- #1
marlon
- 3,792
- 11
Norman said:We will lose our dominance in science eventually.
J77 said:
From what i hear on this forum, ask any serious scientist and they'll probably say the US is still at the forefront in science. However, they'll also probably tell you we're going to lose that spot very quickly at this rate unfortunatelyJ77 said:
It depends on how a person makes it's predication:Pengwuino said:From what i hear on this forum, ask any serious scientist and they'll probably say the US is still at the forefront in science. However, they'll also probably tell you we're going to lose that spot very quickly at this rate unfortunately
Steve Miller said:Guys!
You forget here there might be no need for science at this extension at the moment. A strong military
is always in the forefront even of scientific advance.
And, we still have a theory up standing to be proved or to be disapproved. (However
a theory can come up that way?)
This is the time that we face. Not to forget that.
Steve
Paula said:The private sector and the military are excellent places for R&D to take place. The problem with the current system is that the government funding is supporting one single foundation with billions of dollars. The government is giving plenty of money to NSF. What the gov't should do is diversify, in order to maximize accountability and accuracy, not agendas. I hate monopolies!
Paula said:Well, that is a great distinction, thanks. But the Energy and Health agencies are not going to be doing anything with a lot of areas that concern the Science Foundation. That is just so broad! That is a monopoly. And the advantage of the military and the private sector is that they provide a product or a service (especially NASA :) oops, not that that is private or military! ). The engines of the NSF are evolution and global warming.
An example of a product that the military provided is mapping the ocean floor, at least getting some decent equipment for that purpose. There was something "real" at stake, ie security from hostile subs, so it finally got done.
Huh? Funding for biological research is pretty low from NSF. That lands in NIH's purview for the most part. For science funding, USDA also funds research that has agricultural applications (even in cases when it's essentially basic science research, but with a likely agricultural application).Paula said:The engines of the NSF are evolution and global warming.
I'm with Steve here, many times I think we need to push medical more, instead of funding the military so freakin much. Although it comes to mind that we can't live longer if we're dead...Steve Miller said:Guys!
You forget here there might be no need for science at this extension at the moment. A strong military
is always in the forefront even of scientific advance.
And, we still have a theory up standing to be proved or to be disapproved. (However
a theory can come up that way?)
This is the time that we face. Not to forget that.
Steve
Yeah, uh huh, blame it on Bush why'don'tcha? Well, what president is interested in particle physics? Nuclear at some times, but only because we could have used in the military. All Switzerland's military funding goes to the LHCAt the moment there is a lot of competition for funding, and unfortunately, science and technology R&D is not a priority in the Bush administration.
Mk said:I'm with Steve here, many times I think we need to push medical more, instead of funding the military so freakin much. Although it comes to mind that we can't live longer if we're dead...
Since the beginning of... forever!the growth of the NIH budget since the beginning of the Clinton administration, and then compare that with the growth of basic science budget given to the DOE.
Mk said:What I forgot to say was that I think a lot of the science funding and discoveries & inventions recently came from the Cold War, and World War II. There came after the fall of the Soviet Union, the end of the need to prove the supremacy of American science over Soviet, and before that, American science over German. The space race and nuclear arms race comes to mind...
I'm still waiting for nuclear fusion funding in the United States or Europe somewhere.
I'm sorry, I'm not wishing to try and beat you in a debate, or trying to counter you, unless I think you are wrong. I'm not trying to make a point either, I'm just saying a few things. Read what I have written, and what you understand is what I mean.If you wish to counter what I have just said, I wish you'd make your stand clear to avoid confusion on what exactly is the point you're trying to make.
No, you're right. Physics is important, well duh.. and it has been said already, I'm sure you know why.I'd also say that even the NIH budget leaders have clearly cited that their ability to do complex studies in their area is explicitly due to advancement in basic physics research. I've yet to see someone counter this. Can you? Are you able to point to something used in medical and biological research that did not come out of basic physics research first?
Do you think it will really be built and be run? How soon? What about the United States? Yes, I would be interested in more, if you were serious about that part.The consortium of countries have agreed to build ITER in France. You want more?
Mk said:Do you think it will really be built and be run? How soon? What about the United States? Yes, I would be interested in more, if you were serious about that part.
Mk said:No, you're right. Physics is important, well duh.. and it has been said already, I'm sure you know why.
Mk said:Well, what president is interested in particle physics?
The pressing need for numerous time-critical calculations for various projects like code-breaking and ballistics tables stimulated electronic computer development. The semi-secret ENIAC and the extremely secret Colossus demonstrated that devices using thousands of valves could be reliable enough to be useful, paving the way for the post-war development of stored program computers, and ones of course using.. the solid state transistor!ZapperZ said:Fine. Let's take one very crucial and important example. Can you show me the "funding link" between these events that you have cited an the invention of the transitor by Bardeen, Shockley, and Brittain?
This relates to the original post in the fact that we are talking about how well developed-nations fund physics. Right? Was that the question you meant? You sound like you're on your way to locking this thread.How does this relate to the OP?
I didn't mean more-than-physics, I meant a little bit more than it already is, by taking a bit less out of military spending, and throwing it into medical development. I didn't mean to imply anything about physics. Simply relating to different areas the United States is funding.Then maybe you may want to reread your first post in this thread when you insisted that we "push medical more". You can't "push medical more" while ignoring the fact that the technology that allows advancement in medicine and pharmaceutical came explicitly out of advancement in physics, even in particle physics that apparently have no practical applications. I can easily, very easily, point to the connection between the beam physics used in FEL to generate light for LCLS and the beam physics used in CERN's LEP.
This may be where the heat is coming from, I didn't mean take money out of physics research and use it for medical research, I meant take money out of military research and put it into medical. Then I countered myself in saying that we're not very good scientists if we're dead.we should never be so quick in dismissing one area of science in favor of another area. At some point, you'll realize that you can't make as rapid of a progress because you've been suffocating one part of science for so long
Mk said:This relates to the original post in the fact that we are talking about how well developed-nations fund physics. Right? Was that the question you meant? You sound like you're on your way to locking this thread.
ZapperZ said:No, the link was specifically talking about funding of elementary particle/high energy physics, which has been so severely butchered during the Bush administration
that Fermilab is in jeopardy of being shut down by the end of the Tevatron funding. And that is THE last high energy physics facility in the US (SLAC is already being retrofitted as a light source and its funding is going to be transferred to DOE BES division).
So I have no idea what you read in the OP.
Zz.
Bystander said:"Since the huge Superconducting Super Collider was axed in the early 1990s, the US programme has lacked focus, says the committee." --- OP
People doing the work have to provide the "focus;" politicians are generally inclined to underfund if PIs can make any sort of case for themselves --- no case, no funding.
That guy looks kind of scary.Siddarth said:If I may interrupt, you might be interested to know one of them is Abdul Kalam, the president of India.Mk said:Well, what president is interested in particle physics?
The original post and poster said nothing, only implied that the United States was afraid to fund particle physics research. In the news article I read nothing about the Bush administration either.Zz said:the link was specifically talking about funding of elementary particle/high energy physics, which has been so severely butchered during the Bush administration
That's all.America must boost its investment in particle physics if it is to stay at the forefront of the discipline.
That's a massive genralisation across all areas of science.Pengwuino said:From what i hear on this forum, ask any serious scientist and they'll probably say the US is still at the forefront in science. However, they'll also probably tell you we're going to lose that spot very quickly at this rate unfortunately