[Kosh]

I was recently listening to an interesting podcast on scientific american's website talking about this issue and I thought it was pretty informative. Any thoughts on it?


It seemed to me that this whole thing came about partly as a responce to the massive budget cuts in the US science budget, especially going after basic research into physics and high energy physics. American funding for the ITER project: GONE. The guy who gave this speech is the director of Argonne Laboratory. He talks about the benefits of science, why it is important, and why American's don't seem to have much interest in it.

[Polpolion]

I predict that this thread will die a very painful death.

[IceFire]

There's a pretty good article at Ars Technica about the same subject.  Probably a domino effect of this topic popping up...probably made it on to Slashdot too.

[WMCoolmon]

Who has control of the science budget? What do they say?

[Kosh]

Congress. The Omnibus Bill of 2007 cut tens of millions of dollars out of it.

[Galemp]

Reason is the enemy of faith, my friend
A head that's filled with knowledge
soon is too bloated with its own weight
to fit through heaven's gate
So think with your heart
It's the only organ for salvation
Think with your heart
Don't deduce yourself to eternal damnation
Think with your heart
'Cause you know that the Almighty sees us
Think only with your heart
Whoever heard of the bleeding brain of Jesus?
Think only with your heart!

/thread death imminent

[Mika]

While I find it difficult to believe that the budget cut would have happened because of faith, I have to acknowledge that it could be possible. Otherwise, with link that was first posted I can agree fully.

But I also see the cutbacks as a society's way of telling that the researchers have gone too far. Instead of serving the society's needs, they are aiming for 300 years ahead, where the science and innovations based on it could (hopefully) help the society. Needless to say, this approach will not please the general population and there will not be funding for it.

I would say that the problem is caused both by the scientists and recent trend in the markets, maximizing profits in shortest possible time. Interestingly, that the trend originated from some well-established economically sound universities from England and US!

Mika

[Nuke]

i encourage every american to go out and burn down at least one church

[Colonol Dekker]

Van Helsing would disagree.
I don't think science outside of computers and established industries has made much progress to be honest. Nothing really life changing i mean compared to the last thirty years.

[achtung]

It's a slow and tedious process.

People are too used to instant gratification these days.  =/

[Colonol Dekker]

Not at all.
I just think compared to the middle of last century the tempo has dropped a tad.

[WMCoolmon]

Progress is made faster when you're given the allowance to make mistakes. With private industries, that's strongly discouraged - nobody likes losing thousands or millions of dollars because some chemical process didn't work like you expected.

When people start dying, when you have some form of danger or competition, then people are more tolerant because they can see that there's some tangible greater goal that needs to be accomplished.

That's my theory, anyway.

[Colonol Dekker]

Roger and copy.
Political correctness is the root of the problem like a spoilt child, society has started to stagnate and just ness about.
That's a bit deep i know but i haven't been out in a week and i'm going a bit "wrong"
With all due respect and no ill intent what does the us offer that other nations can't in the field of science?

[DeepSpace9er]

Damnit! Where is my flying car!

[WMCoolmon]

I've seen videos of a UFO-like thing. I think the flying car idea was contingent on finding a way of buoyancy that didn't require exerting the weight of the car on the objects below, though...

[DeepSpace9er]

Flying car concepts of today still hinge on the advancement of autopilot systems and an advanced FAA flight control system to get off the ground. People can barely drive in 2D. I would actually prefer an automated driving linked with a smart highway system where our cars communicate and drive themselves, assuring the maximum efficiency for traffic control and flow. Plus, i wouldnt mind safely driving over 100mph, while not having to drive at all..

[Kosh]

But I also see the cutbacks as a society's way of telling that the researchers have gone too far. Instead of serving the society's needs, they are aiming for 300 years ahead, where the science and innovations based on it could (hopefully) help the society.

Is that so? I find it absolutely incredible that people are more than happy to use technology that is based on the basic research done at these labs, but are unwilling to support the actual research that goes into it. Not everything is "instant" with things like this. Example: The transistor was actually invented in 1947, but didn't come into widespread use (maybe except for radios) until the electronics revolution in the 70's.

[IceFire]

Not at all.
I just think compared to the middle of last century the tempo has dropped a tad.

I'd agree...just looking at the advancements in aerospace.  At the beginning of World War II almost every major nation had either a bi-plane or a fixed gear undercarriage fighter either in frontline or secondline units.  These were fabric covered and produced maybe 700 to 1000hp and could do maybe 250mph or a bit more.  By the end of World War II there were Me262 and Meteor jet fighters and prop fighters doing well above 450mph sporting 2000hp+ engines or jets...or rocket interceptors.  Lots of risks taken and quite a few rewards.  In the 60s and 70s projects like Apollo and the SR-71 blackbird were really incredible leaps forward.

Today...I guess its small stuff.  Faster and faster computers and electronic gadgets.  But right now it feels like we regressed somewhat over the 80s and 90s.  The new US efforts to get to the moon have the new researchers figuring out just how the guys in the 60s managed it.

[Mars]

We just don't want to do anything small.

"What would the point of going to the moon be if we didn't bring a frikkin colony with us?" Seems to be the general idea

[DeepSpace9er]

Personally, I think its the lack of 'taking a risk' attitude. Everybody wants a sure thing these days and overcautiously goes about getting there. Thus when something goes wrong in a project and somebody dies, they decide its not worth it and cancel it. People forget how many pioneers of technology died to see their experiments succeed.