BuffaloBill Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Many good things have come from basic researh expenditures historically. Think of tangential outcomes from the space race (other than Tang). Should the US spend tax dollars on basic research? I say yes even though I am a person likely to say that taxes are too high and Gov't spending is out of control. I view research as a basic investment in the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Many good things have come from basic researh expenditures historically. Think of tangential outcomes from the space race (other than Tang). Should the US spend tax dollars on basic research? I say yes even though I am a person likely to say that taxes are too high and Gov't spending is out of control. I view research as a basic investment in the economy. They do already...-most research is govt funded thru universities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 And it is such a small part of the budget. Cut the social stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 How else is a country suppose to be great if time (aka money) is not put into scientific advancement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 How else is a country suppose to be great is time (aka money) is not put into scientific advancement? Question is can we afford it? But to your point it is an investment that historically has produced returns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 And it is such a small part of the budget. Cut the social stuff. Cut the government payroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 We might stop paying bonuses to bankrupt financial institutions, and maybe suggest they stop buying airplanes with our money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I say yes even though I am a person likely to say that taxes are too high and Gov't spending is out of control. I view research as a basic investment in the economy. And it is such a small part of the budget. Cut the social stuff. How else is a country suppose to be great is time (aka money) is not put into scientific advancement? Cut the government payroll. We might stop paying bonuses to bankrupt financial institutions, and maybe suggest they stop buying airplanes with our money? Agree on all counts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 They do already...-most research is govt funded thru universities The problem is that the basic research - paid for by US - is esstentially given away for free. And the University system at the graduate school level is essentially one giant technology transfer machine. We spent 30 years training their research scientists, and now the edge that American universities had in researchers is gone. I'm not arguing against funding basic research, I'm for it. Just pointing out that the University system does not have the interests of the US economy in mind. And on a side note, for those who think 'green technology' will promise millions of jobs, do you really think that any such technology will stay in the US and not be passed on? Anything we develop that is revolutionary in its efficiency will be manufactured in China within a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 We might stop paying bonuses to bankrupt financial institutions, and maybe suggest they stop buying airplanes with our money? Disgusting. This is exactly why I am against continuing bailouts. All it does is let these guys off the hook from making the appropriate cut backs to their business (be it headcount, airplanes, excessive bonuses or lavish union perks). I cut $4MM out of a $16MM budget at my company cause no one is giving us a bailout. Citibank hasn't cut sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Absoultely. As a matter of fact they should be spending more in this area. Particularly in alternative energy. I agree that spending is out of control, but this is too important not to be funded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Well, i'm a bit biased, since i am about to graduate in a couple of months with my Biomed Engineering PhD, but yes government money for research is necessary. The sciences are one industry where in most cases, throwing money at a problem really does fix it, or goes a long way towards fixing it. There are some major funding problems right now in the sciences, with good researchers not getting funded, and overall advancements tend to stagnate when that happens. The crux of the problem is that since there is so little research money available, the gubmint is very selective where it send the research money. They're mainly going to send it to proven labs that have been around a while. While thats all well and good, lots of times these projects being funded are only going to make incremental advancements in science. But the gubmint funds them because they know they'll get something for their $. This leaves a lot of good research that might really make a difference out in the cold. Its very similar to the stock market. Right now, with the economy the way it is, the gubmint is only "investing" in low risk labs. Sure, they're basically guaranteed to get something out of their investment, but that return is going to be small. Science is a field where you need to take calculated risks to make the big advancements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Absoultely. As a matter of fact they should be spending more in this area. Particularly in alternative energy. I agree that spending is out of control, but this is too important not to be funded. Agreed. We don't spend nearly enough money in the sciences and education in this country. As for the person saying the US doesn't reap the benefit, you are entirely wrong. A great deal of government funded academic research leads to the creation of pharma and medical industry jobs. If you have a strong academic research presense with an educated and qualified workforce then industry will want to be near those institutions and employ their graduating scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Actually if we want to help the economy figuring a way to take health care off the employers table would be a good start... How much of the cost of the auto industry is based on health care cost? If we want to revitalize our manufacturing base (auto, steel, airplane etc) getting a new health care system should be job one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Disgusting. This is exactly why I am against continuing bailouts. All it does is let these guys off the hook from making the appropriate cut backs to their business (be it headcount, airplanes, excessive bonuses or lavish union perks). I cut $4MM out of a $16MM budget at my company cause no one is giving us a bailout. Citibank hasn't cut sh--. Yes, Citigroup has. They've slashed a lot of their spending. Of course, it's been things like "When staying in Paris, you may no longer spend $1200/day on your hotel suite, you are now limited to $400." Really, Citi's cuts just prove what fiscal black hole that company's turned into. For a company to pare expenses as much as they have and STILL be blowing mind-numbing buckets of cash on stupid sh-- is beyond belief. As for the original topic of the thread...I used to say yes. Then I saw first-hand how government programs are run. Unless it's through an organization like the NSF, that provides grants without managing research, I don't want the government anywhere near basic research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Absoultely. As a matter of fact they should be spending more in this area. Particularly in alternative energy. I agree that spending is out of control, but this is too important not to be funded. EVERYTHING is too important not to be funded, to somebody. The government isn't paying for anything, we are. So if it's important, why don't we fund it voluntarily and directly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 EVERYTHING is too important not to be funded, to somebody. The government isn't paying for anything, we are. So if it's important, why don't we fund it voluntarily and directly? Yeah, even better. Put the preternaturally vain and stupid American public in direct support of scientific research. Because I want vaccine development funded by the same people who buy the "Sham-Wow" because it's "Made in Germany...you know the Germans make good stuff..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Yeah, even better. Put the preternaturally vain and stupid American public in direct support of scientific research. Because I want vaccine development funded by the same people who buy the "Sham-Wow" because it's "Made in Germany...you know the Germans make good stuff..." Maybe for your next post, you can explain what this has to do with anything. Right now, vaccine developments ARE being funded by the same people who buy the "Sham-Wow". It's just funneled through layers of bureaucracy before it gets there. Of course enough is taken along the way to pay for the trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Maybe for your next post, you can explain what this has to do with anything. Because the average person is too damn stupid to manage their own money, never mind research grants. Imagine the sh-- that would be funded if people completely unable to judge the worth of crap on TV voluntarily had to directly make value judgements on scientific research. I know that was hard. Try to keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Because the average person is too damn stupid to manage their own money, never mind research grants. Imagine the sh-- that would be funded if people completely unable to judge the worth of crap on TV voluntarily had to directly make value judgements on scientific research. I know that was hard. Try to keep up. Oh yeah, I'm supposed to keep up with the fact that you think they should be funded, but nobody is able to do it. Either governments fund it, individuals fund, or it doesn't get funded. The government has never touched anything without driving it into the ground. Individuals deciding for themselves what they want to fund wouldn't put us in to any worse position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts