US Science Funding Alert - Your Immediate Action Is Requested

[nismaratwork]

Yes, noted.
I see that DoE's budget has been relatively flat, but I don't know that a scientific 'hurricane' conclusion follows from only that fact. First, if the NIH budget has flourished, for instance, then this would indicate a change in emphasis from the physical sciences to the life sciences. This may not be to the liking of many, but the change still keeps many fine minds here in the US. Second, the funding-is-the-problem hypothesis depends on the assumption that funding is greater elsewhere. I don't know that this is so. Do you? Recognition of _any_ Chinese R&D would be expected to be notable now, given that it was relatively non-existent (in scale) thirty years ago. The anecdotal word I have from researchers that have moved here from overseas (yes a self selection) is that pure research spending is, relative to the US, tiny elsewhere in the world.

Also, I see the US government lab system consists of some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy_National_Laboratories" , every one of them dating back to the cold war era of the 60's and beyond. And that list does not include all the numerous NASA laboratories scattered around the country. The Defense department routinely finds ways to consolidate redundant and outdated facilities (via BRAC). Can the US labs not find any redundancies or possibilities for consolidation? With a $1.6 trillion US deficit, and the remarkably recent illustration of financial collapse due to over spent governments like Greece and Ireland, would not suggestions along these lines gather more support for holding the sciences funding than grandiose claims of here began the 'decline of US civilization'?

Rather a large, "flat" don't you think, especially given our track record since WWII.

 

[humanino]

The anecdotal word I have from researchers that have moved here from overseas (yes a self selection) is that pure research spending is, relative to the US, tiny elsewhere in the world.

Anecdotal evidence, interesting, but you also have researchers right here, and they probably have more researcher friends than you do. I intend to join a senior researcher overseas who left one the US national labs a few years ago because he was already getting tired of this broken system.

With [...] the remarkably recent illustration of financial collapse due to over spent governments like Greece and Ireland [...] ?

I find it very sad how you describe things. The recent collapse of Greece was due to financial speculation. My personal interpretation is that there is too much power in the hands of and too little control over the financial institutions. The governments and Europe in particular should have initiated those reforms. They should also reform the financial system seriously. There is a lot of money to pump from there.

 

[Proton Soup]

I would classify that as depressing, but still wishful thinking. AFAIK this kind thing doesn't end well for nations; essentially Eisenhower tried to warn us, and we failed.



Bolding mine: How do we get that when we're failing in every concievable way to educate, and to even PRETEND to lead in sciences? Our citizenry has been out-paced, and out-manuevered, end of story.

well you see, US interests are corporate interests. and corporations are in it to make profit. right now, the most profit comes from doing things overseas.

it's ironic, isn't it? i think Chris Hodges' death of the liberal class is coming home to roost. one day you're making fun of disenfranchised tea partiers, and the next you find that your industry is being exported as well.

 

[nismaratwork]

well you see, US interests are corporate interests. and corporations are in it to make profit. right now, the most profit comes from doing things overseas.

it's ironic, isn't it? i think Chris Hodges' death of the liberal class is coming home to roost. one day you're making fun of disenfranchised tea partiers, and the next you find that your industry is being exported as well.

Sounds about right. I have to admit, I never though that I'd be living in a "cyberpunk" future, minus the cyber, and the punk, but with all of displacement and ennui.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, noted.
I see that DoE's budget has been relatively flat, but I don't know that a scientific 'hurricane' conclusion follows from only that fact. First, if the NIH budget has flourished, for instance, then this would indicate a change in emphasis from the physical sciences to the life sciences. This may not be to the liking of many, but the change still keeps many fine minds here in the US. Second, the funding-is-the-problem hypothesis depends on the assumption that funding is greater elsewhere. I don't know that this is so. Do you? Recognition of _any_ Chinese R&D would be expected to be notable now, given that it was relatively non-existent (in scale) thirty years ago. The anecdotal word I have from researchers that have moved here from overseas (yes a self selection) is that pure research spending is, relative to the US, tiny elsewhere in the world.

Also, I see the US government lab system consists of some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy_National_Laboratories" , every one of them dating back to the cold war era of the 60's and beyond. And that list does not include all the numerous NASA laboratories scattered around the country. The Defense department routinely finds ways to consolidate redundant and outdated facilities (via BRAC). Can the US labs not find any redundancies or possibilities for consolidation? With a $1.6 trillion US deficit, and the remarkably recent illustration of financial collapse due to over spent governments like Greece and Ireland, would not suggestions along these lines gather more support for holding the sciences funding than grandiose claims of here began the 'decline of US civilization'?

One only needs to see the number of peer-reviewed publication that originated outside of the US and the trend of that number for the past decade.

I also think you are missing my point. I'm NOT saying that the US still doesn't outspend other countries on science research. I'm saying that there is a clear trend that such spending is stagnant as far as the physical sciences is concerned, and that is in contract with many other countries, such as China and Korea, which has consistently increased their spending in this areas. It is why I said that I would not be surprised if history will look back and mark this as the turning point on where the decline starts. The physical sciences have been neglected for a very long time, and at some point, it will erode other sciences. Just look at all the facilities that biologists and other NIH-funded projects use. Where do people think the knowledge to build synchrotron facilities and FELs come from?

And consolidating? Consolidating what? Combine all of the synchrotron facilities at the various national labs into ONE? Are you out of your mind? 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? It is highly irresponsible to make wild speculations like that without even thinking what it is that you're proposing.

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! 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! 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.

 

[nismaratwork]

One only needs to see the number of peer-reviewed publication that originated outside of the US and the trend of that number for the past decade.

I also think you are missing my point. I'm NOT saying that the US still doesn't outspend other countries on science research. I'm saying that there is a clear trend that such spending is stagnant as far as the physical sciences is concerned, and that is in contract with many other countries, such as China and Korea, which has consistently increased their spending in this areas. It is why I said that I would not be surprised if history will look back and mark this as the turning point on where the decline starts. The physical sciences have been neglected for a very long time, and at some point, it will erode other sciences. Just look at all the facilities that biologists and other NIH-funded projects use. Where do people think the knowledge to build synchrotron facilities and FELs come from?

And consolidating? Consolidating what? Combine all of the synchrotron facilities at the various national labs into ONE? Are you out of your mind? 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? It is highly irresponsible to make wild speculations like that without even thinking what it is that you're proposing.

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! 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! 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.

You're missing the point: there is no room in some ideologies for reality. You can drop the titanic filled with evidence on this thread, and those people who agreed with you coming in like me, will still agree. Those who don't won't, because they never did care for the view you're espousing. If you offer more, you just reinforce the route that's been taken to resolve cognitive dissonance at being a party to destroying what you care for. I think Apeiron might agree (only might) that the very act of presenting a dire future which clashes with their ideology, gives rise to such things as cornucopian models.

I call it magical thinking, which I believe you've outlined nicely based on the sheer absurdity in "consolidation"... read: part of de-funding and marginalizing. You just need to see the focus on sports over scholastics to realize that the problem here is fundamental and probably intractable. People self-destruct in groups... it's the one thing we do without fail. We replicate, we overtake, we adapt the environment, then we justify it all as being for the best until we strangle ourselves.

 

[wild999711]

As an undergrad this is disheartening.

 

[dlgoff]

Having a daughter as an undergrad is disheartening.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why is it that children are a "precious resource", but so little having to do with them is treated in that manner? This is an abusrd course of action, even to propose in the form of a bill.

 

[lisab]

Having a daughter as an undergrad is disheartening.

Hear, hear.

 

[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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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"

What contempt? Ideology without restraint makes for a genuinely warped view, but while I don't think we've EVER agreed... I never thought you were out of touch with reality where your Ideology takes over. How unfortunate, and more so that you would see CONTEMPT in that. Maybe you expect what you offer. Beyond that, would you say that the staff of PF are, "common citizens" when it comes to areas of their expertise?

I think he made a rather compelling list of essential items and processes that underly the argument we're all having RIGHT NOW. AFAICT, your way is to follow your ideology into a pit while other nations take even more slack... THEN opine that the USA is falling behind. That is a political strategy, not one for genuine discussion.

@Evo: That's what I thought this was about to begin with: here's the issue as ZapperZ sees it, and here's what you can do if you agree.

 

[nismaratwork]

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

Or manipulate that process with money, media, and anything else you can legally do. I see nothing here proposed outside of political norms.

 

[Proton Soup]

i can see a lack of funding generating a spark of creativity. maybe someone will dig that old dusty piece of equipment out of the basement and learn to use it in a new way.

 

[nismaratwork]

i can see a lack of funding generating a spark of creativity. maybe someone will dig that old dusty piece of equipment out of the basement and learn to use it in a new way.

I admire your ability to find the silver lining... you could be right. Still, to me that seems like taking bad odds betting on our future.

 

[pergradus]

Just what college students investing enormous amounts of money into their education want to hear - they may have no jobs when they graduate!

 

[mugaliens]

Just what college students investing enormous amounts of money into their education want to hear - they may have no jobs when they graduate!

I'm sorry, but if that's true, it would be about the 200th profession in the history of our country which may have originally been financially lucrative but is now riddled with over-competition or saddled with unwelcome, but necessary fees.

Those who figure out how to retire at age 45 don't do so by investing "enormous amounts of money into their education." They do it by seeing the handwriting on the wall, by surfing the waves (ahead of the waves), and by investing in educational opportunities (not the expensive ones) which give them a distinct and unique advantage most people don't possess.

Translated, that means that by the time curricula is offered in major universities, when it comes to rising to the top of that line of endeavor, the folks floating in the water are already 2/3 the way up the face of the wave, with the crest about to pass beneath them. Only the winners manage to correctly time the waves and ride them home. The rest fight for scraps in the backwash.

It's as much art as it is science. In fact, if science had anything to do with predicting economic cycles, what's the "next big thing," or riding various economic waves, they'd have done so long ago. Perhaps a few have, but if so, they're either simply not "sharing the wealth," or their "secrets," once leaked, enter the CAPM's "efficient market" hypothesis and because relatively worthless.

Folks, this fundamental truth isn't limited to science. It's been around since we figured out how to build a better, more comfortable cave from stone, stick, wood, grass, mud, etc. Some folks get it, many don't. I hope you all get it, as you're all good people. The one's that got ahead had four qualities:

1. They saw the wave.

2. They knew enough about the situation in which they were into recognize the rising crest of the wave.

3. They had both the guts, as well as the resources, to paddle into the wave so as to catch it.

4. They had the skill to ride it home.

Even if you're an Einstein, only one of a hundred Einsteins are "rescued" into a successful career and retirement.

If you're a sub-Einstein, you still have to go through steps 1 through 4.

If you're just an average scientist, work hard. Dedicate yourself for 20 to 30 years, and if you're lucky, you might wind up earning a pension between 1/3 and 2/3 of your base salary.

Alternatively, you could be smart. Ditch the old paradigm. Don't buy into the old "put yourself into hock for half the rest of your life" mentality. Instead, figure out what the next big thing is, position yourself to ride that wave before it crests, and do whatever it takes to ensure you know enough to ride the wave once it comes crashing down.

I know I'm speaking in metaphores. Those of you who "get it" know exactly what I'm talking about. Those who don't will have to wait for someone to write a book. Unfortunately, I'm not that guy, and by then, it'll be too late.

One genius who did write a book along these lines that's fairly void of time constriants is https://www.amazon.com/dp/158008270X/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

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.

Evo, while for the life of me I can't figure out why you keep slamming closed one thread after another, I agree with you 100% about politicians not knowing about most issues brought to their attention.

Letter's to Congressmen largely get lost in the wash.

I like to prepare briefs, which, "briefly" explain the issues commensurate with both their and their constituent's interests, provide a few alternatives, as well as a recommended final suggestion.

I usually like to leave it as a "no-brainer" solution, but I've often found while conducting the research to support these briefs, I was the one off-base, that my ideals, or preconceived notions lead me in one direction while the facts lead me in the other. Thankfully, I have no ties to anyone, so I shuck the smuck, and send it out as is. Yes, it ruffles some feathers among those who do have ties or life-long experiences which tell them otherwise.

Whatever. Reality is. Grasp it, adapt, and move on with reality as it is. Or get mowed over by the tide of the flotsam and jetsom which simply feed on whatever is floating in the waves.

 

[humanino]

How is that relevant to the thread, I have no idea. For instance,

Those who figure out how to retire at age 45

passionate scientists do not ever want to retire.

 

[Gokul43201]

Alternatively, you could be smart. Ditch the old paradigm.

If all scientists decided to go after the smart money, the world would probably still be in the technological middle ages.

 

[nismaratwork]

If all scientists decided to go after the smart money, the world would probably still be in the technological middle ages.

Seriously... just look at the people who jumped on the "quantum mystic" bandwagon. I'm pretty sure that any of the QM people here could become a truly successful televangalist for almost anything. If you're willing to be completely unethical and soulless, you could talk circles around a <BLEEP> like Deepak Chopra, and still bring it back to the usual crystal-gripping "fun".

Or... you could just sell your skills to the highest bidder, criminal, extranational or otherwise.

Yeah... that's a bright future to build, but something tells me it ends with mushroom clouds.

 

[DanP]

Yeah... that's a bright future to build, but something tells me it ends with mushroom clouds.

Doesn't matter, I have tickets in the first row for the event . Ill get an awesome view