LOOK AT THIS
Good link and it is the truth in my eyes.
Too bad so much of our national budget is tied up in Defense (a slight misnomer in mine own eyes). We will lose our dominance in science eventually. It looks like it is just happening faster than most people on the outside thought.
Nothing can last indefinately. Or do you think the US is not dominant currently in this field?
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
It depends on how a person makes it's predication:
A historian: would try to compare historical records to this current event.
Problem: Is it possible to look at the past to predict the future?No no two events in history can be exactly the same thing.
A Scientist: Would base it off of scientific data to predict the future.
Problem: Is a scientist looking at the right data and is he using the right knowledge
An Engineer: Would use experience and knowledge to predict the future
Problem: How accurate is that experience and knowledge
An Mathematician: would make a fourmla to predict the futre...
Problem:...without taking have the varbiles
No one can predict the exact event in the future there just paranoid.
A statistician: would look at a thousand variables and make a reasonable guess at what might happen.
I have to agree with Norman. At 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. :grumpy:
I really don't think the US is going to lose the top spot very soon - not for the next few decades in my opinion. There may be specific areas under science/technology, where it is not the leader, but I think it will take a lot to lose the overall edge.
One thing that US has going for it until it picks up its own science education at lower levels is the relatively high standard of living afforded to a scientist. The US is still able to attract some of the best scientific minds from Asia and Eastern Europe. Cuts in funding for research are affecting this some, and the effects will be seen in the long term if the policy doesn't change. But as administrations come and go, these things will change.
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.
Yeah all those military particle physicists really working hard looking for higgs...
"I have to agree with Norman. At 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" Astronuc
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!
This is not entirely true. There are actually 3 major agencies that technically fund science: NSF, DOE, and NIH. Most of the major "facility" type projects are funded by the DOE rather than NSF (example: particle colliders, synchrotron centers). And we haven't even counted NASA yet in this mix.
So no, I do not believe there is a monopoly of any kind.
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.
I do not know where you get your "data" from. But let me point out just ONE important thing: the DOE owns the US National Laboratories. This includes Fermilab, Argonne, Brookhaven, Los Alamos, Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge, etc... etc... The DOE BES division funded practically ALL of the synchrotron centers all over the US. The DOE Nuclear Physics division funded RHIC and Jeff Lab accelerator. The DOE HEP division is responsible for practically the majority of the funding of accelerator physics in the US, and the majority of the funding for particle physics/collider experiments.
You are more than welcome to double-check what I have just said at the DOE website.
And what's with the "....engines of the NSF are evolution and global warming ..." thing? Can you give me a source that states that the majority of NSF funding are in these areas? Would you like to look at the last NSF budget or can you find that yourself?
Please cite exact sources to back up your claims here, because I do not see the same thing. And trust me, I follow these things very closely since part of my job is to secure research grants.
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).
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...
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 LHC
Again, I will insist that people CHECK the facts before they say something like this, even if this is in the GD forum. Why don't you look at 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.
The difference is SO big, it's not even funny.
People seem to forget that what are being used in medical, biomedical, biochemistry research were pioneered out of basic physics work. Figure out how much of the progress made in medicine and human biochemistry came out of research work done at synchrotron centers. Did anyone think a synchrotron was pioneered out of medical research? Or was it done orginally to study...... horrors...... particle physics??!! What about SEM and STM that are being used to image proteins? And before anyone forget, the LCLS that is being built at Stanford (where already a slew of medical-relatied studies are already being proposed) came out of the knowledge of free-electron lasers!
Moral of the story: Figure out which is the head and which is the tail.
Since the beginning of... forever!
We need more lobbyists.... look how well the environmentalists are doing withe theirs.
Don't anybody forget the Superconducting Supercollider either...
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.
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.
Again, all you need to do is LOOK at the NIH budget (total, not just growth rate), and then compare that to basic science budget of the DOE.
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?
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?
The consortium of countries have agreed to build ITER in France. You want more? How does this relate to the OP?
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.
No, you're right. Physics is important, well duh.. and it has been said already, I'm sure you know why.
My last three posts may have sounded a bit unconnected and random. Heh, story of my life.
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.
Separate names with a comma.