Not sure what all this means, but I would sure question the premise that the government has to drive all medical research that is worth a hoot.
Get government out of it and we’ll still have cures for cancer, but no one will ever know whether bald-headed Mongolian dwarves have better sex lives than Norwegian rats.
Not sure why you think that scientists and engineers are all lefty. The majority are not. When you start talking PhDs...if they are still in academia that answers your question they will always be left. If they are the working folks (even in labs) then they know what the score is and are more conservative than you may think.
Chu is the example of an academic type. Bill Wattenberg is the example of a hard working scientist.
the answer to your question really is obvious. liberals you cannot help so put them out of their misery. the rest know where to find supper
Just point out that while liberal politicians give lip service to STEM, the reality is that STEM is being cut on their watch. Case in point, Gov Jerry Brown is always talking STEM at the same time cutting STEM classes in California. Untouched are classes in feminist, Hispanic and African studies. Science classes at both the UCs and Cal State Universities are so impacted it is taking science students 6+ years to get a Bachelor of Science degree.
Ask them if they live in reality or in a fantasy world. It’s just like how Obama claimed to be for gay rights at the same time he was slashing the AIDS research budget that existed under George Bush. But ask any liberal and they will tell you that Bush hates gays and Obama loves them.
Tell them that too many years of failure by both parties to agree on long-term research needs (replaced instead with the cyclical pursuit of pop-science directed largely by the President’s OSTP), and the research community’s willingness to go along with it for fear of lost funding has led to the current situation... one in which science and technology research is no longer viewed as an essential element to future economic growth, but rather as a tool to sway the electorate. As such, all of the research is subject to review... as it should be. If a strong case can be made that current efforts are toward ensuring our future prosperity, safety or security... there is nothing to fear. If however, programs were instituted for political purposes, they WILL be cut. There are many examples of R&D in the government that get bipartisan support... where there is lack of agreement, one should rightly ask the question “Should we be borrowing from China to fund this work knowing that our kids and grandkids will pay for it?” Essentially, is the potential reward worth the risk? If they cannot understand this, and are not comfortable with it, they should be scared about a Republican trifecta.
There are 4 categories of spending.
Cat 1 is spending you do for yourself. You care about value, and about cost.
Cat 2 is spending you do for a present. You care about cost, but not so much about value.
Cat 3 is spending on you from someone else. You care about value, but not so much about cost.
Cat 4 is spending Peter’s money on something for Paul. You care neither about cost, nor value.
Category 4 spending is inefficient.
Government research funding is assigned as Cat 4 spending. People given government research funding spend it as Cat 3 spending, once they get it.
By contrast, private research spending is Cat 1. You care about cost, and about value. It is efficient. consider the Moon landings. We went there, picked up 800 lbs of moon rocks, most of which collects dust, and don’t own anything as a result. The Apollo missions are a monument, as useless today as the Pyramids. Perhaps someday the Apollo site will be a tourist attraction, like the Pyramids.
Imagine the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars passed through the government that was wasted on Michael Mann- who produced a Global Warming hockey stick that doesn’t agree with past known temperatures, and has no ability to predict future states. Predicting future states from a finite number of past states is not possible for any equation that is nonlinear, chaotic, and exhibits sensitive dependence on initial conditions. This last has been known since Edward Lorenz’s paper on “Deterministic Aperiodic Flow” in 1963. Still, millions of dollars have been wasted on Michael Mann et al. After all, it was only government money.
The following is just a short bit that I found on private donations with companies/schools that I am interested in. At my alma-mater (an engineering school), most of the big research was supported by private industry. And I know that Microsoft is VERY big into supporting education as they are seeing the results of poor education in the U.S. right now.
inside.mines.edu/~zhiwu/seminar/abs_1010.pdf:
Sept. 3, 2012: SD School of Mines Receives $49 Million Schlumberger Gift ...
**************
Dec 6, 2010 ... Washington State University has received a $26 million gift from its richest dropout, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, the Seattle Times reports.
****************
WVU Department of Geology and Geography receives $10.2 million ...Dec 2, 2011 ... “This in-kind gift supports important work in the energy field that WVU is ... “
Research and development at the university level is a critical component of energy ... Halliburton’s repeated commitment to our research and teaching ..
Oh, they said, but we still have our robotic probes. I have a friend who bought into the Obama hype. "The manned missions are too expensive; we can do it better/faster/cheaper with robotic probes." Ok, I'm not against that, per se.
Not a year later, his select advisory committee, which was less interested in actual science and more interested in eviscerating NASA so as to fund his pet project (health care and wealth redistribution) also gutted the robotic end of exploration. Now, we're left with nothing but the missions already started under prior presidents.
Although I live in Nevada, I'm aware that a LOT of unemployed engineers along Florida's "Space Coast" are looking at retirement after having lost their jobs, with no prospect of employment before they're too old to work. All those engineering skills, LOST.
NASA is now a Muslim outreach agency, to make them feel good about Islam's historical contribution to science. NO JOKE, Google "Bolden" and "NASA" and "Muslim" or watch Bolden (the NASA Director) say it himself.
Easily verifiable, share this with your liberal scientist friends. If they feel that a leftist president puts science first...have them watch the YouTube, and look you in the eye afterward.
You know, this entire "Bush and the Republicans are anti-science" is a liberal trope. Time we tackled it head-on, put it down openly. It's well past time to concern ourselves with feelings or courtesy.
This president has gutted the F-22 Raptor. NASA. The armed services. And more.
So...NO, Obama hasn't championed engineering. He's imposed a tax on medical devices, which impacts companies that make them. He's no friend to the science and engineering communties.
Answer;
1) The deficit goes down when you reduce spending some....
2) The deficit completely disappears when you reduce spending a lot..
3) When you spend more than you take in you have a deficit..
4) Deficit spending is not moral..
5) America is broke..
Romney will continue funding and even advance basic research but eliminate government funding of some start up companies.
But government funding of start ups will continue as they have for decades under aegis of DARPA and other highly successful funding agencies. The Obama funding agencies for start ups will be scaled back.
Staunch conservatives are for free enterprise, i.e., business.
Business is all about science and technology - just look at the past few hundred years of technological progress.
Anyone who actually believes that conservatives are somehow “against science” has been deceived, either by others or themselves.
There is no way that a reasonably intelligent engineer, scientist, etc., can not know this, other than they don’t go to Church any more and have fallen for the liberal deception that all Christians are ignorant hillbillies.
Of course, the modern hillbilly is anything but ignorant, and many very intelligent and successful people are Christian.
The Church of Secular Humanism is a little tricky, but it’s lies can easily be seen if one truly is objective and logical.
Anyone who thinks the government is somehow required in order for science to progress is, again, just kidding themselves.
Oh, and, no offence intended, but you do realize that your post comes across completely as that of a troll ?
As a TEA Partier, I would say that cutting important research is not high on anybody’s list. But if spending isn’t cut, and the economy collapses, there will be no money for any research at all.
And under Obamacare, the last great medical innovation has already been invented. There will be no more.
I’m not a scientist but from a budget perspective I can assure you that if we continue to spend more money than we take in, there won’t be any money for ANY research.
This is easy.
I have a PhD in stem cell research at a highly ranked public school( no not berkeley, that was my undergrad). I work as a research associate.
Almost all of my colleagues are liberal. It is part of academia. Just the way things are in higher ed.
What you say is simple. Which party will grow the economy more? The more tax revenue the govt has, the more money it will give to science. Since the historical difference in science funding under each party is >5% to dems, if you increase economic growth by 50% and have a 50% increase in revenue, science funding goes up accordingly, well over any party difference. Its ALL the economy, stupid.
If they cant answer this question after the last 4 years, they are not worth your time.
Many of my co-workers are brilliant PhDs in math and physics. They express themselves nicely in MATLAB. Unfortunately, MATLAB doesn't process very quickly. It falls to me to put that theoretical set of algorithms into C/C++/assembly code that runs fast enough to be useful in the real world. The bad news is that these guys are getting old. They need to train a next generation with the skill sets that allow them to get in on the "ground floor" and continue carrying the banner in advanced research fields. It won't be much longer before much of the "art" that needs to be conveyed will go to the grave and be lost.
If we are to keep science worthy of public funding, the conflict of interest must be removed from the equation. Either we are out to understand what is, or we are trying to bend that to achieve some other, political, goal.
The latter should be removed from ties to the public coffers. Otherwise, my tax dollar will go to fund 'research' I will then have to fight out of pocket with other scientists.
The entire claim of consensus over AGW was bogus, refuted by the Petition Project, where over 30,000 scientists were signatories to a petition stating the US should not sign onto the Kyoto accords nor anything like them.
It is the responsibility of scientists to NOT put forth alarmist conclusions as the basis for public policy which can be devastating to civilization, and when their results cannot be duplicated, their data are made unavailable, and, as it turns out at best cherry-picked, at worst falsified, they should be rendered ineligible for any further public funding and stripped of any academic tenure.
Just my $0.02
for a conservative, science or the scientific method of inquiry is a special case of conservative philosophy, that is, a form of invention, an illumination God’s creation. a true scientist is driven by a desire to illuminate an aspect of God, or if an athiest, he/she is at least a seeker of relative “truth.” that is why, historically, most great scientists and inventors were indeed conservatives—that is, believers and motivated by faith in their endevours.
you’re never going to convince anyone to vote for a conservative who doesn’t have this calling to discover, know and understand creation apart from a paycheck. they are simply engaged in the show of junk science merely for government payola. a person corrupted by the gov’t payola is probably lost, too.
perhaps, someone sincere about inquiry who is entraped in the current system (STEM?) or what i call “science” by bureaucrat, may be convinced if still young and perhaps just naieve.
i would start by asking questions: for example,
why are government bureaucrats in charge of directing the scientific effort of medical doctors, scientists and engineers? was this always true? if not when and what started all of this?
as a tea partier, engineer and conservative, believe me. there is no one who loves truth, reason and scientific inquiry more than a conservative. inquiry and invention are a way to better know our God and also a primary means by which wealth is created for the civil society. without wealth creation, the civil society and all inventive endeavours including art and science must wither and die.
truely, given the argument i’ve outlined, i would be astonished to find a statist or leftist with a real understanding of science.