

To the point where it was putting the lives of the soldiers in direct jeopardy.

Why didn't Canada simply have less soldiers and go on fewer international adventures?

It would have been less humanitarian in some circles but don't forget that it wasn't just Canada's military that suffered. It was the SAR (search and air rescue) that got it the worst with helicopters so old they spent more time in the repair shop than they did flying and winches known to fail when you least expect them to. I know a SAR tech who is two inches shorter than he used to be because of a winch accident.

Re:cut military spending

[stanlyb]

The simple answer is NO and NO. Or with other words: NO to both groups. Or with even more words: GET A DECENT JOB you ^%^$^$^$^$^

Re:cut military spending

[__aaeihw9960]

Wait, are you telling soldiers and scientists to get decent jobs? Or are you telling me to get a decent job? Your thesis statement is confusing.

Re:cut military spending

[stanlyb]

The soldiers of course, not you, unless you are soldier too?

Re:cut military spending

[__aaeihw9960]

I'm not, but being a soldier is a decent job. Here in the states, when a river floods, the first on the scene are soldiers. When there is a relief effort for victims of a natural disaster of any kind, generally soldiers are the first there to help.

For many, being a soldier is the only way to pay for college effectively. or to increase their experience before looking for full-time employment - a means to an end, or, as you put it, to help them "GET A DECENT JOB".

Re:cut military spending

[stanlyb]

WOW, wow, and again: WOW.
Man, you screwed my sense of reason. So first they are soldier, but we like them not because they are actually doing their job (killing people), but because they are helping the people during some natural disasters (for which you usually have insurance anyway), and also all these money that we throw at them help them get some education (again, not part of their duties), and when they retire at age of 30 they could get all these benefits, and FINALLY, DECENT JOB???
Do you see the problem here? No? You prefer to WASTE a tons of money just to give some maybe brave, but still stupid soldier decent job? When a lot of decent and skilled people are without any decent job????

Re:cut military spending

[__aaeihw9960]

I know that this may be futile, but allow me to rebut your statements.

Man, you screwed my sense of reason.

What?

So first they are soldier, but we like them not because they are actually doing their job (killing people)

Yes, some soldiers are infantry, and have the aim of killing people, sure. BUT, there are many people who are soldiers because they want to help other people, and see the military as the best way to do that, because of their limited funds, or some other factor.

but because they are helping the people during some natural disasters (for which you usually have insurance anyway)

Yes, I do have insurance, but do you know what my personal insurance doesn't do? Rebuild the levees that busted. I was implying that they were there doing things that insurance and individuals don't do - like fixing infrastructure to make the area habitable again. Please Google search Illinois and the flood of 1993.

and also all these money that we throw at them help them get some education (again, not part of their duties)

So bettering themselves isn't part of their job? Does your place of work have an educational stipend to pay for professional development or continuing education? It's the same thing, just on a larger scale.

and when they retire at age of 30 they could get all these benefits, and FINALLY, DECENT JOB???

That's incorrect. The retirement limits are as follows:

For Navy and Marine Corps members, you are considered to be a "retired member" for classification purposes if you are an enlisted member with over 30 years service, or a warrant or commissioned officer. Enlisted Navy and Marine Corps members with less than 30 years service are transferred to the Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Corps Reserve and their pay is referred to as "retainer pay". Air Force and Army members with over 20 years service are all classified as retired, and receive retired pay. When a Navy or Marine Corps member completes 30 years, including time on the retired rolls in receipt of retainer pay, the Fleet Reserve status is changed to retired status, and they begin receiving retired pay.

So, if you put your time in (the shortest being 20 years, so realistically 38 is the soonest that you could draw a full military pension), you get a retirement. My current, non-military position has 30 years as its amount of time to be vested. . . . Seems like the same amount as most of those above. . . . .

Do you see the problem here? No? You prefer to WASTE a tons of money just to give some maybe brave, but still stupid soldier decent job?

1. Yes, the problem is that your logic is terrible and is based on opinion, not fact. 2. Yes. 3. Why are they stupid? Are you saying that all soldiers are stupid? Okay, let's speak in absolutes! All people who write left-handed smell, all lawyers eat babies, and all middle-aged white men are serial killers. Yay! Making new stereotypes is fun!

When a lot of decent and skilled people are without any decent job????

Now here is how I know that you didn't understand what I was saying. For many, many, many people, the military is the only way to pay for college. Believe it or not, many people don't have access to enough money or connections to be able to start a decent career.

So, would you rather pay for their educational benefits for 4-5 years, or their social welfare benefits for the rest of their lives, their kids' lives, their grandkids' lives and so on and so on?

Here are some tips on making your point in a more effective manner: avoid caps lock, it's not your friend; use facts instead of opinions; and try not to call an entire subsection of a country 'stupid' - remember when people used to believe that black people were inferior? That's the same sort of thing.

Re:cut military spending

[stanlyb]

Man, you are making some terrible mistakes:
1.WHY the heck i have to pay for their education????????
2.Why the heck i must pay their education??????
3.They are poor, and without me, paying their education, they could not afford to pay for their education. WHAT THE HECK???
4.I am also poor, and NO, no one paid my education, and YES, i do have education, and decent job, and i am not retired after minimum 20 or maximum 30 years of "killing people". And guess what? I don't see myself retired even at age of 50. But that's OK, because i have to PAY FOR THEIR EDUCATION!!!

Man, if you don't see the absurdity of this situation, i have to say it, YOU ARE IDIOT.

Re:cut military spending

[__aaeihw9960]

I am also poor, and NO, no one paid my education

So you received no federal PELL or MAP money? You received no student loans? You received no scholarships? You received no student aid of any kind? That claim states that you paid cash, dollar bills, for your education.

Allow me to further rebut your statements: 1. Because you live in a society that values education for their soldiers, so that they don't have to "kill" their entire lives; 2. See answer #1; 3. Not all soldiers are poor, and not all soldiers use the service to fund their education. You're looking at it backwards. What I said was that some civilians can't afford education, so then they become soldiers to help pay for it. It's called incentive. One thing that you're not touching on is that the soldiers have the chance of being killed as well. So, they should do that for free?; 3 again; and I want to call back to; you live in a society that asks you to pay taxes. It's not your money and your money alone - that's the beautiful thing about living in the world, it turns out that there are other people here!; 4. If you can't retire at 50, don't blame other people. I won't be able to retire at 50, but that's because I went into a career field that doesn't pay well, and I didn't start investing in my retirement until into my late twenties. Who do I blame for that? Do I blame my parents for being poor and raising me poor? Do I blame the economy for sucking? Do I fucking blame my taxes for keeping me from investing as much as I should? Nope.

In other words, if you don't like what your tax money pays for, you have two options: (a)Don't pay taxes; (b) shut up.

And again, you use no facts, only opinion. At this point, I will stop feeding the troll. It's been fun.

Re:cut military spending

[stanlyb]

Some 200 years ago, my grand grand grand parents did riot against the "government" because of the too high taxes, which were guess what? 10%. Now i am paying about 50% taxes, and i should not even complain??? Was this fact fact enough for you? Or you need witnesses? Anyway, keep swimming, it is not a fish.
Oh, and btw, i am not religious, but i do follow the 10 commandment, and one of them is DO, NOT, KILL. You, obviously, are not even a human being, if you think it is just a job requirement to kill somebody.

Re:cut military spending

[Dan667]

not really a good comparison. Canada's military spending is ~$20 billion. The US currently spends more that $700 billion. And when you consider that the US sends combat troops into battle in vehicles with no armor plating you start to see money is not about protecting the soldiers. It is about making a couple of rich defense contractors a lot of money.

Re:How about the USA?

[228e2]

Not even the article was needed or even the summary. Protesting cuts led me to the obvious conclusion that they were cutting their funding. OP is just a grasping troll.

Death of evidence, not death of funding

[Anonymous Coward]

We Canadians weren't protesting because of general science funding cuts. Budgets get rearranged. The economy is in shambles. We accept that.

The "Death of evidence" protest formed because cuts were being very carefully targeted: If your research produced results that suggested the Harper Government (tm) might be making a dumb decision, your research was ignored, suppressed, and eventually canned.

Statistics Canada has never lost control of any personal information. Never. So the long-form census gets scrapped, citing "privacy concerns". Now we have huge holes in the data that used to guide policy decisions.

The Experimental Lakes Area costs nearly nothing (~$2m/yr). It taught us what damage various chemicals will do to aquatic ecosystems, how to clean that damage up, and how to prevent it from happening in the first place. So we're spending ~$50m, or 25 years of operating funding, to shut it down.

We have thousands of scientists employed in federal labs. They are now required, apparently under threat of dismissal, to obtain political approval from the Prime Minister's Office before they can talk to the media or release their findings.

There are many, many related examples from all over Canada.

So it's not that funding is being "cut". It's that scientific results are being systematically ignored, dismissed and suppressed, so our policy-making is now based on pure ideology with no evidence to back up decisions. And the institutions that could provide that evidence are quietly being muzzled and gutted.

(Posting AC for obvious reasons...)
ps. Captcha = "Losers".

Re:Death of evidence, not death of funding

[stanlyb]

What you mean by "scientists" we recognize as "research associate". Man, i wonder if we say "rocket scientist" what would you see? Alien Einstein!!!

Re:Death of evidence, not death of funding

[JonySuede]

Mod parent he is spot on !

Re:Because these scientists are Special

[cpu6502]

Even if te government spent $10 trllion on research, but then announced "cuts" to a more-reasonable level, these guys would still protest. It's human nature never to be satisfied. You will never hear them say, "Oh well 10 trllion was outrageously high. Cuts to 7 trillion would be reasonable."

Public science funding

[jimmy_dean]

Is this really a surprise at all? If these scientists had to raise their own funding via private means, this wouldn't be news at all. This is just wasted time, energy and smart minds rent seeking the government. Move along.

I hate to break it to you

[Shivetya]

but the governments already do whatever they want. The one percent isn't the rich, its the politicians. The have deliberately impoverished us all to assert more control over our lives. Then through their near infinite channels of influence they set one group against another all the while offering laws to protect each for each other.

If those UK scientist want to see their budget, I think they can still get tickets. There appear to lots of empty seats

Re:I hate to break it to you

[lennier]

The one percent isn't the rich, its the politicians.

You seem to somehow be under the odd impression that those are two separate groups.

Yes, Maoist China in the 1950s was a government of the poor. USA in 2012? Not so much.

Re:Because these scientists are Special

[sycodon]

I doubt anything "new" will come out of "blue sky" research efforts in a time frame that will help the current economic downturn.

While they should be concerned about funding cuts and should do what they can to minimize them and their impacts, parading down the street with a coffin is stupid and melodramatic.

Buck up and do the best you can, as will everyone else.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Should be very very worried

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Piss off too many scientists and they will go back in time and step on the fish that eventually became your entire family tree. Then again this is government cutting back funding....

ivory tower looking out for itself

[swan5566]

Having been in academia, and then subsequently being out in the "real world", I really don't have a lot of respect for these guys. They have a propped-up lifestyle and worldview that only works when there's little to no accountability and a steady stream of cash that they don't have to generate (though grant-writing really does suck). I'll listen to those whose blue-sky research has actually translated into a real-life breakthrough (though usually those types have gotten guaranteed lifetime funding already), but for the others... welcome to reality, where we are currently in a recession. Also, their protesting methodology reminds me of undergrad activist groups, not professionals.

Re:Because these scientists are Special

[scot4875]

Nice strawman! Not only do you put words in the mouths of your perceived 'opponents,' you present a situation that will never realistically exist to ensure it can't be tested!

9/10!

--Jeremy

Walmart sells coffins

[wwphx]

You can order them online and get them delivered. I'm guessing they're priced reasonably, but I can't say that I've done a comparison.

The Canadian government no longer funds research

[kawabago]

Research keeps coming up with global warming and other nasty ideas that get in the way of oil and gas exploitation. Canada's government holds Alberta's interests above everyone else's. That won't change until the next election.

Re:Because these scientists are Special

[Anonymous Coward]

And they shouldn't be subject to economic downturns eh?

Self important blowhards.

Of course scientists are not saying that. Budgets have to be tightened for everyone if they are going to be balanced. What's being argued is that the cuts are disproportionate and clearly politically-motivated. This is especially apparent when you see what's being cut (a lot of environment-related research) and when you see the unreasonable excesses that continue for other government budget items. Two that come to mind are the ridiculously exorbitant pensions that MPs get after only a few years of public service, and the current government is quite happy to keep on funding the multi-billion-dollar F-35 stealth fighter acquisition, even as the costs for it have almost doubled. If the government truly wanted to balance the budget at all costs, then they'd re-open the fighter contract to have proper competitive bids, and consider settling for cheaper, proven aircraft such as the Super Hornet (F-18E/F). Sure, it wouldn't be cutting-edge, but it would be an upgrade over the current fighter fleet (mostly F-18s), it would be twin-engine (safer for remote operations), and a hell of a lot cheaper. The Super Hornet is the approach that Australia took while waiting for the F-35 to get into production. Sounds like a decent "austerity" approach to me. But, no, our supposedly budget-conscious government didn't even have a competitive bid process and is sticking to the expensive, unproven "Cadillac" model based on what they saw in the showroom.

It can also be argued that if you are going to cut back, cutting government and educational science is a bad idea because it is akin to "eating the seed grain". You're cutting into your future prospects for growth. That might help a little with balancing the budget, but it's going to cost big down the line. Not necessarily a good tradeoff.

Scientists aren't saying "Don't cut us, because we're privileged", they're saying "Wait a second. Why are you cutting us to the bone while these other programs have plenty of fat, and why are you cutting us when politicians need more information about scientific issues, not less?" There has been little public consultation to determine whether cutting science fits with the public's priorities too.

Re:Because these scientists are Special

[cpu6502]

It does exist. Look at the Pentagon. They get close to a trllion dollars a year but the moment someone says, "The war is almost over. Let's lower that 100 billion," then they and their military supporters have a fit about how cuts will hurt them.

(shrug). Can YOU cite a single example where teachers or military or old people or students or some other group said, "Yeah we're okay if you cut our budget 10%." It doesn't exist.

Re:How about the USA?

[miltonw]

Don't be silly, this is /.

Re:Because these scientists are Special

[jpate]

(shrug). Can YOU cite a single example where teachers or military or old people or students or some other group said, "Yeah we're okay if you cut our budget 10%." It doesn't exist.

well, yeah.

So the boffins...

[AJWM]

are doffing coffins?

(er, sorry. carry on.)

I hate to say it, but...

[stanlyb]

WELL DONE HAPRER. Let them eat their own shit. Just like the health insurance, and doctors, and nurses, and their GIGANTIC salaries, these guys needs to learn how to survive as the regular John does. By WORKING HARD. Not by eating for free, and drinking for free (free as a beer, with the annoying detail the we, the people are paying his beer...).
As it was blown some time ago, do you know that one stupid little anesthesiologist makes $400 thousands Canadian dollars??? WTF??? Can you imagine how many patients he must manage in order to justify his salary? I could, but for some strange reason he does not do it.
As of the "scientists", i wonder how many innovations do you happen to know made by them? Zero? Really? Then what is the point!!!

Re:I hate to say it, but...

[stanlyb]

Well, if the science eats my dinner, lunch and breakfast, then really, what is the point of having a doctor you there is no one left alive to "enjoy" this highly paid and motivated scientist, whose only skill is memory!!!
And i see that you have not answered my question, if you have to pay one doctor $400k/year, how much patients he must to serve in order to deserve his salary? Oh, i see, if it comes out of your pocket it is entirely different business case...

Re:I hate to say it, but...

[Crypto Gnome]

As it was blown some time ago, do you know that one stupid little anesthesiologist makes $400 thousands Canadian dollars?

Having undergone surgery recently (albeit in a different country) I for one am grateful that anaesthesiologists are highly paid. I slept through the surgery (under a general) and had almost no side-effects from going under.

When I'm being cut open like a fish the last thing I would want is a minimum-wage burger-flipping-esque junior managing my lack of pain.

Re:I hate to say it, but...

[stanlyb]

Lets make the equation:
1.Minimum wage junior = $10/h
2.Super qualified!!! anesthesiologist = $192/h
So, this guy takes 19 times, i repeat, 19 times more than the minimum wage????
Let me make some more (correct) assumption:
1.Minimum wage salary = $20k/year
2.Medium salary = 2 or 3 times the minimum salary = 45k/year
3.Highly educated and with a lot experience professional (no matter the profession) = 9 or 10 times the minimum salary = 180k/year.
So, this m^%^%^ f^%$^%$^% who learns NOTHING, who studies NOTHING, who does not reeducate himself every 5 years takes 2 times more than any other HIGHLY educated professional!!!! What.The.Frack?
Let me share you some secret, i do prefer to have 1 underpaid anesthesiologist and 20 well paid IT professional for example, instead of 1 overpaid anesthesiologist and 20 underpaid IT guys, who could make your life, and the life 10 million people a living HELL.
Oh, and btw, in many normal countries, like these in Europe, this kind of disparity never happens. This phenomena is unique for North America only, go figure it out.

Re:I hate to say it, but...

[slashmydots]

I'd like to also add that having a very likely to get laid off job and not having a swift fallback position lined up is incredibly stupid. I work in IT, which will always have jobs, and I've been an assistant mobile DJ part time for 12 years and live camera and video mixer operator for a concert venue and my church for 11 years. If that whole computer thing tanks and nobody uses them anymore (lol) then I can walk into my pick either one of those jobs full time. Sorry, lazy scientists. You don't live realistically and reality hits you hard.

Re:Science is part of the problem

[stanlyb]

It is funny, but in Europe this phenomena of single parent household, or god forbids it, a female working well paid job (not this one, the other one), is actually not anymore phenomena but part of the normal life. And for some strange reason Canada is somewhere in medieval era, when to see working female is like seeing alien, E.T. alien i mean.

The Future

[32771]

Will progess stop 10 years from now?

Melodramatic Science Community...

[ravenscar]

is Melodramatic. Marching with a coffin? Come on. I guess I would hope that such a group of people wouldn't stoop to that level for attention.

Why cut budgets in the first place.

[cellocgw]

Most of the posts here seem to be of the "cut this or else cut that" ilk. Why not do the right thing and raise taxes, or in the USA case, return the tax rates on the very rich to what they once were, and change the business tax code to reflect some sort of reality. And then stop taxing capital gains less than "ordinary" income.

All part of Harper's goal to turn Canada into USA

[bussdriver]

Traitorous politicians like Harper and a great many in the USA only care about winning AT ALL COST. The nation and the democracy do not matter they are not actually important, only winning the "war". Anybody who is not "one of us" must be cleansed of the body politic and naturally these lesser people are to be despised. This kind of fanaticism is as old as civilization and it always starts out minor then it grows until it is extreme enough and/or large enough that a majority can see it (usually it has to be really bad before enough slow people wake up and take action.) This does not always result in the extremes you might be imagining because sometimes it can be addressed before it becomes a huge problem; the harm it causes is immeasurable regardless.

The problem is while we can see them as a extremely damaging to democracy or worse and they probably are -- but the question is, are we falling into the same sick twisted mindset as they are? Should we hate them for their hateful vile actions and if so, have we become them or are we them in the 1st place?

Attacking science, news, statics, even truth itself becomes another victim of the paranoia to be eliminated and undermined as if it were no different than the opposition. The predetermined conclusions must be maintained at all cost for the fanatic believer.

Re:All part of Harper's goal to turn Canada into U

[bussdriver]

To add another thing; debate is a collaboration, a struggle towards answers. We think of it as metaphorical warfare we describe it using war and fight metaphors which creates the wrong attitude. The fanatics take this even further but when the culture has a warped view in the first place the fanatics do not stand out as quickly as they should.

It is not an intellectually honest strategy to kill debate and to undermine the oppositions positions by removing their access to the the truth --- and if you find that science is almost always against you you should start thinking instead of strategically removing science from the debate simply because it is the best way for you to win against the other side.

That is exactly what these fanatics are doing and what is particularly vile about it is how they do it under such dishonest justifications. I don't know what is worse, lying to oneself to do something horrible as a "true believer" or to cynically attack any potential future threat.

Science vs. Bank Bailouts

[Roger W Moore]

Because these scientists are Special And they shouldn't be subject to economic downturns eh?

In the last year or so the British government spent more money bailing out the banks that it has spent on science in the last 1,000 years. Now just pause and think about that for a second. Think about the world 1,000 years ago and where we are today because that difference is due primarily to science. If governments can blow more than 1,000 years worth of their science budget to bail out the very people whose greed created the economic down turn then you might think that they could find the relatively meagre pittance required to continue a program which has transformed our society.

...of course this may be part of the problem: it was far easier for those in power to deal with us troublesome peasants in the dark ages!

Re:How about the USA?

[Crypto Gnome]

Don't be silly, this is /.

Obviously he was under the impression that This Is Sparta!

Survey Paper.

[Yaztromo]

I'm planning to write a survey paper on the overall effectiveness of scientists carrying coffins on government funding of science.

So if anyone knows of any papers in this area of research, please let me know. Future science may depend on it!

Yaz

Re:Because these scientists are Special

[Crypto Gnome]

... parading down the street with a coffin is stupid and melodramatic.

Hey if Stupid And Melodramatic is good enough for Microsoft, why shouldn't we all follow suit?

Re:How about the USA?

[magarity]

In the USA, where we have "free speech", I bet holding a mock funeral for Barack Obama (or, previously, George W Bush) would be considered a death threat and get the Secret Service knocking at your door. If not, it would at least get you on a list.

Did you never listen to the news or any comedy show from 2000 to 2008? Bush was constantly having death wished upon him in and in rather direct language.

Funded from elsewhere

[holophrastic]

Maybe, just maybe, it's high time that these scientists find another source of funding, outside of the public government. Last I checked, government was about governing, not about researching.

So sorry there isn't a surplus of money in our giant country of few people. You may just need to earn some of your own.

One of those is punctual

[aepervius]

If you look at your list, one of those is punctual & limited in time, the other are actually standard and are always hapenning. Military is definitively punctual, and so far you are in the US the first military of the world with god how many wars where you are the agressor (justified or not), and not really "attacked by the enemy". I am sorry but even in normal time your military is waaaaay overkill and you haven't been attacked by anybody for 60 years, and you can't say with a straight face you will be attacked due to your nuclear aresenal. So your military is definitively over budgeted. The rest, particularly science, not so much.

Sweeping generalizations are bogus

[Geof]

Scientists have an interest in continued funding. They are also in the best position to justify the work that they do. If you actually want to argue about whether these are good cuts are bad, you need to address the substantive arguments they make: not throw around sweeping generalizations.

Intelligent managament is about adjusting and reallocating, not cutting across the board. The programs you list are not all equivalent: not in net economic cost (or benefit), not in social cost (or benefit), not in terms of efficiency, or any number of other things. The idea that no one wants to give up anything so "everyone has to give up something" is ideological claptrap that tars some programs with the perceptions of others. (In any case, the easiest way to achieve it is to raise taxes.)

If you actually look at the context of these cuts in Canada, it's pretty clear that they are not all motivated by cost-savings. They coincide with elimination of the manditory long-form census, seriously damaging the government's ability to masure the impacts of social programs. There are huge cuts in environmental science, including climate change monitoring and a unique experimental lakes study area. The amounts involved are small, but the targets line up perfectly with the politics of a governing party that depicts environmentalists as terrorists and whose economic priority is oil exports. And as it happens, Canada - one of the countries under discussion - does not have "massive" debt - at least not compared to other OECD countries.

For a "blue skies" project, consider the packet switching research carried out in the late 1950s at the National Physics Laboratory in the U.K. The government decided that every project should have a "customer" with an application. Packet switching didn't. It was cut back. The U.S. invented the Internet.

On the death of Tevatron (and the SSC)

[tedlistens]

Here's a 20-minute documentary we just released on the death of the Tevatron at Fermilab, which helped hunt for the Higgs, before it was shut down, probably sooner than it should have been. http://www.motherboard.tv/tevatron There's also a bit on the superconducting supercollider. "It's the writing on the wall," Neil deGrasse Tyson says at one point. Hope you like it, and that it sheds some light on the impact of these cuts.

Re:How about the USA?

[Rakshasa-sensei]

Blessed are those who have something to say yet don't.

Re:The entitlement mentality has to go

[RaceProUK]

Why do these scientists feel so entitled to my tax dollars? Support yourselves and raise your own research dollars, you fucking leeches.

In which case: bye-bye space program, bye-bye national security, bye-bye communications. etc.

Was there ... NOT 2000 "scientists"

[fygment]

The title would make you think 2000 published scientists were giving time to the event. No. More like an assortment of grad students, lab techs (maybe), and various types of youths (high school, street, art students) looking for a party. That was it except for one bona fide prof. The impassioned organizer admitted on radio that the protest was organized without having brought any issues to government attention ie. no attempt at contacting govt officials for a dialogue, etc.

The fact is, scientists are supported pretty nicely by the Canadian governement. The govt has an agenda of pushing the subsidizing of science on to industry ie. make Canadian industry invest in research. That can mean diminishing govt research funding in areas where it is felt industry can do better. In fact, rather than protesting against the easy target (govt), maybe scientists/public should be asking industry to get off their collective cans and start doing serious research.

The scientists who work for the govt have it best and no reason at all to complain. As public servants, they are not subject to 'publish or perish', they can choose between two career streams of management or scienctific management (a boon for scientists who suck at research but are good at organizing things), after competing for and winning a position it is theirs indefinitely if they so choose (and don't commit a crime ... and incompetence isn't a crime), the pay is exceptional, the funding is consistent (there is never a year of zero funds and where univ profs scrabble for $10K here or there, they speak in $100K chunks), and parking is (for most) free. The disgruntled few, coincidentally those who've never worked in industry or academia, bitch about not being able to spout off to the media at will but instead having to go through govt public relations staff (they feel they are 'muzzled') ... ummm, just like the scientists at Microsoft, HP, NASA, etc. have to?

Re:And When They Retire...

[Phrogman]

Those same politicians who approved the bailouts might find themselves on the boards of directors for those financial institutions that got bailed out eh?
Up here in Canada, we have the problem that Harper doesn't like scientific research that has any chance of restricting those things he has decided to implement or change. So anything related to the environment is being stiffled as best as he can, because he wants to ensure that the Embridge pipeline goes through and Alberta (his home province) makes its 550b in profits over the next 10 years. It doesn't matter how hazardous Fracking may or may not be, it doesn't matter the risk to the BC environment or the Pacific Coastal regions etc. Its easier to shut down the environmental groups and legislate that scientists must get approval from the PMs office before they can discuss *any* research or findings on anything to do with climate change or environmental issues.
And when he retires (if that ever happens), he will end up on the board of directors for Embridge or similar companies.

Re:Just hard science

[GameboyRMH]

This is Canada so I guess they'd call them a buncha hosers (eh?) :-P

Re:Because these scientists are Special

[sumdumass]

(side note)That's why war spending should be off budget and appropriated as emergency spending. When the war or the need is over, the spending disappears. The military and or war effort has to justify the need for the spending in association with the war efforts.

Your point about Teachers and other groups is even more to the point. Even when the amount of increase in funding is cut before the funding increases are ever realized, they come out in groves decrying the cuts.

Re:Because these scientists are Special

[Kergan]

How does a near-perpetual state of affairs (the US being at war) qualify as emergency spending?

Re:Because these scientists are Special

[sumdumass]

Because no matter how you want to think of the state of war being perpetual, we shouldn't enshrine it with appropriation for it in every budget for the rest of the US lifespan. When a war happens, congress needs to specifically consider the costs separate from any riders or pork spending and wars generally are not planned to start after a budget paying for them is passed. Going to war is an emergency thing. It should not be a permanent thing and it should not be institutionalized the same as providing for the social security of the population or staffing a firehouse.

Actually, the problem is not with it being classified with emergency spending, it is the congress' ability to re-appropriate the increased spending that was specifically caused by the war. A perfectly valid alternative to keeping it emergency spending and off budget is to legally isolate it from the rest of the budget with laws requiring the same appropriations actions required for new standard pertain to any monies created for war efforts.

You see, congress has to go through a special process to increase it's ability to spend money. If they do not go through that process, then new programs and increases to existing programs must be "paid for" in the budget by removing it from another expenditure in the budget. This separate process requires a larger majority of votes and a process to evaluate the costs verses impact of the spending- except in cases of emergency spending. Off budget spending like emergency spending simply disappears when the need for it disappears. With war spending on budget and no safeguards in place, as soon as the wars stop or dies down, congress can reallocate that increase in spending to the program of their choice just the same as if they cut the EPA funding to increase Medicare funding.

What we will have is a situation where it is actually politically advantageous to start a war to get the emergency funding in place initially, then move it on to the budget as regular spending without any of the existing checks, then end the war in efforts to create funding for unpopular projects or initiatives. The entire purpose of puting war funding on budget is to continue spending the money after the wars are over. Congress has not tried to hide that as they are already purposing ways to spend the money use to fund the Iraq war when it officially dies off.