Crisis for US Science Is Looming, Physicists Warn

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 11:27 AM GMT
    http://www.livescience.com/19526-american-science-funding-future.html

    "There are some facts and figures that are very disturbing, which show the United States might be losing ground in science and discovery, whereas other countries are gaining," Pushpa Bhat, a physicist at Illinois' Fermi Accelerator National Laboratory (Fermilab), said at a press conference preceding the panel. "We can't sit back and watch."

    Bhat lamented the lack of cutting-edge physics facilities in this country. While many of the world's best instruments and experiments, such as Fermilab's Tevatron particle accelerator, used to be housed here, that frontier has moved elsewhere. For example, the world's largest atom smasher, the Large Hadron Collider, is located at the CERN lab in Switzerland, while Illinois' Tevatron has shut down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 12:30 PM GMT
    Too much spending on other things.
  • BIG_N_TALL

    Posts: 2190

    Apr 07, 2012 12:35 PM GMT
    we're too busy watching "Jersey Shore" and other dumb ass pursuits
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 12:35 PM GMT
    Xelorate saidToo much spending on other things.


    We spend like 4x more than any other country. R&D for the US is 405 billion followed by China at 153 billion for 2011.

    What they really mean is that physics experiments are receiving cuts, via NASA an other organizations that fund them. Physics and energy has dominated the R&D budget for a long time, I don't feel bad about striking a more fair balance between the other branches of science.

    The secrets of the universe can wait a while for us to cure HIV imo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 12:52 PM GMT
    Yea I love those science documentaries on the discovery science channel and stuff... but I think for now we should allocate our money to medical research so we can get cures to cancer and AIDs quicker. Last summer I heard they finally found a cure for one of the types of skin cancer. Maybe it has something to do with cutting NASA's budget... which was sad but maybe it's for the best
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 1:18 PM GMT
    Why do we need science when we have Creationism?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 07, 2012 1:24 PM GMT
    Tell that to the people who say we need to question evolution
    And tell that to the people that feel the need to dismiss the obvious changes in global climate


    ..... Oh WAIT .... They're the same people .... Sorry
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 1:37 PM GMT
    GQjock saidTell that to the people who say we need to question evolution
    And tell that to the people that feel the need to dismiss the obvious changes in global climate


    ..... Oh WAIT .... They're the same people .... Sorry


    Oh they spend a lot of money convincing people in their process of denial. It's just not from the R&D budget icon_razz.gif
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Apr 07, 2012 1:39 PM GMT
    The same stories about the decline of UK science abound here.

    I think with the phenomenal economic growth in the Far East these past fifty years or so, and the consequent rise in those countries international influence, means western countries have begun to worry about all those areas they used to effortlessly dominate, science being one of them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 3:59 PM GMT
    Try putting less money into the military to put all those resources and training into science and watch it take off... but nooooo
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 4:02 PM GMT
    Lincsbear saidThe same stories about the decline of UK science abound here.

    I think with the phenomenal economic growth in the Far East these past fifty years or so, and the consequent rise in those countries international influence, means western countries have begun to worry about all those areas they used to effortlessly dominate, science being one of them.


    Problem is, they (the west) have only dominated the world in terms of advanced technology for like a hundred years or so thanks to industrialisation... Asia has dominated on the scientific front for like ehm, thousands of years (agriculture, wheel, math, timekeeping etc etc etc, all came from Asia).. essentially speaking, the last century or so has been an anomaly .. a mere "hiccup" in the time of Asian advance over Europe, being basically just a backwater of Asia before that.. and English-speaking European-emigrant ex-colonies being in lead along with Europe... In fact, Europe has usually been at the forefront of technology over the USA, this was only interrupted after WWII, when the USA began to take off... so Western domination is a hiccup in world history, and USA domination an even smaller hiccup within Western domination
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 4:14 PM GMT
    Article"We need to find a way to do more science with a fixed amount of money," Siegrist said.

    "I think it'd be easier just to have more money," Wilczek replied.


    Always the answer, isn't it?

    As a previous poster said, we spend many times more than anyone else on science and research in the US. There isn't a funding problem: there's an allocation problem within science.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 4:39 PM GMT
    There are lots of structural problems with science funding, and the model that it gets paid for from a single bucket of government money. One problem is the constant trade-off between huge "big-science" projects and everything else. Once these things get "too big to fail" their budget over-runs become catastrophic to science as a whole. Whole fields of research got shut down and hundreds of scientists cut loose to pay for overruns on Hubble, and Shuttle , for example, and obscene overruns on Webb have basically shut down planetary exploration. It's not easy to figure out what the right balance between "big" and "small" projects is.

    But turning all the money over to NIH is no solution either. They could easily absorb the entire physics budget just to churn out a few percent more bureaucratic repetitive studies that nobody will ever read.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 07, 2012 5:02 PM GMT
    Larkin said
    Article"We need to find a way to do more science with a fixed amount of money," Siegrist said.

    "I think it'd be easier just to have more money," Wilczek replied.


    Always the answer, isn't it?

    As a previous poster said, we spend many times more than anyone else on science and research in the US. There isn't a funding problem: there's an allocation problem within science.


    Within SCIENCE????

    When we have a political system that Allocates billions upon billions more into giving money to oil companies and lowering taxes on millionaireaps
    .... And takes money AWAY from schools
    And tells people they have tooTEST their kids to death rather than TEACH them
    And grades teachers on the number of kids the DO pass rather than what they learned
    And where an entire political party prides itself on questioning long verified S cientific FACT

    You THINK it's a problem Within Science?
    I think you're hypothesis is fatally flawed
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2942

    Apr 07, 2012 5:05 PM GMT
    adam228 said
    GQjock saidTell that to the people who say we need to question evolution
    And tell that to the people that feel the need to dismiss the obvious changes in global climate


    ..... Oh WAIT .... They're the same people .... Sorry


    Oh they spend a lot of money convincing people in their process of denial. It's just not from the R&D budget icon_razz.gif


    They have an R&D budget too: Regression and Disinformation.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2942

    Apr 07, 2012 7:25 PM GMT
    Nivek saidWhy do we need science when we have Creationism?


    why study/think, when you can just believe?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 7:47 PM GMT
    tazzari said
    Nivek saidWhy do we need science when we have Creationism?


    why study/think, when you can just believe?


    why to use our brains when we can be monkeys.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 7:53 PM GMT
    charlitos said
    tazzari said
    Nivek saidWhy do we need science when we have Creationism?


    why study/think, when you can just believe?


    why to use our brains when we can be monkeys.


    I resent that.. monkeys use their brains too... to figure out solutions, to lie, to work together, and to communicate
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 8:05 PM GMT
    Nivek saidWhy do we need science when we have Creationism?

    LOLOLOLOL icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 8:10 PM GMT
    Nivek saidWhy do we need science when we have Creationism?


    Oh boy I've laughed so hard my tummy hurts icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2012 8:32 PM GMT
    GQjock saidTell that to the people who say we need to question evolution
    And tell that to the people that feel the need to dismiss the obvious changes in global climate


    ..... Oh WAIT .... They're the same people .... Sorry


    OMG the earth has been heating and cooling then heating up agin, like forever. Has something diffrent happend? Oh and I also support the Big Bang and evolution too. Thus the earth is still forming and storming; nothing new.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2012 2:26 AM GMT
    Larkin said
    Article"We need to find a way to do more science with a fixed amount of money," Siegrist said.

    "I think it'd be easier just to have more money," Wilczek replied.


    Always the answer, isn't it?

    As a previous poster said, we spend many times more than anyone else on science and research in the US. There isn't a funding problem: there's an allocation problem within science.


    More money always helps, but allocation decisions should be made by scientists and not politicians.

    Many hypothesize that NASA would have continued research on rocket technology after the Apollo program we would have already been to Mars by now. But Nixon (and later Reagan) instead wanted to play space politics with the Russians.

    Also, we are competing with Europe as a whole; CERN membership includes 20 European countries. It wouldn't surprise me if few Americans even fully respected or appreciated the research being conducted at CERN.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2012 3:32 AM GMT
    conscienti1984 said
    More money always helps, but allocation decisions should be made by scientists and not politicians.

    Many hypothesize that NASA would have continued research on rocket technology after the Apollo program we would have already been to Mars by now. But Nixon (and later Reagan) instead wanted to play space politics with the Russians.


    Too many scientists self-style themselves politicians. NASA is a good example.

    NASA isn't going to Mars because space exploration isn't part of their mission over there. Climate science is... because climate science gets all the grant money and professional prestige.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2012 3:59 AM GMT
    Larkin said
    conscienti1984 said
    More money always helps, but allocation decisions should be made by scientists and not politicians.

    Many hypothesize that NASA would have continued research on rocket technology after the Apollo program we would have already been to Mars by now. But Nixon (and later Reagan) instead wanted to play space politics with the Russians.


    Too many scientists self-style themselves politicians. NASA is a good example.

    NASA isn't going to Mars because space exploration isn't part of their mission over there. Climate science is... because climate science gets all the grant money and professional prestige.


    Yes, of course, you're right. Climatologists are the pinnacle of science, and their power over the scientific community knows no boundaries. Of course these climatologists will also be granted politcal power once Czar Gore overthrows the US government.

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 08, 2012 12:03 PM GMT
    Too many scientists self-style themselves politicians

    Don't you think you have that a bit Bass Ackwards?

    icon_cool.gif

    Science is Science no matter what the politics
    Because it isn't politically Convenient for one party or another doesn't mean you can call fact based Scientific Laws into question