How Important is Research Funding? 70
slowtonejoe75 asks: "I have friends and family working as physicists for the government at national laboratories funded by your tax dollars. Since Bush has been in office, funding meetings for these labs with the DOE (Dept. of Energy) in Washington have turned up dry. The Bush administration is clearly not interested in hardcore research unless it has to do with missles, bio-chemistry, and security. I understand that there are some priorities in life but I see this whole focus shift with respect to funding to be a real step backwards as far as the advancement of science. I want to know where the Slashdot community would place funding if they had their way?"
What should we research? (Score:2)
Re:What should we research? (Score:2)
Purely supposition on my part, but do you suppose that Bush isn't too keen on funding the Department of Energy to come up with a viable alternative to fossil fuels? There's a lot of physics talent working on fusion-related research, but the apparatus needed for experimentation isn't cheap.
DoE research is national security research... the problem with the Middle East will continue so long as the West is dependent on it for oil, and hence props up its various governments with oil money and military intervention. We need a viable alternative, ASAP.
The real question is, will Bush place short-term profit for the oil industry ahead of long-term strategic security for the American people? He's very popular in the polls right now, but the real judges are the historians 30 years from now.
Back in my pocket... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the research represents technology for defense, or security... I am for it, but just pork barrelling our dollars into random research projects, that then get sold into private industry so that I can buy back the result of the research I funded pisses me off.
Spending in the US is completely out of control. We need someone to clamp down on this insane tax and spend matra
Hard to determine what's basic research (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it is the governments responsibility todo "General" research with my money.
One of the problems with your post is that you never really define what you mean by "General" research. You follow this sentence with the following statement:
If the research represents technology for defense, or security... I am for it, but just pork barrelling our dollars into random research projects, that then get sold into private industry so that I can buy back the result of the research I funded pisses me off.
Using this as a reference, I'll assume you mean the government should only fund research that has immediate application to "important" areas such as defense. There are a lot of problems with this viewpoint. First, is how to draw the line between "general" research and "applied" research. Almost every scientist can do some wordsmithing to claim that their research has some concrete benefit now or in the future. So one could place a time barrier and state that only research that will pay off in new technological improvements within the next N years should be funded. The problem with this is that long-range research never gets funded. Another problem is that estimates of how long it will take the basic research to generate improved technology will always be wrong and scientists will give overly optimistic estimates so they can get their funding. There's also the big problem of identifying what research that seems pretty "pure", "general", "theoretical", whathaveyou, will produce useful "applied" results. I can't imagine the snide comments that mathematician George Boole must have endured when he developed an algebra assuming only two digits: 0 and 1. But today Boolean Algebra, as it is known today, is very applied stuff. Fourier faced similiar problems when no one recognized the practical importance of Fourier series and transforms when he introduced it.
Your statements also indicate that you are really upset at government research assistance for commerical technologies. The problem is that American companies are very short sighted. Their stockholders demand that they not engage in risky, long-range R&D developments. Without government seed money, most American companies wouldn't tackle the "big problems". Other governments, however, are more than willing to use their resources to give their companies an edge. The MagLev train is an obvious example. This idea was developed at MIT and they went so far as to develop a minature prototype. However, funding went dry. The governments of Japan and Germany saw the potential and began developing the technology in cooperation with their native hi-tech companies and they quickly leapt ahead of the US in the development of viable technology. The US is starting to gain back some of the ground now, but if the US government had funded this thing throughout, the US would be a lock for the first nation to bring this technology to the worldwide market.
GMD
Re:Back in my pocket... (Score:5, Interesting)
that's the stuff that pisses *me* off.
I am for it, but just pork barrelling our dollars into random research projects, that then get sold into private industry so that I can buy back the result of the research I funded pisses me off.
We'll see if you think that next time you're in a PET scanner trying to get a cancer diagnosed or something. A machine that would not have been produced except for the "pork barrel, random research" projects a few decades ago.
No doubt this is the hardest part of the problem though. How can a scientist asking for money explain that the work *does* have value, it's just that it isn't known what the value will be until it is done. The scientific community needs to get much much better at pointing out the results of the "random research" so that the uneducated masses can better understand the value.
I clearly couldn't be more opposite of you on this one. IMO the *only* research the government should be doing is the "random" stuff that won't get done otherwise because there is no profit motive. It's this research, however, that keeps the US at the forefront and allows the directly applicable stuff to be done later.
Re:Back in my pocket... (Score:1)
i left out the marines on purpose, as they're glorified navy, never has been it's own branch, probably never will be
Re:Back in my pocket... (Score:2)
1) Just because the constitution says it doesn't make it right. Appeals to authority carry very little weight with me.
2) I happen to agree with the constitution on this one.
Re:Back in my pocket... (Score:1)
I bet you will continue paying the same (or more) taxes whatever the goverment funds or not.
Consult the manual... (Score:3, Funny)
First get your government going, and get the basics of living working. Done that.
Next, democracy, by way of a monarchy. Done that.
Finally, 20% luxeries, 30% taxes, and 50% research. Also, turn any excess population into scientists, except as necessary in certain cities. Placate the masses with temples and cathedrals and coliseums, as necessary.
As my experience in Civ II shows, this is an easy way to first make numerous advances, and then kick everybody else's butts as you expand your empire - err, democracy - across the globe.
Re:Consult the manual... (Score:1)
Whenever I tried to conquer the world, I always switched to fundamentalism...
Oh.
THIS is why we need export restrictions on computer games. :)
I'll reserve my comment on where to spend... (Score:1)
I have noticed an increase in spending for infrastructure and information security; not just airport and other physical security. Note a recent 109 million dollar contract awarded for a security team by the agency with the "second largest" computer network in the government.
Employed or unemployed, many of you IT folks that would like to get in on the ground floor of an info security project may want to look around at this. I know I may have just shot myself out of a job opportunity very close to home [and if you read my journal you'll see I'm working very FAR from home right now but still count myself lucky to have a job - at least until January]. If you pay attention to where government money is going (listen to NPR, watch some national news and read! read! read!) and don't mind working for them as a contractor, there's some opportunities out there.
Re:I'll reserve my comment on where to spend... (Score:2)
Ohh boy.
You, sir, suck.
Remember this el geek-o, as you count your pieces of silver and relish your leetness, the nuhremberg defense *doesn't work*. What goes around, comes around.
Re:I'll reserve my comment on where to spend... (Score:2)
You, sir, need to read more carefully before spouting off like an ignorant fuck. I was just trying to maintain some meager semblance of anonymity. No wonder people complain about the blatant negative attitudes prevalent in society as of late.
Re:I'll reserve my comment on where to spend... (Score:2)
You can blame that barrage on Dr. Laura; but if you want to be a biznatch I'll bring the bitch slap.
Re:I'll reserve my comment on where to spend... (Score:2)
Besides that, I truly am sorry I assumed it was that new darpa information agency you were talking about,with the ridiculous goon illuminatiesque cult symbol abomination they have, my mistake, and I apologize. I shouldn't have assumed, but that was the biggee lately in the news that they are planning on spending tons of money and hiring lotsa IT guys and etc, if you can see that. Hoestly thought that was what you were talking about, given the 'crypto" nature of the wording of the post. Got to be 20 or 50 to 1 or more lately on that coverage over the vet hospital stuff. If I had known it was to provide services to vets I wouldn't have said squat. Vets get screwed all the time.
Re:I'll reserve my comment on where to spend... (Score:2)
*Some* of us younger generation do have concerns for those less fortunate than us; and have a lot of respect and admiration for those that have come before us. Not that everyone believes me all the time because I try and spoil my [second, even] wife and kids.
Re:I'll reserve my comment on where to spend... (Score:2)
Re:I'll reserve my comment on where to spend... (Score:2)
I would place government funding... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, you didn't specify I had to have any enlightening goal.
I believe gov't spending is best focused on areas that while important do not perform well enough in the market to attract private funding. Many long-term projects and pure research fit this description. Concrete examples are space exploration (I favor astronomy and probes over manned flight, on a bang-for-the-buck rationale), basic biological research (genome project, medical research, niche or long-shot vaccines & medicines, etc.), big-capital-investment projects (supercolliders and such).
There, is that vague enough? Seriously, good gov't funding can provide benefits from boosting young researchers to providing the massive infrastructure for the big ticket labs.
Of course, the gov't's involvement in national research is already huge; the NSF is down the street from me, and NIH/NIMH not far away; look at their websites for an idea of what they are underwriting. Every researcher I can remember seemed to be preparing grant proposals for the gov't. I hope that the short-term shift in administration priorities to what it views as immediate goals does not cause too much long-term loss. I think the administration is mostly sincere in its belief about what is important, but that it is short-sighted. (My 2.)
Finally, I don't suggest research should be socialized. Government spending is complimentary to private spending, not its substitute.
Re:I would place government funding... (Score:2)
The "Genome" project was started by the government in 1990. Of course no private industry would even fund Genome Research (so we were told).
Whoops, wrong, in 1998 Celera Genomics announces that they are going to crack the Genome and much to the shigrin of the the government, they say they are going todo it FIRST.
In 2000, Celera cracked it and decided to share the credit with the government, in exchange for what I don't know (I would guess some favor to be mentioned later for not making the government look like they pissed away LOTS of money).
Government effiency crushed by private industry once again.
----
I could go on to pick apart your medical research point (which I think is wrong).
----
On supercolliders and space -- I give you full credit, as of yet private funding is not there, and these have had benefits to mankind.
Genome Projects (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Celera did do a genome. But the public consortium also did one which is equivalent or better in most scientific terms and vastly superior in one important respect: it is public domain.
While non-profit researchers can obtain free access to Celera's genome data, it is a pain in the ass to deal with their legal department, and the data is viewable in a sub-optimal interface. The public genome is easily and readily available [nih.gov] to anyone and everyone with a web browser.
I had nothing to do with the public human genome project, but I use their data every day in my research as do thousands of other researchers. To suggest that the government pissed away money on that project is simply wrong.
It seems clear to me that everyone benefits from the public genome project in particular, and public science in general. Why should we enrich a private company for basic scientific information which is needed by all researchers (both for-profit and non-profit)?
Re:Genome Projects (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I would place government funding... (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah. But there are ten thousand examples of the government getting things done also. In 1990 there was no profit motive for getting the genome mapped that surpased the costs. It took a breakthrough in *how* to map the genome to setup the event you speak of.
On the whole you and I agree though. The government should be doing the "pure research" and leaving the rest to private industry. I just wouldn't choose to be so antagonistic based on it. Shit happens and sometime private industry gets there first. I just choose to recognize that the vast majority of the time that isn't the case. Heck, it's been thirty years and Southwest still doesn't have flights to the moon...
Re:I would place government funding... (Score:3, Interesting)
The two genome projects were complementary -- Celera did "decide to share the credit" whatever that means -- and the competition spurred them along. The press did not report on the competition in any depth; for them, the "race" was the story.
They said there wasn't private funding in 1990? They were right! Celera came along eight years later, and had the benefit of the tech boom when just about anything could get funding. Moreover, the Celera founder Venter was a genome project alumni; he left because he thought he could a better job, which is great, but if he hadn't started out in the project would he have taken the same course? Also, Celera's desire to patent and profit from its work is in the interest of its shareholders but not necessarily science. I know I benefitted from several public domain projects run by bright people where you could simply take what you needed and add your own. Like the internet, there is a tremendous value in seeded something private industry does not see the potential in or can't afford to jumpstart without assurance of profit.
As for medical research, I speak from experience. There have been no end of studies funded by gov't grants and institutions. Just read the credits on a few hundred journal articles! Also, few people know the HUGE role Medicare has in financing medical education and teaching hospitals.
Not every project pans out, but that's true of private industry. Government efficiency must be measured in terms of industry efficiency -- there's a reason "Dilbert" resonates with so many people. Sure, we should try to do better, and not every program I mentioned is necessarily a wise one, but no risk, no gain.
Re:I would place government funding... (Score:2)
Celera's accomplishment was impressive (and self-serving), but it is a comparison of apples to oranges. If Celera had used the same fundamental techniques, AND had proven to be years quicker, then you could conclude they were more efficient. As it was, since they were attempting to do a genome patent land-grab, they could choose to trade certainty of the results for speed.
This is good (Score:2)
Re:This is good (Score:3)
Who do you think funds most of the grants that pay for the labs those slaves work in?
Re:This is good (Score:2)
Re:This is good (Score:1)
Actually, many (possibly most) National Labs are run by universities. For instance, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is run by the University of California, as is Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Many others are run by other unversities. If you want to argue against National Laboratories, i'd take more of a look at places like Sandia which are run by corporations (Lockheed Martin in this case).
Is it really the fault of the Bush Administration? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's just the timing here. What if Gore had been in office when 9/11 happened? Well, besides the fact that we would have still been talking about doing something, as opposed to actually doing it I mean. Perhaps the funding has dried up simply because the funds have been redirected to other areas, such as defense.
Priorities have to be made, and someone has to suffer a lack of resources. If it's Lawrence Livermore they work for, then maybe if they stopped losing $1 million plus worth of equipment, they could get budget for an airplane trip to DC.
Re:Is it really the fault of the Bush Administrati (Score:2)
Perhaps? That seems like a certaintly. We have just boosted that budget by better than 10% and are something like double the rest of NATO combined. That's a hell of a lot of money.
*I* think maybe we should cut it in half, fund basic research and, orthogonally, quite shoving our culture and will down the collective throats of every nation that doesn't have a white, male, christian leader. Then *both* problems are solved! (and, sadly, I'm only half joking).
Re:Is it really the fault of the Bush Administrati (Score:2)
Re:Is it really the fault of the Bush Administrati (Score:1)
SlowToneJoe75
Peace out... Or war in... Which ever your prefer...
The Market Rules! (Score:2)
Don't you know that there is no legitimate role for Government in the marketplace? Advances in Science and Technology come from the heroic vision of lone entrepreneurs, willing to risk all they have.
The market always provides the solutions to the problems that they persuade us we have.
What would I fund? (Score:2)
Re:What would I fund? (Score:2)
The problem is that it's very difficult to tell in advance what will. Consider the laser; at the time it was invented it was mocked as being a solution in search of a problem. Now we use them in communication, data storage, surveying, surgery, entertainment and weapons. So you have to fund a little of every sort of research, and one success pays for dozens of projects that eventually go nowhere.
It's the same model as used by venture capitalists and record company executives. Fund a little of everything, then all you need is for one in ten to make it big.
Re:What would I fund? (Score:2)
Consider the laser; at the time it was invented it was mocked as being a solution in search of a problem. Now we use them in communication, data storage, surveying, surgery, entertainment and weapons.
Yeah but did the government even make money off it? If you want to evaluate the cost effectiveness, sell stock. The gummint could just sell preferred stock on the project with no voting power, for instance.
Where I'd put the funding (Score:1)
1. Where are the dead pigeons? This could take billions to solve
2. What happened to the "fry guys?" Hamburgler is back, but the fry guys are still missing.
3. Three-dimensional porn. I mean, here is a HUGE untapped market.
4. Long term effects of cruise missiles on sand dunes. Since they seem to be exploding in the desert a lot, this might be a worthwhile investigation.
5. Finally, where is Osama? Maybe he knows where the pigeons are?
A Shame (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see any companies funding much research that is going to benifit society at large instead of their pocketbooks. And they shouldn't. That is part of what gov't is for. There are too many people who profess a belief in capitalism and have had no contact with Adam Smith.
Re:A Shame (Score:2)
Re:A Shame (Score:3)
Can you cite a supporting study for this?
What I've noticed is that people only think about a meal into the future (evolutionary design, you know) and are much more likely to be self interested than making sure that a project that won't have results for a decade gets off the ground, oh, and we don't know what the results will be yet. Please, give me a dollar?
As for "forcibly stripping". That sounds like a sound byte from the libertarian website. They go on and on talking about how private contract law should be final and that the government should be minimal. Government at the point of a gun is invalid. All that kind of crap.
What about the contract they've made by being a citizen here? They never really address that. They piss and moan about the horror of living in the most open, richest country in the world and forget that, if they are really so unhappy, they can leave. No point of a gun. Just have a go of it somewhere else.
The only time the government is "forcibly stripping money out of people's wallets" or dictating "at the point of a gun" is when the borders are closed. Until then, they've choosen to be here and volunteered to play by the rules. Taxes, speed limits, seat belt laws, gun regulations, drug laws and the rest are all part of that ruleset.
If they want to try and change them, great! More power to them. I support about 2/3rds of their agenda in fact. But they aren't being forced into any of it. They are just telling inflamatory lies to get people riled up and open their wallets.
Re:A Shame (Score:2)
There is absolutely *no* justification for flow studies on ketchup coming out of anything but the Heinz company's R&D budget.
The truth is that private funding, if you can figure out how to do it, is more efficient and tends to provide better results in pretty much all areas where some countries do it privately, others do it publicly. I was just saying that we need to figure out how to create methods of financing things via micropayments that are much better than what's currently available so that *in the future* it would be practical to gain efficiency and shift basic R&D to the more efficient model.
Yeah, I'm a libertarian but what's so head in the clouds about wasting less money on overhead?
High Energy Physics (Score:2)
While R&D based on pure intellectual curiosity is wonderful, it also seems to me that one can satisfy curiosity AND work in a field like biochemistry that has a much larger chance to benefit society.
Re:High Energy Physics (Score:2)
And where will the biochemists get the tools they need to examine their subjects without the advances in physics?
I agree with the often expressed sentiment that the 20th century was the century of physics and the 21st will be the century of biology. But just as we didn't ignore cancer for quarks in the 20th, it would be foolish to ignore higgs for hemoglobin in the 21st.
Re:High Energy Physics (Score:2)
I was thinking that this same argument could be said of deep-space astronomy. So what if black holes collide in millions of years from now? yeah, it is a kinda kewl concept and should be a part of basic research to help answer questions like 'how does the universe work?' etc.
It has seemed to me that over the past 5, maybe 10 years, the publicity of astronomy has increased quite a bit, focusing on our solar system and deep space using unquestionably significantly enhanced telescopes. Is it interesting? You bet. But isn't the practicality of it questionable? In comparison, though, funding a program to send people into space is I'm guessing many times more expensive for a single government to do. And it can cause (and has caused) international political tensions too. Though I find the thought of commericialization and exploitation of space distasteful, it is probably the only way to realize efficient financing and unencumbering politics.
Re:High Energy Physics (Score:2)
Where would doctors be today without the engineers who created their fine steel surgical instruments, without the physicists who designed and built x-ray machines and CAT scanners, without the chemists who created disinfectants and sutures and so on? And civil engineers to build hospitals and oilmen to power them?
You've got to look at the big picture. The branches of modern science and engineering are so intertwined that one could not exist without the others. Don't assume that the "public face" of the system, like your doctor, is all there is to the system.
Re:High Energy Physics (Score:2)
It is very unlikely that anything useful is going to come out of research in high energy physics. You are not going to be building scapels out of top quarks, nor are you going to be using the Higgs Boson to power a hospital.
The same money spent on biochemistry or biophysics (i.e. protein folding,. soft matter physics) work is far more likely to benefit humanity.
Government Research Funding is Vital (Score:1)
hard question (Score:2, Insightful)
Politically speaking, I don't think the government should be paying for anything that isn't directly related to protecting the country and enforcing the laws. It's the job of corporations and universities to do this research.
On the other hand, as a physicist, I know that corporations and universities can't or won't pay for all the research that is currently done. One could argue that most of it is useless; however, one never knows what research is going to pay off. If we did, it wouldn't be research.
Simply put, if we want things like cheap, clean energy, real cures to cancer, and profitable space technology, the government is going to have to lay down some cash to get things going. You might point at all the companies doing research in those areas (such as General Atomics, Armadillo/John Carmack, and countless biotechs), but they are all using technology that was originally poineered through support of the government. Consider environmental research, which most private sources have very little economic reason to support, but the government has very real political and economic reasons to support.
Ideally, these things would all be done with private money, AND they would be done in an open manner. Science is no good if everyone doesn't have access to it. Once science is done purely with private money, science could end up "closed source". Some areas, like computer research and health care, alreay are.
Look at what is discussed on this site regarding the control companies want to have over the research they have done in these areas. Do we want everything to end up like that? Imagine if the government started funding more open source software research. Would that NOT lead to some great things?
Private donations might work for the Ivy leages, but for most research universities, government support allows us to take the risks that lead to the really big payoffs, without completely screwing the students with tuition.
I'm obviously biased, but in my opinion, there are very few ways money could be better spent than on basic research. For those who say the government shouldn't be paying for this stuff, I agree with your principles, but from a utilitarian point of view, it needs to happen.
I'd spend the money (Score:2)
Physics *is* what it used to be (Score:2)
From after WWII through the 80's, things were different: there was a lot of money - usually government money - going into nuclear and then particle physics research. There were lots of new academic positions being created in physics departments, and most of these were basic research.
In the 90's things started swinging the other way. The Superconducting Supercollider was canceled. New nuclear physics positions completely dissapeared early in the decade, and by the end of the decade a lot of particle physics positions were being cut back. Some schools eliminated their physics department entirely. Suddenly physicists that always had ample research funding from the government were looking at other areas of research. In retrospect, it became obvious that the post-war boom was not "normal", it was the exception.
I would finish up with Afghanistan (Score:1)
Afghanistans sliding back into chaos. And this is no ordiniary country. It has borders with six others, each of which can be a base for future criminal / terrorist bases if ignored like Afghanistan was during the soviet times. The Taliban are already recruiting people and preparing for the next round. Do not forget Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are still at large and possibly quite busy.
So Afghanistan should be reconstructed and nursed till the first generation passes through school and take on the reigns of power. This is a far better investment than spending another 17 billion in the future chasing the next bin laden (or the same one?).
And then science has to be given priority. Mainly in the theoretical areas like nanotech, quantum computers and the Big Science labs like LANL and BNL. You do not become and remain free by pointing guns in all directions ready to pull the trigger. You cherish the benefits of freedom and lead civilization and technology forward. This is the only way conspiracy theorists in orthodox muslim countries realize they dont have a case. America has done very well since the WWII in this regard. Dont change it.
US MIssion Statement (Score:2)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So, according to this, it seems providing for the common defence comes before promoting the general Welfare. Now, I'm all for the general Welfare (as opposed to welfare ;) but given a limited pool of resources, my views are the same as the Preamble's.
The Same (Score:1)
Former researcher (Score:5, Insightful)
The great thing about working in government funded research is that you have the ability to fail. Failure can be good. Unfortunately, in the commercial world, failure is bad, and must be avoided at all costs- if you fail, you go out of business. But if you don't fail sometimes, you're not pushing the envelope hard enough, not taking any risks. Unfortunately, there has been much movement in the government to divert resources to private industry- to people looking for short term profit.
Private industry looks for short term gains- long term is 5 years, 10 years (or more) out is just too far. The government can afford to look that far out, or farther. That is where the neat stuff happens.
Someday, I'll be back there, back to making cool stuff, and trying to avoid the politics as much as possible.
Technology is the best thing for the economy (Score:1)
Technology stimulates the economy with real improvements in productivity. The US has to stay ahead of everyone else if it knows what's good for it.
A few more bits of info... (Score:1)
If you don't see the value in general research (or commented that we should spend more money on bombs or CowboyNeal merchandise... You should have paid more attention in school pal.
SlowToneJoe