Jump to content

Obama And Mccain On Science


Recommended Posts

Scientists and Engineers of America posed 14 questions to Obama and McCain about science and technology, and now they have both answered. A comparison of their responses can be seen here: http://sharp.sefora.org/innovation2008/com...president/2008/I was personally interested in the response to this question, since science funding has been abysmal over the last years:For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?McCain says With spending constraints, it will be more important than ever to ensure we are maximizing our investments in basic research and minimizing the bureaucratic requirements that eat away at the money designed for funding scientists and science. Basic research serves as the foundation for many new discoveries and represents a critical investment for the future of the country and the innovations that drive our economy and protect our people. I have supported significant increases in basic research at the National Science Foundation. I also called for a plan developed by our top scientists on how the funding should be utilized. We must ensure that our research is addressing our national needs and taking advantage of new areas of opportunities and that the results of this research can enter the marketplace. We must also ensure that basic research money is allocated to the best science based on quality and peer review, not politics and earmarks. I am committed to reinvigorating America’s commitment to basic research, and will ensure my administration funds research activities accordingly. I have supported increased funding at DOE, NSF, and NIH for years and will continue to do so. I will continue my commitment to ensure that the funding is properly managed and that the nation's research needs are adequately addressed.Obama says Federally supported basic research, aimed at understanding many features of nature— from the size of the universe to subatomic particles, from the chemical reactions that support a living cell to interactions that sustain ecosystems—has been an essential feature of American life for over fifty years. While the outcomes of specific projects are never predictable, basic research has been a reliable source of new knowledge that has fueled important developments in fields ranging from telecommunications to medicine, yielding remarkable rates of economic return and ensuring American leadership in industry, military power, and higher education. I believe that continued investment in fundamental research is essential for ensuring healthier lives, better sources of energy, superior military capacity, and high-wage jobs for our nation’s future. Yet, today, we are clearly under-investing in research across the spectrum of scientific and engineering disciplines. Federal support for the physical sciences and engineering has been declining as a fraction of GDP for decades, and, after a period of growth of the life sciences, the NIH budget has been steadily losing buying power for the past six years. As a result, our science agencies are often able to support no more than one in ten proposals that they receive, arresting the careers of our young scientists and blocking our ability to pursue many remarkable recent advances. Furthermore, in this environment, scientists are less likely to pursue the risky research that may lead to the most important breakthroughs. Finally, we are reducing support for science at a time when many other nations are increasing it, a situation that already threatens our leadership in many critical areas of science. This situation is unacceptable. As president, I will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. Sustained and predictable increases in research funding will allow the United States to accomplish a great deal. First, we can expand the frontiers of human knowledge. Second, we can provide greater support for high-risk, high-return research and for young scientists at the beginning of their careers. Third, we can harness science and technology to address the “grand challenges” of the 21st century: energy, health, food and water, national security, information technology, and manufacturing capacity.For my own self-interests Obama's answer is more promising (and convincing), although I'm sure people will complain about where the money is going to come from. Anyways, some interesting answers on science issues that don't get too much press.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Legislative distortions in science funding are as bad as legislative distortions in other markets. In fact, possibly worse. I prefer my science to be factual, not political.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientists and Engineers of America posed 14 questions to Obama and McCain about science and technology, and now they have both answered. A comparison of their responses can be seen here: http://sharp.sefora.org/innovation2008/com...president/2008/I was personally interested in the response to this question, since science funding has been abysmal over the last years:For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?McCain saysWith spending constraints, it will be more important than ever to ensure we are maximizing our investments in basic research and minimizing the bureaucratic requirements that eat away at the money designed for funding scientists and science. Basic research serves as the foundation for many new discoveries and represents a critical investment for the future of the country and the innovations that drive our economy and protect our people. I have supported significant increases in basic research at the National Science Foundation. I also called for a plan developed by our top scientists on how the funding should be utilized. We must ensure that our research is addressing our national needs and taking advantage of new areas of opportunities and that the results of this research can enter the marketplace. We must also ensure that basic research money is allocated to the best science based on quality and peer review, not politics and earmarks.I am committed to reinvigorating America’s commitment to basic research, and will ensure my administration funds research activities accordingly. I have supported increased funding at DOE, NSF, and NIH for years and will continue to do so. I will continue my commitment to ensure that the funding is properly managed and that the nation's research needs are adequately addressed.Obama saysFederally supported basic research, aimed at understanding many features of nature— from the size of the universe to subatomic particles, from the chemical reactions that support a living cell to interactions that sustain ecosystems—has been an essential feature of American life for over fifty years. While the outcomes of specific projects are never predictable, basic research has been a reliable source of new knowledge that has fueled important developments in fields ranging from telecommunications to medicine, yielding remarkable rates of economic return and ensuring American leadership in industry, military power, and higher education. I believe that continued investment in fundamental research is essential for ensuring healthier lives, better sources of energy, superior military capacity, and high-wage jobs for our nation’s future.Yet, today, we are clearly under-investing in research across the spectrum of scientific and engineering disciplines. Federal support for the physical sciences and engineering has been declining as a fraction of GDP for decades, and, after a period of growth of the life sciences, the NIH budget has been steadily losing buying power for the past six years. As a result, our science agencies are often able to support no more than one in ten proposals that they receive, arresting the careers of our young scientists and blocking our ability to pursue many remarkable recent advances. Furthermore, in this environment, scientists are less likely to pursue the risky research that may lead to the most important breakthroughs. Finally, we are reducing support for science at a time when many other nations are increasing it, a situation that already threatens our leadership in many critical areas of science.This situation is unacceptable. As president, I will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. Sustained and predictable increases in research funding will allow the United States to accomplish a great deal. First, we can expand the frontiers of human knowledge. Second, we can provide greater support for high-risk, high-return research and for young scientists at the beginning of their careers. Third, we can harness science and technology to address the “grand challenges” of the 21st century: energy, health, food and water, national security, information technology, and manufacturing capacity.For my own self-interests Obama's answer is more promising (and convincing), although I'm sure people will complain about where the money is going to come from. Anyways, some interesting answers on science issues that don't get too much press.
Its more convincing because he uses more words to say the same thing....increase commitments to basic research?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Legislative distortions in science funding are as bad as legislative distortions in other markets. In fact, possibly worse. I prefer my science to be factual, not political.
Do allocation decisions really matter that much? The research market has $C that it can spend and $X,$Y, and $Z of projects to spend them on. If the government allocates a portion of $C to project X, that frees up private dollars that would have been allocated to X to move to $Y.Eg fetal stem cell research. If a drug company thinks that both adult and fetal stem cells hold promise, and the government funds some of their adult research but no fetal (instead of say 1/2 to each), then the private dollars that would have been spent on adult can be moved to fetal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Legislative distortions in science funding are as bad as legislative distortions in other markets. In fact, possibly worse. I prefer my science to be factual, not political.
NSF and NIH have to get their funding from congress. Once they have it, they decide what specific research to support. No one is suggesting that the science be political instead of factual. But science is driven by money. This is the situation we've faced with federal science funding:trres08p1.gifro1a.jpgIt has become almost impossible for a new researcher to get an R01. In fact, a question about politicizing science was also asked of the candidates:Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?McCain: We have invested huge amounts of public funds in scientific research. The public deserves to have the results of that research. Our job as elected officials is to develop the policies in response to those research results. Many times our research results have identified critical problems for our country. Denial of the facts will not solve any of these problems. Solutions can only come about as a result of a complete understanding of the problem. I believe policy should be based upon sound science. Good policy development will make for good politics.I support having a science and technology advisor within the White House staff and restoring the credibility and role of OSTP as an office within the White House structure. I will work to fill early in my Administration both the position of Science Adviser and at least four assistant directors within OSTP. I am committed to asking the most qualified scientists and engineers to join not only my OSTP, but all of the key technical positions in my Administration.Integrity is critical in scientific research. Scientific research cannot succeed without integrity and trust. My own record speaks for integrity and putting the country first, not political agendas.Obama: Scientific and technological information is of growing importance to a range of issues. I believe such information must be expert and uncolored by ideology.I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees. More broadly, I am committed to creating a transparent and connected democracy, using cutting-edge technologies to provide a new level of transparency, accountability, and participation for America’s citizens. Policies must be determined using a process that builds on the long tradition of open debate that has characterized progress in science, including review by individuals who might bring new information or contrasting views. I have already established an impressive team of science advisors, including several Nobel Laureates, who are helping me to shape a robust science agenda for my administration.In addition I will:• Appoint individuals with strong science and technology backgrounds and unquestioned reputations for integrity and objectivity to the growing number of senior management positions where decisions must incorporate science and technology advice. These positions will be filled promptly with ethical, highly qualified individuals on a non-partisan basis;• Establish the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will lead an interagency effort on best-in-class technologies, sharing of best practices, and safeguarding of our networks;• Strengthen the role of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) by appointing experts who are charged to provide independent advice on critical issues of science and technology. The PCAST will once again be advisory to the president; and• Restore the science integrity of government and restore transparency of decision- making by issuing an Executive Order establishing clear guidelines for the review and release of government publications, guaranteeing that results are released in a timely manner and not distorted by the ideological biases of political appointees. I will strengthen protection for “whistle blowers” who report abuses of these processes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, a question about politicizing science was also asked of the candidates:Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?McCain: We have invested huge amounts of public funds in scientific research. The public deserves to have the results of that research. Our job as elected officials is to develop the policies in response to those research results. Many times our research results have identified critical problems for our country. Denial of the facts will not solve any of these problems. Solutions can only come about as a result of a complete understanding of the problem. I believe policy should be based upon sound science. Good policy development will make for good politics.I support having a science and technology advisor within the White House staff and restoring the credibility and role of OSTP as an office within the White House structure. I will work to fill early in my Administration both the position of Science Adviser and at least four assistant directors within OSTP. I am committed to asking the most qualified scientists and engineers to join not only my OSTP, but all of the key technical positions in my Administration.Integrity is critical in scientific research. Scientific research cannot succeed without integrity and trust. My own record speaks for integrity and putting the country first, not political agendas.Obama: Scientific and technological information is of growing importance to a range of issues. I believe such information must be expert and uncolored by ideology.I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees. More broadly, I am committed to creating a transparent and connected democracy, using cutting-edge technologies to provide a new level of transparency, accountability, and participation for America's citizens. Policies must be determined using a process that builds on the long tradition of open debate that has characterized progress in science, including review by individuals who might bring new information or contrasting views. I have already established an impressive team of science advisors, including several Nobel Laureates, who are helping me to shape a robust science agenda for my administration.In addition I will:• Appoint individuals with strong science and technology backgrounds and unquestioned reputations for integrity and objectivity to the growing number of senior management positions where decisions must incorporate science and technology advice. These positions will be filled promptly with ethical, highly qualified individuals on a non-partisan basis;• Establish the nation's first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will lead an interagency effort on best-in-class technologies, sharing of best practices, and safeguarding of our networks;• Strengthen the role of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) by appointing experts who are charged to provide independent advice on critical issues of science and technology. The PCAST will once again be advisory to the president; and• Restore the science integrity of government and restore transparency of decision- making by issuing an Executive Order establishing clear guidelines for the review and release of government publications, guaranteeing that results are released in a timely manner and not distorted by the ideological biases of political appointees. I will strengthen protection for "whistle blowers" who report abuses of these processes.
Another example of twice as many words to say the same thing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

$Billions spent on space exploaration and we have a bloated NASA unable to notice that freezing temps are bad for rubber o-rings.What has science done for us lately?Global warming will result in more rights being handed over to the government and big business will get rich selling the government the fix for a problem that doesn't exist.At least we were smart enough to stop building the Black Hole creator in Texas before good old science made another mistake like they did when they testred the effects of radioactivity on soldiers to see how it effected the human body.Ted Kazinsky was more right than wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do allocation decisions really matter that much? The research market has $C that it can spend and $X,$Y, and $Z of projects to spend them on. If the government allocates a portion of $C to project X, that frees up private dollars that would have been allocated to X to move to $Y.
Exactly, promising research will be funded privately if it were not funded publicly. So the question is not "should we have basic research?", but "Would you rather have basic research funded by those in the know based on the most promising technologies, or would you rather ship the money to Washington, have them take a cut, allocate it based on what is politically palatable, and then send what's left back to the people doing the research, now with reduced funding due to bureaucratic overhead and political suppression of results?"
Link to post
Share on other sites
What has science done for us lately?
Nothing whatsoever, all those blinking lights and test tubes are just for show. Actually, the progress of science has slowed a bit but that's mostly because I started spending too much time on this forum.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly, promising research will be funded privately if it were not funded publicly. So the question is not "should we have basic research?", but "Would you rather have basic research funded by those in the know based on the most promising technologies, or would you rather ship the money to Washington, have them take a cut, allocate it based on what is politically palatable, and then send what's left back to the people doing the research, now with reduced funding due to bureaucratic overhead and political suppression of results?"
That is just a poor understanding of how funding works in science. First of all, there are huge segments of research that simply would not happen without federal funding, because not all science is commercially applicable. Secondly, private funding comes with its own negatives; someone owns the knowledge that is generated. The whole process of science is predicated on information-sharing and is therefore well-suited to public funding. Also, commercial interests are a powerful source of bias. Thirdly, as I said above, the funding allocations of public money are made by scientists. We all do our time serving on grant committees that evaluate the grants and decide which are scientifically viable and important. Congress does not decide which studies get funded.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That is just a poor understanding of how funding works in science. First of all, there are huge segments of research that simply would not happen without federal funding, because not all science is commercially applicable. Secondly, private funding comes with its own negatives; someone owns the knowledge that is generated. The whole process of science is predicated on information-sharing and is therefore well-suited to public funding. Thirdly, as I said above, the funding allocations of public money are made by scientists. We all do our time serving on grant committees that evaluate the grants and decide which are scientifically viable and important. Congress does not decide which studies get funded.
And that explains why there was a study done to determine the speed of ketchup and the effects of children watching TV which recently received $90 million, because the last 400 studies were inconclusive.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And that explains why there was a study done to determine the speed of ketchup and the effects of children watching TV which recently received $90 million, because the last 400 studies were inconclusive.
I think another study of the mating rituals of the warthog is overdue.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And that explains why there was a study done to determine the speed of ketchup and the effects of children watching TV which recently received $90 million, because the last 400 studies were inconclusive.
Yeah this is the latest Republican pastime, to caricature a scientific study with a funny title and use it as an example of excessive spending without any context of why the study is being done or what its purpose is. I don't think either of us can evaluate the scientific merit of this study based on the information you've provided. Studying the DNA of bears?! HAhahahaha!!! What use could that possibly have!?! hhahahahaha.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That is just a poor understanding of how funding works in science. First of all, there are huge segments of research that simply would not happen without federal funding, because not all science is commercially applicable. Secondly, private funding comes with its own negatives; someone owns the knowledge that is generated. The whole process of science is predicated on information-sharing and is therefore well-suited to public funding. Thirdly, as I said above, the funding allocations of public money are made by scientists. We all do our time serving on grant committees that evaluate the grants and decide which are scientifically viable and important. Congress does not decide which studies get funded.
There are many reasons to do basic science research, not all of them related to profit. There are a few big projects that would not happen if the govt go out of it, such as LLY's big toy, but these are the exception, not the rule. Industry is the consumer of science advances, they stand to profit, and they will pay for it. What frequently happens is that for basic research, a company will do a joint venture with a college, agreeing to share results with the world. Both college and corporation get prestige and cost-savings. Then, when it looks like the science can lead to a commercially viable product, the company will move the follow-up research in-house, and yes, then it *may* become proprietary, which can also lead to great advances, because once you have to sell something, you've really got incentive to perfect it.And your final sentence is hopelessly naive. Researcher is *heavily* influenced by what is politically popular, from stem cells to global warming to smoking to drugs. Being on the wrong side of a political issue can make or break a scientist's career.Would we lose some projects? Absolutely. Would the world miss them? Not likely. Science marched forward for centuries before politicians discovered that they could buy votes by supporting it. Believe it or not, humans will come out of their caves every so often even *without* a wise bureaucrat showing them the way.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There are many reasons to do basic science research, not all of them related to profit. There are a few big projects that would not happen if the govt go out of it, such as LLY's big toy, but these are the exception, not the rule. Industry is the consumer of science advances, they stand to profit, and they will pay for it. What frequently happens is that for basic research, a company will do a joint venture with a college, agreeing to share results with the world. Both college and corporation get prestige and cost-savings. Then, when it looks like the science can lead to a commercially viable product, the company will move the follow-up research in-house, and yes, then it *may* become proprietary, which can also lead to great advances, because once you have to sell something, you've really got incentive to perfect it.
The basic misunderstanding here is the idea that the end goal of science produce a commercially viable product. I strongly disagree about your exception/rule comment. Take say, the entire field of clinical psychology. If I need to study a behavioral treatment that reduces anxiety which industry is footing the bill for that? The therapists who will use it are not in a position to pay for such a study, but it has the potential to yield great public benefit. If you rely on industry to fund those things it thinks will be profitable you lose a tremendous amount. The success of the scientific process requires a sandbox to play around in that doesn't have to prove commercial viability.
And your final sentence is hopelessly naive. Researcher is *heavily* influenced by what is politically popular, from stem cells to global warming to smoking to drugs. Being on the wrong side of a political issue can make or break a scientist's career.
Trust me, I am all too well aware of the politics involved in scientific funding. I am not saying there are only objective influences. I am saying that the fact that science is publicly funded does not mean that non-scientists are making the decisions about the scientific merit of various projects. I have been involved in both publicly funded research and privately funded research and I know from experience what the difference is in the kind of science they produce. Getting rid of public funding for basic science is a very very bad idea.
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, if science is so important, let's see a scientific, peer-reviewed study showing the political funding of science is superior to private funding of science. This wouldn't just be a leap of faith would it? After all, the claim itself -- that taking money from research, sending it through the least efficient organization in the country, allocating based on political concerns, and sending a fraction back, could be more efficient than just letting those in the know spend their own money -- is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There does not seem to be any such evidence, and in fact, the advances of the centuries before political interference in the science market seems to indicate that political funding is absolutely unnecessary. Vast amounts of basic research and amazing technological advances occurred long before The Department of Funding a Study of Stripes on Chickadees in Hellhole, Idaho even existed.It's funny that people who make their living through scientific methods have this huge blind spot, accepted without even a hint of evidence. Intuition is that wasting research money on bureaucracy, and shifting money based on political winds, would be *bad* for science. Where is the evidence otherwise?

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, if science is so important, let's see a scientific, peer-reviewed study showing the political funding of science is superior to private funding of science. This wouldn't just be a leap of faith would it? After all, the claim itself -- that taking money from research, sending it through the least efficient organization in the country, allocating based on political concerns, and sending a fraction back, could be more efficient than just letting those in the know spend their own money -- is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There does not seem to be any such evidence, and in fact, the advances of the centuries before political interference in the science market seems to indicate that political funding is absolutely unnecessary. Vast amounts of basic research and amazing technological advances occurred long before The Department of Funding a Study of Stripes on Chickadees in Hellhole, Idaho even existed.It's funny that people who make their living through scientific methods have this huge blind spot, accepted without even a hint of evidence. Intuition is that wasting research money on bureaucracy, and shifting money based on political winds, would be *bad* for science. Where is the evidence otherwise?
Where is your evidence that without public funding we would not lose anything important? Since we don't have a study on the issue we are arguing based on logic and based on what we know. It's also not simply an empirical issue, it involves values. Let's look at it the other way. If there is some private company just waiting to profit off of all the science I do, why aren't they jumping in to fund it? In my field the only private funding comes from philanthropic organizations, because industry does not see a use for it. Where they have seen a use for it, they have corrupted it. If you take this as evidence that my research is not worthy, so be it. I of course strongly disagree, and so do the scientists who allocate a portion of NSF & NIH's funds for it. If your issue is the efficiency of the organization (National Science Foundation is the least efficient organization in the country? where's the evidence for this?) then let's make it more efficient rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to come in with so many things, but VB... you're handling it like a pro :PFirst off, I don't claim to be scientifically knowledgeable, but I definitely see the value from a "human perspective".As far as others, though, I sincerely doubt that those who question the validity of science (as in BG's 'what have you done for me lately?') actually keep up to date with what is going on in the scientific world.Can I just use the typical answer of "look what technological advances that our engineers have provided you?" ? Or does that not work anymore?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is your evidence that without public funding we would not lose anything important?
You are asking me to prove a negative? Gee, that's pretty scientific. The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims, not on those who make a reasonable claim, i.e., if you use a part of the money for research on bureaucracy that you will get less than if it all went to research.
Let's look at it the other way. If there is some private company just waiting to profit off of all the science I do, why aren't they jumping in to fund it?
Because they don't have to because they know grandstanding politicians will do it for them. Again, the "pounding rocks" theory is, historically, not true. This is the theory that, without wise bureaucrats telling us how to live our lives, that we humans would just sit in dark, cold caves pounding rocks together. I, personally, have a brighter view of humanity. I think as a group we're pretty smart and will solve our problems.
In my field the only private funding comes from philanthropic organizations, because industry does not see a use for it. Where they have seen a use for it, they have corrupted it. If you take this as evidence that my research is not worthy, so be it. I of course strongly disagree, and so do the scientists who allocate a portion of NSF & NIH's funds for it.
And funding should come through philantropic organizations. A really bad philantropic organization gets about 40% of the money to the intended recipients, a really good one can get over 90%. A really good federal agency gets about 1/3 of the money to it's intended recipients, and about 1/5 is more typical. So how can it be a net gain to take money from those who fund efficient philantropic organizations so that it can be spent by inefficient organizations?If your complaint is that *your particular* research will not be funded, well, that's a pretty selfish opinion -- this notion that the federal govt's job is somehow to help you keep your job. The alternative explanation is that you somehow believe that federal bureaucrats are somehow better at predicting what will be important in the future than those who are closest to problem. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I see none to support such a claim.
If your issue is the efficiency of the organization (National Science Foundation is the least efficient organization in the country? where's the evidence for this?) then let's make it more efficient rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
This is the "fatal conceit", the notion that if we just got the right people in there, we could get a group of bureaucrats that could micromanage a million little decisions better than the decentralized network of experts that would make them in the absence of a federal bureaucracy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I want to come in with so many things, but VB... you're handling it like a pro :club: First off, I don't claim to be scientifically knowledgeable, but I definitely see the value from a "human perspective".As far as others, though, I sincerely doubt that those who question the validity of science (as in BG's 'what have you done for me lately?') actually keep up to date with what is going on in the scientific world.Can I just use the typical answer of "look what technological advances that our engineers have provided you?" ? Or does that not work anymore?
I hope you weren't including me in the group that questions the validity of science. I spend more time reading about science than I do watching TV. I *love* science. That's why is saddens me to see it destroyed by political favoritism. Or are we supposed to believe that it just so happens that the senator's nephew and the president's top campaign contributor keep ending up with huge grants?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama says Federally supported basic research, aimed at understanding many features of nature— from the size of the universe to subatomic particles, from the chemical reactions that support a living cell to interactions that sustain ecosystems—has been an essential feature of American life for over fifty years. While the outcomes of specific projects are never predictable, basic research has been a reliable source of new knowledge that has fueled important developments in fields ranging from telecommunications to medicine, yielding remarkable rates of economic return and ensuring American leadership in industry, military power, and higher education. I believe that continued investment in fundamental research is essential for ensuring healthier lives, better sources of energy, superior military capacity, and high-wage jobs for our nation’s future. Yet, today, we are clearly under-investing in research across the spectrum of scientific and engineering disciplines. Federal support for the physical sciences and engineering has been declining as a fraction of GDP for decades, and, after a period of growth of the life sciences, the NIH budget has been steadily losing buying power for the past six years. As a result, our science agencies are often able to support no more than one in ten proposals that they receive, arresting the careers of our young scientists and blocking our ability to pursue many remarkable recent advances. Furthermore, in this environment, scientists are less likely to pursue the risky research that may lead to the most important breakthroughs. Finally, we are reducing support for science at a time when many other nations are increasing it, a situation that already threatens our leadership in many critical areas of science. This situation is unacceptable. As president, I will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. Sustained and predictable increases in research funding will allow the United States to accomplish a great deal. First, we can expand the frontiers of human knowledge. Second, we can provide greater support for high-risk, high-return research and for young scientists at the beginning of their careers. Third, we can harness science and technology to address the “grand challenges” of the 21st century: energy, health, food and water, national security, information technology, and manufacturing capacity.
Translation:Obama = More money for Yorke
Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a few big projects that would not happen if the govt go out of it, such as LLY's big toy, but these are the exception, not the rule.
lol peopleatCERNinventedtheinternetaments(I saw the first machine used as a server. It had a post-it on it that said, "This is a 'Server.' Do not switch off." I chuckled.)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...