It seems like that is the case. Funding for fundamental research is drying up. I think part of this comes from reduced funding available from governmental sources, NSF, DOE, etc.
THe trick is that a researcher today has to balance the level of applied research with fundamental research. Get the money from applied research, funnel some of it off for your interests in fundamental research.
Another reason that it looks like research funds for fundamental research is drying up, it that funding from government sources is drying up, while funding from the private sector is increasing. From the persons standpoint who used to get all their funding from government sources, it looks like fundamental research funding is decreasing, when in fact it is just shifting from one source to the next.
SOme people in the private sector still give money for fundamental research, basically because it isn't cost effective, in terms of equipment cost and personnel to deal with it, so they outsource it to universities. THis is a resource that researchers haven't tradiationally tapped, and therefore, need to.
Just my opninions.
Polymer Science and Engineering Department at UMass Amherst.
paragraph about nanowires
http://www.pse.umass.edu/mrsec/boal.html
Some of Russels's recent references:
http://www.pse.umass.edu/faculty/russell.html
MERSEC
http://www.pse.umass.edu/mrsec/index.html
The idea is that you don't. How does a microorganism know to attack a certain organelle or whatever? It doesn't make decisions, the structure of the bacterium dictates what structures it interacts with. You would have to choose the bacterium in such a way that it it targets certain areas of the body. So you will have to modify the surface character of the bacteria to the place you want the drug delivered. One problem I see is that the immune system is going to kick in and do what it is designed to do. This will have the effect of scaverging a lot of the input drug deliverers. This isn't so much a problem as the fact that when the body starts to break down the bacteria, which it has learned to do, I might not know what to do with the drug that is contained inside.
Interesting concept though, like people above have mentioned, fanastic voyage inspired all the way.
It will be intersting to see how topics like this in the general area of melding nanotech with medicine will develop.
Interesting time we live in, let's see what happens
I second that. Most engineering degrees (doing my ChemE PhD now) are a lot of work. You have to love what it is about in order to stick it out, as opposed to doing something that is as financially rewarding, which doesn't require a degree (insert your technology field here).
This goes hand-in-hand with the large percentage of non-resident degrees. Americans in general are after the quick return, and don't want to stick it out for the long haul. There is a cultural difference with non-residents, they have a great work ethic and will stick it out. Being an American, I am the minority in my Engineering Department by far. There are by far more women than Americans.
If you look at it in strcit economics terms, a higher educational degree (MS PhD) usually doesn't pay off, but does allow one a different job choice.
What is thought of running these types of pay-for-idle processor time setups at work. I know that a lot of people set up distributed.net or SETI clients at work (machines not owned by themselves) I wonder if companies will mandate that all computers run a clients that pay you back. The money could significant if you are at a site with several hundred computers.
And what are the implications of making money off your employers spare computer cycles?
The environment in academia over the last four or five years has been changing. Funding from governmental sources, NSF, NIH, DOD, NASA, etc has been drastically cut. Every year it get more difficult to get funding from these agencies.
Combining this with the fact that academic institutions are running on a tighter and tighter budget each year, it get very difficult to support and dynamic and productive research department.
With these financial pressures people in academia have been forced to look in other places for funding. One of these is the corporate world. Companies are always willing to pay for expertise that academic people have. Another source of this funding has to come from the better management of intelectual property. Academics create important discoveries. In stead of giving them away for free, it is prudent to license new technology to corporation which have the budget and know how to bring things to market.
The bottom line, if academia is to existent it has to pay for itself. This means not giving away valuable information.
I have to say that it is not the best thing that can happen, but this paradigm shift is better than the alternative of academics closing down shop.
Slashdot Mirror
You can say that again!!! MOD UP
It seems like that is the case. Funding for fundamental research is drying up. I think part of this comes from reduced funding available from governmental sources, NSF, DOE, etc. THe trick is that a researcher today has to balance the level of applied research with fundamental research. Get the money from applied research, funnel some of it off for your interests in fundamental research. Another reason that it looks like research funds for fundamental research is drying up, it that funding from government sources is drying up, while funding from the private sector is increasing. From the persons standpoint who used to get all their funding from government sources, it looks like fundamental research funding is decreasing, when in fact it is just shifting from one source to the next. SOme people in the private sector still give money for fundamental research, basically because it isn't cost effective, in terms of equipment cost and personnel to deal with it, so they outsource it to universities. THis is a resource that researchers haven't tradiationally tapped, and therefore, need to. Just my opninions.
Polymer Science and Engineering Department at UMass Amherst. paragraph about nanowires http://www.pse.umass.edu/mrsec/boal.html Some of Russels's recent references: http://www.pse.umass.edu/faculty/russell.html MERSEC http://www.pse.umass.edu/mrsec/index.html
The idea is that you don't. How does a microorganism know to attack a certain organelle or whatever? It doesn't make decisions, the structure of the bacterium dictates what structures it interacts with. You would have to choose the bacterium in such a way that it it targets certain areas of the body. So you will have to modify the surface character of the bacteria to the place you want the drug delivered. One problem I see is that the immune system is going to kick in and do what it is designed to do. This will have the effect of scaverging a lot of the input drug deliverers. This isn't so much a problem as the fact that when the body starts to break down the bacteria, which it has learned to do, I might not know what to do with the drug that is contained inside. Interesting concept though, like people above have mentioned, fanastic voyage inspired all the way. It will be intersting to see how topics like this in the general area of melding nanotech with medicine will develop. Interesting time we live in, let's see what happens
I second that. Most engineering degrees (doing my ChemE PhD now) are a lot of work. You have to love what it is about in order to stick it out, as opposed to doing something that is as financially rewarding, which doesn't require a degree (insert your technology field here). This goes hand-in-hand with the large percentage of non-resident degrees. Americans in general are after the quick return, and don't want to stick it out for the long haul. There is a cultural difference with non-residents, they have a great work ethic and will stick it out. Being an American, I am the minority in my Engineering Department by far. There are by far more women than Americans. If you look at it in strcit economics terms, a higher educational degree (MS PhD) usually doesn't pay off, but does allow one a different job choice.
What is thought of running these types of pay-for-idle processor time setups at work. I know that a lot of people set up distributed.net or SETI clients at work (machines not owned by themselves) I wonder if companies will mandate that all computers run a clients that pay you back. The money could significant if you are at a site with several hundred computers. And what are the implications of making money off your employers spare computer cycles?
I'm glad at least one person agrees with me.
The environment in academia over the last four or five years has been changing. Funding from governmental sources, NSF, NIH, DOD, NASA, etc has been drastically cut. Every year it get more difficult to get funding from these agencies. Combining this with the fact that academic institutions are running on a tighter and tighter budget each year, it get very difficult to support and dynamic and productive research department. With these financial pressures people in academia have been forced to look in other places for funding. One of these is the corporate world. Companies are always willing to pay for expertise that academic people have. Another source of this funding has to come from the better management of intelectual property. Academics create important discoveries. In stead of giving them away for free, it is prudent to license new technology to corporation which have the budget and know how to bring things to market. The bottom line, if academia is to existent it has to pay for itself. This means not giving away valuable information. I have to say that it is not the best thing that can happen, but this paradigm shift is better than the alternative of academics closing down shop.