Posted on 12/16/2005 1:08:43 PM PST by nickcarraway
WASHINGTON U.S. high-tech industry executives met earlier this week with Vice President Dick Cheney to lobby for more U.S. support for basic science research, sources said Friday (Dec. 16).
The meeting came as two U.S. lawmakers introduced legislation this week designed to boost U.S. innovation. The National Innovation Act of 2005 introduced Wednesday by Sens. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) seeks to increase investment in basic research, improve science and technology talent and develop a robust innovation infrastructure.
The proposal would also create a President's Council on Innovation to "develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation in the public and private sectors," according to Lieberman's office.
Details of the meeting between Cheney and executives from the U.S. semiconductor and other high-tech industries were not known. However, industry sources said the meeting with Cheney illustrates how the threat to U.S. competitiveness will be a key issue in next year's budget battles.
Who is stopping researchers from researching? Oh, nobody is. They just want the government to give them money.
Here comes another senate investiagtion.
What would you propose...no basic scientific research?
Huh? You think research only occurs if the government sponsors it? Which grant's did Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison get from the government?
There's no way basic science research could be done for free in today's high-tech world. Now what do propose?
I propose that your premise is absurd on its face, as witnessed by all the reasearch done at Intel, the biotech's, etc. And besides, what Edison did was just as difficult for his time as the challenges for today are for our time.
According to you, we should stop subsidizing science so only those who can generate income from their discoveries, like Edison, can continue. The problem is that kind of short-sighted thinking will eliminate our entire basic research program. Do you know the difference between basic research and applied research? Hint: Edison did not do basic research. Basic research does not generate "inventions" or products that can be sold for profit.
Its another "shakedown" to increase the number of H1B visas.
I'm glad you're not running the country. If the government's subisidization of science is socialism, then so is the US military. And the results of eliminating basic science research (which must be subisidized since it does not make new products) would be as disasterous as eliminating our military.
That's what I was think too.
How about we just make it so tech companies don't get sued into oblivion if their vaccine makes someone sick or they infringe on some obscure patent only tangently related to what they are doing.
I take it you're not involved in science as a profession, because this assertion is a gross exaggeration of the situation in science and, while you might find a few disgruntled scientists who claim this, it is not reality.
The article is about basic research. Basic research doesn't make vaccines or any other product. There's no liability in basic research...it merely produces knowledge.
Intel, the Biotech's and other private technology-based companies do two kinds of 'research': applied research and development. They do applied research only when it can be expected to lead pretty directly to development.
As far as Thomas Edison and other 'scientists' are concerned, much if not all of what was done up until the last 50 years was at most applied research and mostly what would be called development today. Inventions are development, which in no way diminishes the brilliance of the inventor. And the difference between R&D then and now is not a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of cost. Most R&D, including engineering and biotech research, is vastly more costly than it would have been in Edison's time.
There is definitely a place for American technical brilliance in industry. But it's imperative to maintain our dominance in scientific academia, as well.
If you're saying science is politicized, you're right. It's especially but not exclusively true of the health and social sciences.
It would be far better if more scientists were more open-minded about science issues. It would also be far better if more nonscientists were more open-minded about nonscience issues.
IF he had good data and evidence to back up his point, then he would still have a career. Case in point:
I did research that demonstrated that prenatal alcohol was disruptive to both fetal and maternal endocrine systems. It was funded by the National Distlled Spirits Council.
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.