Posted on 05/29/2004 6:51:29 AM PDT by liberallarry
THERE IS BOTH good news and bad news in the flurry of reports describing the decline of American preeminence in science. Falling numbers of scientific papers and prizes, as well as the relative drop in levels of funding and students, provide evidence of this decline. The good news is that it means other governments across the globe have begun investing heavily in basic scientific research. It also means that foreign companies have been investing in research and development, creating opportunities that make more people want scientific careers in their countries. More research anywhere creates more possibilities for innovation everywhere.
Yet the reports from the National Science Foundation and elsewhere indicate that the decline is not only relative. It is also absolute: American science is growing weaker, although not across the board. The boom in research and funding for the biological sciences -- including genetics and molecular biology -- has been matched by a decline in funding for, and interest in, physics and math.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I wonder how much support our culture really provides for these endeavors.
All I can say is that in my field of high energy physics, the American endeavor, in real terms, is only a third to a quarter of what it was when I got my Ph.D. in 1993. I am still technically a member of the physics department at Penn, but with no funding for physics I am now making my living programming for a private company.
>>FR science haters
Wow - I never ran into a FR science hater.
If our public schools suck (and from what I read, they really really do), then what do you expect? More and better science? Cause and effect - now America will pay a price for at least 20 years of failed liberal socialist education policies (how 'bout that team math?). Prediction - until the nea union is gone nothing will change, no politician has the nerve to do it, leading to continued steady decline in public schools. Oh well, they were good at one point and we can all be proud of that. End rant.
So many pop books
have made quantum physics look
like New Age horse poop,
that "normal" people
probably don't consider
physics "hard" science.
Most of all, though, the problem is a result of the lack of funding. Right now there is a profusion of bizarre and mutually contradictory theories of physics floating around. The reason they multiply and don't get pared down is because while theorizing is cheap, the experiments to rule theories out are very expensive.
Yes. Without experimental progress, however, it will just be so much math.
Wow - I never ran into a FR science hater.
They come in several flavors. The three main types are zealots who think that any investigation of nature constitutes a threat to their religious beliefs, deep-fried libertarians who think that anything not enthusiastically supported by the free market is worth nothing but contempt, and conspiracy addicts who are convinced that an evil cabal of totalitarian scientists and oil company executives is conspiring to keep free energy, antigravity and psychic powers out of the hands of the masses.
You should check out Bush's long term facilities plan for the DOE. Quite impressive.
The fact of the matter is that it is the Democrat Party that is anti-science. It is just pro-pork barrel. Look at the ludicrous amounts of money that went into "earth science" in the 90's. It is all a waste just political corruption of science. Clinton greatly expanded the Welfare state - the money has to come from somewhere. during the cold war we spent about 65% of the Federal budget on defense and science and the remainder on the Welfare state. Those percentages are now reversed. There is also a great deal a waste in Federal science funding do to the politicization of funding. I will also point out the the NSF is not the only recipient of funding nor even the largest one, it must compete with other institutions and agencies and thus one must take their comment with a certain amount of skepticism. Still, all in all the Federal 2005 budget is just under 140 billion dollars for basic and applied research of which slightly less than half goes to the DoD and related national security institutions. This works out to more than the other 41 top countries funding combined.
Yes, more monies should be spent but they should be spent wisely, we should not create a WPA for scientists and we shall have to take down social spending to do so. The taxpayer should get their monies worth out of the deal. It might be a good idea to apply the DARPA model to civilian science and technology.
We will also have to take on the medical industry for the simple reason that the NIH eats up a huge part of the Science and Technology budget, a circumstance that I for one feel is due to some serious corruption in the system. >p> I will also point out that the physics community needs to stop whining and go out and compete with other discipline. We no longer are involved with a nuclear arms race, physicist can not rely on the clout that they had during the Cold War. The Astronomy community, for example, has done a great job of getting what they need and is doing outstanding work both in therms of facilities and science.
This article is just more anti-bush electioneering. He put through a 4 billion nantechnology program and is actually trying to get NASA to do something productive. The funding, BTW is not down, only the increases in funding rates.
Even so, in physics we are putting a half a billion into the LHC at Cern and may yet undertake ITER. The DOE is investing and half a billion in super computers at Oak Ridge, and millions more preparing for ITER. There are things out there if you look. I agree that we have dropped the ball a bit in HEP and that the EUros are liable to dominate it for a decade or so but one really has to ask what the payoff of that has been the last 15 years or so other than noble prizes. I leave the answer to that question to you. One must also ask if the LHC project at Cern will actually resolve the Higgs oson issue. BTW, the next generation linear accelerator will most likely get funded if Bush wins. We are in a war and we have also had to get the country on the its feat after 911. It is disingenuous for the liberals to demand 21 billion for just the city of New York after 911, the prosecution of the WOT and not some sort of funding slow down. Add to that the crying about deficits and you have the most infantile sort of whining.
What is really scandalous is that Bush is letting the left paint him as "anti-science" which could not be farther from the case.
I also think that you are way out of line with your "anti science" remark about Freepers. Some of us have actually had scientific careers, unlike you.
Most Freepers love science, but you can't deny that there are Freepers who fall into those categories I mentioned. Go see if you can find a Freeper in any of those categories who have had a serious scientific career.
This is just more proof that our children are being "dumbed down".
When educational funding gets cut, what programs lose and what programs stay solvent?
In our district, the first thing to go is the intellectually gifted program (my kids are part of that). Then the libraries get program cuts. Then the real science and math teachers are replaced by "paras".
What stays? Programs for 15-year-old mothers, diversity programs, "alternative" education for thugs,losers and gansta's, special education for retarded and autistic children, ESL programs, before- and after-school latch-key programs, and free luncehes for the kids whose parents won't make them a lunch.
Actually, Clinton supported it. Congress killed it. (I remember it well because I came to Penn to do SSC development. I joined the department in August, 1993, and the SSC was killed in October, 1993.)
BTW, the next generation linear accelerator will most likely get funded if Bush wins.
Just as was the case with the SSC, the final decision rests with Congress. I have no doubt that Congress's decision will reflect the priorities of the American public.
I also find a whiff of anti-religious bigotry in your tone. I will point out to you neither Einstein or Newton where atheist.
I also know many a libertarian scientist who has had a successful career yet does not believe in government funded science programs. These sort tend to have their own businesses or work in the private sector. Obviously your reasoning is flawed in this case. To be against government funding for science is not to be "anti-science" in the least.
You might be better served by discussing things on their merits rather that casting aspersion on people whose opinions about science programs are at odds with you. It would be more productive and you might find more takers.
I think it's foolish
to believe you can purchase
creativity.
The ability
to see unseen relations
or make metaphors
that better "explain"
aspects of reality
is human genius
and it just takes time
for human genius people
to work in a field.
You can build a car,
you can't "build" a metaphor
for light that works well.
You are wrong about that. Clinton made lip service to it but that was a Demcrat cngress back then. In any event he could have not vetoed it or championed it. You are wrong on this one in any real sense. The Democrats had no interest in this program. It was a Reagan/Bush senior program. To say that Clinton supported it it just silly. That business was just more Clinton obfuscation.
The Ultimate Unified Theory of Everything includes: Photons, Croutons, Neurons, Futons, Carrions, Gravitons, Crayons, and Morons.
It's the 'can't-justify-going-to-the-moon-so-long-as-one-child-remains-hungry' crowd.
I have a somewhat similar story. I moved to New Mexico in 1992 to get involved with the Underground Nuclear Test program. I managed to work the last HLOS effects test in September of that year. Fortunately, the division I work for was able to transfer over much of their work to simulators, C0-60 facilities, and I've even sent some samples to the Penn State reactor for Neutrons.
Not bad for a Philosophy major.
As for the decline of the sciences, a friend of mine with a PhD in Plasma Physics now is a college professor and laments the level of preparation in the students he gets, and also is more disturbed by their disinterest in working hard. They haven't learned enough to love the subject, and they don't want to work hard enough to understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.