Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bloodbath for Science

blogs.discovermagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Bloodbath for Science

#21

Post by foob »

peregrine wrote: post #3

Can't we find $1.5 billion floating around in the military budget to cut instead of the funds that fuels science and innovation? Sure companies do a fine job of innovating but they don't do things like Fermilab, which have long term potential to change our world. Long term being far longer then stock holders in public companies would allow for.

The other thing to keep in mind is that many of the graduate students being trained under this funding and working at places like Fermilab actually end up going into industry and making much more tangible changes in the short term. If funding drops and it has an effect on either the number of PhDs that are be granted or their quality then that will in turn have a real impact on the innovation that we see from companies. I sat in on DOE funding talks a few months ago and this idea came up over and over.

Re: Bloodbath for Science

#22

Post by juiceandjuice »

Dear NSF and DOE,

Thanks for the internet, google, fusion and fission research, alternative energy research, quarks, thousands of PhD students, supercomputers, etc...

Given your general success with things, we no longer think it's viable to fund you. You see, we intend to buy 2,443 F-35 fighter planes over the next decade or so. It's unfortunate, but given that each one of those planes cost close to $130 million a pop (not including maintenance), we can't really justify science anymore.

Yours truly,

The American Public (specifically the red ones)

Re: Bloodbath for Science

#23

Post by kevbin »

possibilistic wrote: post #4
kiba wrote: post #2

Maybe this will encourage scientists to interact with the public more and ask for funding from them instead. I don't even know why they're so important other than a vague "moar knowledge mean moar technology!"

How about a cure for cancer? Vaccines against HIV, influenza, etc? Tissue bioreactors that grow organs? Postpone aging? Sure, there is a lot of esoteric stuff being done. Catfish genomics, characterizing motor proteins of archaea, etc. I can't speak for every research team or every goal. Yes, we could better coordinate and collectively strive for greater human societal objectives. But then a lot of feet would get ste…

The apollo/manhattan approach that government tends toward doesn't seem a very good way to do research. In 1971 Nixon started a "war" on cancer, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent. That's mis-allocated money because of the centralized, targeted management of aims. I'd prefer to see hundreds of thousands---or millions---of small, subsistence grants for esoteric stuff than few big-ass, centrally administered "wars". The same dollars directed by a substantially larger group of recipients would better cover problem & solution spaces.

Re: Bloodbath for Science

#24

Post by ars »

kiba wrote: post #15
kiba wrote: post #2

Maybe this will encourage scientists to interact with the public more and ask for funding from them instead. I don't even know why they're so important other than a vague "moar knowledge mean moar technology!"

I was merely suggesting that scientists get out more and make the public aware of the important research going on.

You need to work on how you say it, so that you don't come across as a trolling 14 year old. Especially the "moar" misspelling was over the top.

Considering your karma and how long you've been here I'm surprised I need to tell you this.

Re: Bloodbath for Science

#25

Post by thematt »

po wrote: post #19
jerf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "somewhere else". This was borrowed money to begin with. Look at the list: http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRe... How many impassioned pleas based on a context-free analysis can you make from that list? And it's not enough cutting. After all this we're still immensely in the hole. Immensely . We're not in a situation where the household making $100,000/year has $10,000 of discreti…

Stop thinking about government spending as if there's a magic money fountain and start thinking about it like it's your own money. Yes, it would be great to spend twice your income on a better car, but the mere fact that it would be a great car, a really great car, man nobody should have to live without this car car does not make it a good idea. Nothing that science research is going to feasibly produce is better tha…

This is usual argument, but it's purely academic in nature. Yes, by law, the government can continue to print money indefinitely. But guess what? At some point people will stop buying that debt. So even though the government has a mandate to continue printing paper and by definition can't go "bankrupt", that's effectively meaningless when people no longer accept your currency.

Re: Bloodbath for Science

#26

Post by loewenskind »

j_baker wrote: post #11
peregrine wrote: post #3

Can't we find $1.5 billion floating around in the military budget to cut instead of the funds that fuels science and innovation? Sure companies do a fine job of innovating but they don't do things like Fermilab, which have long term potential to change our world. Long term being far longer then stock holders in public companies would allow for.

"You're letting the terrorists win! You scientists need to just go back to your ivory towers while the rest of us real Americans stand up for freedom!"

Nothing lets the terrorists win more than spending ourselves into a stupor chasing non-existent boogy men.

Re: Bloodbath for Science

#27

Post by Tichy »

While I don't trust the government to pick the right things to slash, I am pretty sure there is a lot of bullshit research going on that could easily be slashed. It's probably not effective to not put any constraints on science research at all - there has to be some correcting factor like competition.

Re: Bloodbath for Science

#28

Post by Maro »

foob wrote: post #21
peregrine wrote: post #3

Can't we find $1.5 billion floating around in the military budget to cut instead of the funds that fuels science and innovation? Sure companies do a fine job of innovating but they don't do things like Fermilab, which have long term potential to change our world. Long term being far longer then stock holders in public companies would allow for.

The other thing to keep in mind is that many of the graduate students being trained under this funding and working at places like Fermilab actually end up going into industry and making much more tangible changes in the short term. If funding drops and it has an effect on either the number of PhDs that are be granted or their quality then that will in turn have a real impact on the innovation that we see from compani…

You are right, many Phds do get a job in industry, but that does not mean that this is an efficient process.

Re: Bloodbath for Science

#29

Post by nhebb »

jerf wrote: post #6

The problem with the logic in this post is that it implies an unbounded amount of money funneled into research. In the real world, there's a bound on the amount of money that should be funneled into research. That bound should probably less than the amount of money it would take to bankrupt the supporting country. Any argument that doesn't even consider this question fails to impress me right out of the gate. There i…

At some point the answer has to be no.

Unless it's someone's sacred cow. Then the answer is moo.

This story is overblown at this point. The Senate will come up with it's version. The reconciled bill and the resulting votes will be the critical issue. The bottom line is that it will be painful to someone. Social services and research will have to take some hits, as will defense per President Obama's budget proposal.

Re: Bloodbath for Science

#30

Post by wil2k »

dantheman wrote: post #8
jerf wrote: post #6

The problem with the logic in this post is that it implies an unbounded amount of money funneled into research. In the real world, there's a bound on the amount of money that should be funneled into research. That bound should probably less than the amount of money it would take to bankrupt the supporting country. Any argument that doesn't even consider this question fails to impress me right out of the gate. There i…

Agreed, I don't think people realize just how broke the US is. In 9 years, the interest alone will consume 50% of the US budget. That doesn't leave enough to cover social security and medicare -- let alone anything else that the federal government does. Hopefully people will start demanding cuts in other places too, for instance the DEA, DOE, DOD, etc. There just isn't enough money. The DOD budget has increased 100%…

The problem is that the debt can only grow and grow and grow. Why? Because the government is not creating the money but borrowing it from the private banks..(the Federal Reserve is everything BUT 'federal') and the government needs to pay interest. That way, there's never enough money in existence to EVER pay of the debt, because the "debt" amount of money only exists.. not "debt + interest".

So, the interest monster will just get more hungry every year, month, day and second..

I was down voted for posting the following, but it truly hits the essence of the problem:

Watch this, it's awesome:

The Secret of Oz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g

Quotes:

"What can government do? The sad answer is -- under the current monetary system -- nothing. It's not going to get better until the root of the problem is understood and addressed. There isn't enough stimulus money in the entire world to get us out of this hole.

"Why? Debt. The national debt is just like our consumer debt -- it's the interest that's killing us.

"Though most people don't realize it the government can't just issue it's own money anymore. It used to be that way. The King could just issue stuff called money. Abraham Lincoln did it to win the Civil War.

"No, today, in our crazy money system, the government has to borrow our money into existence and then pay interest on it. That's why they call it the National Debt. All our money is created out of debt. Politicians who focus on reducing the National Debt as an answer probably don't know what the National Debt really is. To reduce the National Debt would be to reduce our money -- and there's already too little of that.

"No, you have to go deeper. You have to get at the root of this problem or we're never going to fix this. The solution isn't new or radical. America used to do it. Politicians used to fight with big bankers over it. It's all in our history -- now sadly -- in the distant past.

"But why can't we just do it again? Why can't we just issue our own money, debt free? That, my friends, is the answer. Talk about reform! That's the only reform that will make a huge difference to everyone's life -- even worldwide.

"The solution is the secret that's been hidden from us for just over 100 years -- ever since the time when author L. Frank Baum wrote "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz."

Post reply on HN