US Science Funding Alert - Your Immediate Action Is Requested

[mheslep]

And consolidating? Consolidating what? Combine all of the synchrotron facilities at the various national labs into ONE? ...

Please, as you know, I did not say one, nor specify accelerators. Consolidation for the military did not mean they should use one base.

Have you gone to, say the ALS and see how over subscribed that facility is? Or what about the NSLS where there's hardly any floor space left till they build the NSLS II! Consolidate what?

That is the question I pose to those charged with directing research at the fifteen labs.

...The US budget deficit is destructive. No one is arguing that! It is a combination of overspending and a reduction in "income" for the govt. However, it boggles my mind that one would go to the area with such a small percentage of the total budget to bear the burden of the most severe cuts!

We only know that discretionary is the first to be cut, not that it will be the most severe in the end. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/17/us-usa-budget-entitlements-idUSTRE71G69T20110217"

And not only that, within that area, they would pick a sector that had, for the longest time, been deprived of any significant budget increase!

Not completely deprived. There was the one time $37 billion stimulus just received at DoE.

It is as if it isn't sufficient that physical sciences have been denied any decent increase, but now, we're going to make it even worse. All this while the BIG BOYS of the military escaped unscathed and even get a modest increase!

And people tell me that "we all" have to make sacrifices? Puhleeze!

Zz.

I also favor defense cuts, even with the Afghan war ongoing. A hundred billion dollars of cuts in defense spending alone won't suffice to balance the budget.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The US budget deficit is destructive. No one is arguing that!

But why is the deficit so destructive? There is no US debt crisis, our government bond market is just fine. The dollar is the world reserve currency! All this talk of crisis is because people don't want to think that government debt is different than household debt. We ran a deficit all through the Bush years without this sort of panic. We are in a recession right now, revenues are down. People need to stop panicing.

Further, there is a well known idea in macroeconomics called twin deficits that tell us that our public deficit+private deficit = trade deficit. Without addressing the trade deficit, trying to balance the budget is a fools errand. Cut spending, and the GDP contracts, which in turn reduces revenue, so we cut more spending. When does it stop? The only reason we get away with our trade deficit is the privileged position the dollar holds.

Our infrastructure (including scientific research) is crumbling, and has been for decades. Personally, I think letting our infrastructure completely fall apart has far worse consequences than deficit spending.

 

[chiro]

But why is the deficit so destructive? There is no US debt crisis, our government bond market is just fine. The dollar is the world reserve currency!

Yeah and I wonder for how long.

Other countries are trying to get out of the dollar.

Russia and China have entered into bilateral trade agreements to do business in currencies other than the dollar.

Oil states like iran have opted to do all energy transactions in currencies other than the dollar.

When people stop using your currency it devalues. When your country tries to pay off debt by printing more dollars, the world will look at you, shake their head and lose confidence in doing economic activity with you.

You have huge trade deficits and particularly with China, you owe them about say a trillion and a half?

Once energy nations stop doing deals in dollars and hyperinflation sets in, energy will become expensive and then everyone will feel it.

I sincerely feel sorry for what is happening to your country, but if the spiral is to stop, someone has to make a few hard decisions that look out for the best interests of the country rather than the best interests of a few.

 

[Phrak]

Scientist Scramble to Preserve Cash Cow

Circle A or B.

Does a science forum discussion of the economic viability of federally funded projects and research during times of economic contraction focus on:

A) A scientific and objective evaluation of the economic value of contracts and research.

B) Discussions to advance the personal economic stability of those dependent upon continuing acquisition of public funds.
​

 

[Pythagorean]

Both A and B really. It's hard to predict what science will do for us, but we're particularly sure that it's beneficial in the long run.

Personally, I don't care anymore about politics, even concerning science. I will adapt to whatever scenario results and I won't waste my time on voting and other group power games.

 

[Phrak]

Both A and B really. It's hard to predict what science will do for us, but we're particularly sure that it's beneficial in the long run.

Personally, I don't care anymore about politics, even concerning science. I will adapt to whatever scenario results and I won't waste my time on voting and other group power games.

No, it's economics. I watched young adults on the news picketing their campus, because the state government had increased their tuition at my own university. They had to pay more for what they acquired. They were indignant that others had decided to reduce the amount of charity they received in order to better themselves above those who funded them.

If there is something different going on here, I would be humbled to know it. I happen to obtain my own sustenance from the guy scrapping a living at McDonald's Hamburgers and paying his taxes, but I don't feel compelled to beg lawmakers for a piece of his labor as if he is somehow indebted as if I were somehow his superior, and I won't . This is nothing but piecemeal slavery in disguise, and I won't advance it if it starves me.

 

[Helios]

When one's appendix ruptures, they must either go under the knife or die. Such is the condition of the USA. and these cutbacks will occur.
I believe keeping my money instead of having it go to most of these departments, programs, and grants does me more benefit. If only I could choose whom to give my money to by the benefit it does me.
I actually want to see the collapse of the Parasite Nation. If someone is getting rich or living a lavish lifestyle at the expense of taxpayers, then I want to see them get what's coming to them. I'm glad it's coming soon too.

 

[ZapperZ]

Not completely deprived. There was the one time $37 billion stimulus just received at DoE.

Again, this was a ONE-TIME spending. It was an anomaly! You are using that as a basis for... what? That such area has been well-funded? Do you always use the exception to fool everyone into thinking that it is the rule?

I also favor defense cuts, even with the Afghan war ongoing. A hundred billion dollars of cuts in defense spending alone won't suffice to balance the budget.

Unfortunately, we are not here to discuss YOUR spending bill, are we?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

When one's appendix ruptures, they must either go under the knife or die. Such is the condition of the USA. and these cutbacks will occur.
I believe keeping my money instead of having it go to most of these departments, programs, and grants does me more benefit. If only I could choose whom to give my money to by the benefit it does me.
I actually want to see the collapse of the Parasite Nation. If someone is getting rich or living a lavish lifestyle at the expense of taxpayers, then I want to see them get what's coming to them. I'm glad it's coming soon too.

So you essentially want the public to decide for themselves which ones they should support based on their knowledge of what is important to them? This is the same general public where barely half of them actually know that the Earth revolves around the sun, and that electrons are smaller than atoms[1]? THAT general public?

Zz.

[1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/start.htm"

 

[DanP]

So you essentially want the public to decide for themselves which ones they should support based on their knowledge of what is important to them? This is the same general public where barely half of them actually know that the Earth revolves around the sun, and that electrons are smaller than atoms[1]? THAT general public?

Zz.

[1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/start.htm"

It;s called Politics ZaaperZ. Yes, in a democracy, the general public , even if he believes that the Earth is flat or whatever else has a indirect saying through the electoral process on the structure of the state budget. An equal saying with you and others which sports PhDs. This must never change. What, you want to let you or a handful of ppl with PhDs to decide what is important for the general public ? Sorry, not going to happen. You have the same tools like the one who believes the Earth is flat , elections. You don't deserve more power than the general public, no matter how trained you are in a specific branch of the science.

THAT general public has the same right as you do for job security, and they will do what it takes to better their lives.

It is arrogant to believe that you know better than them on what those money should be spent. You don't. The essence of democracy is that citizens are able to vote in free elections to protect their personal interests.

And i don't think that anyone in this thread told you that "all should share the cuts". No, not all should share the cuts in the budget. The budget cuts are political decisions.

 

[ZapperZ]

It;s called Politics ZaaperZ. Yes, in a democracy, the general public , even if he believes that the Earth is flat or whatever else has a indirect saying through the electoral process on the structure of the state budget. An equal saying with you and others which sports PhDs. This must never change. What, you want to let you or a handful of ppl with PhDs to decide what is important for the general public ? Sorry, not going to happen. You have the same tools like the one who believes the Earth is flat , elections. You don't deserve more power than than the general public, no matter how trained you are in a specific branch of the science.

And where did I say anything different? My point is that when you start to deal with micromanaging each and every decision and leaving it up to the public to decide which one they should pay for, THAT is the type of the decision that will be done! That is NOT the democracy that is being practiced in the US. The public was not consulted before the US went into war in Afganistan and Iraq. The public was also not consulted if we should have built the ISS or other scientific facility.

It is arrogant to believe that you know better than them on what those money should be spent. The essence of democracy is that citizens are able to vote in free elections to protect their personal interests.

No, what is arrogant is to think that you know what is important based on faulty knowledge. Again, I did NOT say that these people should not be the ones to elect their representatives. I'm emphasizing that if you think each individual is capable of making informed decisions on what is important, then you need to examine the FACTS! And the fact here is that NONE of us are capable of making an informed decision on EVERY single aspect that affects us. It is why we have political representatives and it is why we rely, or hope, that they listen to those who do know various things.

And i don't think that anyone in this thread told you that "all should share the cuts". No, not all should share the cuts in the budget. The budget cuts are political decisions.

Er... there's zero argument there!

Zz.

 

[DanP]

And where did I say anything different? My point is that when you start to deal with micromanaging each and every decision and leaving it up to the public to decide which one they should pay for, THAT is the type of the decision that will be done! That is NOT the democracy that is being practiced in the US. The public was not consulted before the US went into war in Afganistan and Iraq. The public was also not consulted if we should have built the ISS or other scientific facility.

Ok. I don't say differently. The general public should indirectly affect those decisions through elections. Who wants a nation wide referendum for every budget spending decision ? Even economically, this kind of micromanagement is not feasible. Consulting the public costs money, which are way better spent somewhere else.

It is why we have political representatives and it is why we rely, or hope, that they listen to those who do know various things.

Educated with a Phd, or believing the Earth is flat is pretty much the same from a political point of view. We are all general public, and none deserves to be more heard than another.
By all means, write to your representative.

But if you believe that your knowledge is so valuable as an aide to political processes, maybe the best way to make sure it is used is to get involved in politics and and get a job as an expert consultant with the government.

 

[Pythagorean]

No, it's economics.

If you want to be picky about it, it's political economy: deciding who gets what.

 

[nismaratwork]

Again, this was a ONE-TIME spending. It was an anomaly! You are using that as a basis for... what? That such area has been well-funded? Do you always use the exception to fool everyone into thinking that it is the rule?

Yeah... you should come here more often, it's pretty much an identifiable MO when ideology becomes an issue. It's rather infuriating when it touches on an area of personal concern... a bit like trying to dance with water.

Above all, remember strategy for any side: set precedent. Simply by putting this forward as "reasonable" is an attempt to define this position and whittle further at the intellectual infrastructure of this country. Besides... most of your arguments here would sail over the heads of the general public, and if you TRIED to explain why FETs make their computers work... they'd glaze over.

You NEED a populace that doesn't appreciate where its "Corning ware" comes from, or they might, *gasp*, side with the NEEERRRDDS. Listen to the rhetoric, and reactions... you're outraged, but powerless. Pythagorean is past outrage. Yet, both of these are good for BOTH parties, because you are essentially a minority and always will be. In fact, as education continues to decline in this country, and as the engine of science begins to cool, frankly... that minority shrinks.

Besides, remember the basic attitude: if what you have is valuable, then why aren't you working for the government (D), or a government contractor (R)?

Unfortunately, we are not here to discuss YOUR spending bill, are we?

Zz.

@DanP: "The Earth is flat" makes it very hard to get funding from the royalty to make a journey across a sea that "ends".

 

[DanP]

@DanP: "The Earth is flat" makes it very hard to get funding from the royalty to make a journey across a sea that "ends".

The population who believes that "earth is flat" or as ZZ says just learned that electrons are don't know what doesn't need funding for any research. However, they do care about the security of their jobs (as physicists care, their main concern with drastically budget cuts IMO is not science grinding to an halt, but loosing job security), the social support they have, the security of their country. And in difficult economical conditions, for many spending on particle physics will appear much less important then spending on defense or social health systems for example. It's normal.

Besides, every time when cuts in a certain area occurs, someone seems to rush in and foresee the total destruction of something: culture, education, science, social security whatever. In fact, the effects are more often than not minor and transitory.

 

[Helios]

So you essentially want the public to decide for themselves which ones they should support based on their knowledge of what is important to them? This is the same general public where barely half of them actually know that the Earth revolves around the sun, and that electrons are smaller than atoms[1]? THAT general public?

This is monumental arrogance! Regardless of the knowledge of the lowly peanut farmer, he nonetheless acts to improve his situation, acts to go from unease to ease, and acts to substitute dissatisfaction with satisfaction, and he does so by logical choices.
His choice is negated by the cooercive apparatus called government that confiscates taxes from him by the threat of violence or imprisonment.
If only Dr. socialist super-energy-scientist Phd. had to walk out in that peanut field and justify his income to the folks from whom the money is taken from. "Hello, you know that money that's taken from you called taxes? Well, It comes to me and I like it! You'll notice that I'm well dressed, clean and shaven. I'm well fed with delicious food. Notice my nice car and my house too. Notice that I sit inside thinking while you have to stand outside working. Now because you're stupid and may not know the Earth revolves around the sun as do moi, I'm here to explain to you why you are better off having your money taken from you without your choice than keeping your money by your choice."
So begin, ZapperZ. What would you say?

 

[nismaratwork]

The population who believes that "earth is flat" or as ZZ says just learned that electrons are don't know what doesn't need funding for any research. However, they do care about the security of their jobs (as physicists care, their main concern with drastically budget cuts IMO is not science grinding to an halt, but loosing job security), the social support they have, the security of their country. And in difficult economical conditions, for many spending on particle physics will appear much less important then spending on defense or social health systems for example. It's normal.

Besides, every time when cuts in a certain area occurs, someone seems to rush in and foresee the total destruction of something: culture, education, science, social security whatever. In fact, the effects are more often than not minor and transitory.

These are not substantive arguments in the face of evidence that's already been presented. You also seemed to have missed my point about "flat earth". If people don't know, they can't be lobboied for funding or support, never mind CREW to make that journey.

Helios: Look 'Sunny', could you put down the Glenn Beck manifesto for one minute and discuss the issue at hand?

 

[DanP]

These are not substantive arguments in the face of evidence that's already been presented.

What evidence are you talking about ?

 

[nismaratwork]

What evidence are you talking about ?

I believe ZapperZ already provided it earlier here, but if it's not to your satisfaction, I'm sure that someone will pop up with a bit. I'm not getting into an ideological debate with you on this, it would interfere with genuinely constructive debates we have elsewhere.

 

[humanino]

This is monumental arrogance!
[...]
So begin, ZapperZ. What would you say?

I thought Zz answered already, quite clearly, on this misunderstanding. This is not arrogance. Recognizing one's ignorance is the beginning of knowledge. Researchers face their ignorance every day, they do not have an issue with that. The farmer is not supposed to know about what should be done in nuclear physics, there is nothing arrogant about that. The nuclear physicist is not to blame if they do not know how to grow corn. Neither the farmer nor the nuclear physicist are supposed to be knowledgeable about the historical economical relationships between USA and Saudi Arabia. We have experts for everything in society, and we have representatives to talk to the experts and make informed choices. One responsibility of all as citizens is to elect credible representatives.

And please give the researchers a break with the "nice car and house" part of the argument. Scientists are usually in it for passion, and they make much less than many with less training and competences. That is fine, at least I am not complaining about it, I consider some things more important in life than a "nice car and house".

In addition, if you like the ideal of the dusty local farmer working 15h a day to make a survival, they are kind of disappearing now and I am sure could relate to the concept of "society has forgotten what we have done for them, and when we disappear they will learn the hard way."

 

[DanP]

I thought Zz answered already, quite clearly, on this misunderstanding. This is not arrogance. Recognizing one's ignorance is the beginning of knowledge. Researchers face their ignorance every day, they do not have an issue with that. The farmer is not supposed to know about what should be done in nuclear physics, there is nothing arrogant about that. The nuclear physicist is not to blame if they do not know how to grow corn. Neither the farmer nor the nuclear physicist are supposed to be knowledgeable about the historical economical relationships between USA and Saudi Arabia. We have experts for everything in society, and we have representatives to talk to the experts and make informed choices. One responsibility of all as citizens is to elect credible representatives.

The point is that this is not as much about "what should be done in nuclear physics" but "how much money should be allocated to nuclear physics".

And this is a political problem. One in which a PhD in physics is not any more qualified to give an answer than the farmer. In the end the answer to those problems are given by political forces, based on a multitude of factors.

 

[Gokul43201]

The point is that this is not as much about "what should be done in nuclear physics" but "how much money should be allocated to nuclear physics".

Do you assert that the former is not closely dependent on the latter?

And this is a political problem. One in which a PhD in physics is not any more qualified to give an answer than the farmer.

So the present system we have of scientific committees would better be replaced by a system where funding questions about scientific research and development were forwarded to a group of peanut farmers?

 

[DanP]

Do you assert that the former is not closely dependent on the latter?

No, I am telling that in the problem of where tax money are sunk and in what quantum , the farmers has to say as much the PhD physicists. From my point of view, none is more prepared than the other to judge the budget of a nation. Even more, they'll both be biased to hell in attempting to drain tax money to support their jobs.

So the present system we have of scientific committees would better be replaced by a system where funding questions about scientific research and development were forwarded to a group of peanut farmers?

No. Scientific committees should always be under political control. As should be committees for agriculture, fisheries and food.

Nor the generic scientist or the generic farmer are more qualified in rapport to each other to establish the priorities of the government in exercise.

 

[mheslep]

Do you assert that the former is not closely dependent on the latter?

So the present system we have of scientific committees would better be replaced by a system where funding questions about scientific research and development were forwarded to a group of peanut farmers?

Please, address the point: should the common citizen have any control over the revenues they are required to provide, even simply the amount there of, or should it be left up to the https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3144115&postcount=69"

 

[humanino]

Zz who holds them in open contempt?

Again, you think that way only because you misunderstand. At least from my point of view, there is no contempt.

I thought that giving money to various organizations, charitable or otherwise qualifying, was what allowed people to have direct control over their tax by itemized deductions. Once the money in the government's pocket, I do not think individuals should have their say beyond the ballot box. As a matter of fact, I think that is how it works now.

 

[ZapperZ]

This is monumental arrogance! Regardless of the knowledge of the lowly peanut farmer, he nonetheless acts to improve his situation, acts to go from unease to ease, and acts to substitute dissatisfaction with satisfaction, and he does so by logical choices.
His choice is negated by the cooercive apparatus called government that confiscates taxes from him by the threat of violence or imprisonment.
If only Dr. socialist super-energy-scientist Phd. had to walk out in that peanut field and justify his income to the folks from whom the money is taken from. "Hello, you know that money that's taken from you called taxes? Well, It comes to me and I like it! You'll notice that I'm well dressed, clean and shaven. I'm well fed with delicious food. Notice my nice car and my house too. Notice that I sit inside thinking while you have to stand outside working. Now because you're stupid and may not know the Earth revolves around the sun as do moi, I'm here to explain to you why you are better off having your money taken from you without your choice than keeping your money by your choice."
So begin, ZapperZ. What would you say?

Again, you missed completely the point that I was trying to make.

I have my view on many issues out of my expertise. However, I am fully aware that I do not understand these things, and therefore my decision on those are based on very limited knowledge. So if I say that there should be reduced spending on, say, agriculture subsidies, I am MORE THAN OPEN to listen to other arguments, because what I understand on such a thing can easily be faulty.

The argument I was going after here is the PRINCIPLE that a person should be allowed to ONLY PAY for what HE/SHE thinks is important, and not pay for anything else! That is what I am trying to counter, i.e. the PRINCIPLE of doing such a thing. Your view of what you THINK is important and what you think you use can EASILY be wrong. This is especially true regarding science funding where one's understanding and level of knowledge of what it is have been shown to be faulty! So I brought this out AS AN EXAMPLE where, one can easily make a decision based on ignorance!

Somehow, that got turned around and I became this ogre that somehow devalue the right of someone to voice their needs and to vote! I'll debate you on something I did say. I will not debate you on something that you misread because I have no desire to defend something that I don't stand for!

Zz.

 

[DanP]

Please, address the point: should the common citizen have any control over the revenues they are required to provide, even simply the amount there of, or should it be left up to the https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3144115&postcount=69"

They should both have the same amount of control: the right to write to their representative and complain about it, the right to be elected as expert consultants for the government, and the right to express their vote in electing the representatives. Like I said, a PhD in physics does not automatically qualifies you to take decisions for others.

Should Zz would like a bigger part in this process, he should join a political party, and run for office (hence becoming accountable in front of the citizens for executive decisions or law proposals and punished/rewarded in next elections, together with the his political party). As simple citizens, both the peanut farmer and the PhD are no more important then the other. Like it or not, this is democracy.

 

[Gokul43201]

Please, address the point: should the common citizen have any control over the revenues they are required to provide, even simply the amount there of, or should it be left up to the https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3144115&postcount=69"

I see no contempt in Zz's post. And if you see contempt there, then you might as well add me to the list of the contemptful. The common citizen should have control to the extent that they all get to vote for their representatives, lobby for issues they care about, walk the streets in protest, etc. But the specifics of allocating money to different fields ought to be done under the guidance and counsel of respective experts in the relative fields. I wouldn't want a bunch of nuclear physicists advising on agriculture policy any more than I want a bunch of farmers deciding that DOE and NSF are overbloated.

 

[Evo]

They should both have the same amount of control: the right to write to their representative and complain about it, the right to be elected as expert consultants for the government, and the right to express their vote in electing the representatives. Like I said, a PhD in physics does not automatically qualifies you to take decisions for others.

Should Zz would like a bigger part in this process, he should join a political party, and run for office (hence becoming accountable in front of the citizens for executive decisions or law proposals and punished/rewarded in next elections, together with the his political party). As simple citizens, both the peanut farmer and the PhD are no more important then the other. Like it or not, this is democracy.

Writing to your political representatives, signing petitions that go to them, etc... is how the average citizen makes their elected representatives know what they want and why. Zz is encouraging people to contact their rep and explain why they feel the budget cuts are damaging. The politicians don't know didly about what they're voting on in many cases. That is why input from people that are affected is so important.

 

[DanP]

But the specifics of allocating money to different fields ought to be done under the guidance and counsel of respective experts in the relative fields.

Not guidance, counsel only. If you want to guide the process, join a political party and run for office.