Search This Blog

Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

July 14, 2017

Funding leads the rate of scientists doing basic science to drop to 1%

  1. Boards
  2. Current Events
  3. Funding leads the rate of scientists doing basic science to drop to 1%
COVxy 2 weeks ago#1
http://www.nature.com/news/survey-reveals-basic-research-in-canada-is-falling-by-the-wayside-1.22224

This is specifically in Canada, but this general phenomenon seems to be true in the US from my experience. Funding for basic science is in the crapper, applied science and engineering fairing much better.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
Turtlebread 2 weeks ago#2
what about acidic science?
Darkman124 2 weeks ago#3
COVxy posted...
This is specifically in Canada, but this general phenomenon seems to be true in the US from my experience. Funding for basic science is in the crapper, applied science and engineering fairing much better.


unsurprising, really

when the path to a tenure track research position involves 10+ years of postdoc hell while you wait for someone to die because universities are not creating new professor positions but constantly pumping out new PHD grads, this will happen.

more and more of the people i knew in grad school are giving up and joining industry because they'd like to have an income
And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
COVxy 2 weeks ago#4
This is even only in academia though!
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
qyll3 2 weeks ago#5
Darkman124 posted...

more and more of the people i knew in grad school are giving up and joining industry because they'd like to have an income


I'm thinking about doing this. My PI expects me to go down the postdoc route, but industry sounds tempting
No sig here
COVxy 2 weeks ago#6
A lot if people I know who are looking to transition have been taking their first postdoc to keep the door to academia open while they suss out the options they have in industry.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
(edited 2 weeks ago)reportquote
COVxy 2 weeks ago#7
We're gonna look back at these times in the future and wonder how society had become so anti intellectual.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
Darkman124 2 weeks ago#8
i'm not wondering.
And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
COVxy posted...
We're gonna look back at these times in the future and wonder how society had become so anti intellectual.

COVxy 2 weeks ago#10
Darkman124 posted...
i'm not wondering.


Hm, maybe your knowledge can shift us back =p
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
Progression is inevitable
COVxy 2 weeks ago#12
Who would call it progress?
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
Ever since people learned you could just do a quick Google search to prove that NASA is just a theatre company, science is on most peoples' s***lists.
Currently Playing: Breath of the Wild
Recently Finished: Final Fantasy XV, Dark Cloud, Specter Knight
COVxy 2 weeks ago#14
Wut.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
You mean you don't know about NASA's lies? The word NASA even means liar in Hebrew. If you can't trust NASA, you definitely can't trust scientists who don't even belong to an acronym.
Currently Playing: Breath of the Wild
Recently Finished: Final Fantasy XV, Dark Cloud, Specter Knight
billcom6  needs gmo2 weeks ago#16
Good. No more LIBERAL indoctrination!
Because most days are bad days... --- Steam and XBOX Live: billcom6
My Teams: The Ohio State Buckeyes, New York Yankees, Buffalo Bills, The CBJ, Cavs
E32005 2 weeks ago#17
HydraSlayer82 2 weeks ago#18
Applied science is booming. I make a great living working in industry with a MS in polymer chemistry.
Sigless user
chill02 2 weeks ago#19
Darkman124 posted...
COVxy posted...
This is specifically in Canada, but this general phenomenon seems to be true in the US from my experience. Funding for basic science is in the crapper, applied science and engineering fairing much better.


unsurprising, really

when the path to a tenure track research position involves 10+ years of postdoc hell while you wait for someone to die because universities are not creating new professor positions but constantly pumping out new PHD grads, this will happen.

more and more of the people i knew in grad school are giving up and joining industry because they'd like to have an income


that's what my sister ended up doing and she doesn't regret it
Ave, true to Caesar.
E32005 posted...
whats considered basic science?

As far as I can tell, it's research that doesn't stand to make anyone any money, and thus usually publicly funded.
COVxy 2 weeks ago#21
E32005 posted...
whats considered basic science?


Pretty much whenever you're asking a question whose fundamental purpose is to further our understanding. Usually the science that tends to piss republicans off: "what's the point?"
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
(edited 2 weeks ago)reportquote
SGT_Conti 2 weeks ago#22
E32005 posted...
whats considered basic science?

From my understanding, it's the foundation of science like how cells would work and such. Things that provide knowledge but don't have much practical use. Applied science would be taking that knowledge and creating a medical treatment with it.
Posted with GameRaven 3.2
COVxy 1 week ago#23
Last bump, since I think it's an important issue for everyone to think about.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
COVxy posted...
Last bump, since I think it's an important issue for everyone to think about.

You know what CE does with actual important issues
Grass Hurricane Master
Darkman124 1 week ago#25
COVxy posted...
Darkman124 posted...
i'm not wondering.


Hm, maybe your knowledge can shift us back =p


fwiw i think the fundamental problem is actually tied to the culture of the providers of basic research, which is mostly universities

they've been so focused on 'student life' and 'the college experience' that they seem to have forgotten they're research centers. profs get hired as adjuncts rather than tenure track so the number of research jobs isn't rising even though # of grad students is.

university tuition has never been higher yet class sizes are bigger than ever. they'd rather build a gym than hire a new physics professor.

obv it would be great for the govt to fund this better but a lot of the funding would just go to huge labs that employ an army of chinese grad students anyway, and would not increase the number of lead researchers individually. just the number of grad students and postdocs, which is to say the number of people who then join industry anyway.
And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
(edited 1 week ago)reportquote
COVxy 1 week ago#26
I find it hard to conceptually link university spending and culture with the shift in funding from basic to applied sciences, tbh.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
#27
(message deleted)
I think it's an unfortunate inevitability of the historical link between modern scientific research and funding driven by capitalism. Ever since the scientific revolution, science has always been born on the backs of the people and organizations willing to provide the money. Of course, the opposite is true as well, as the success of scientific endeavors provides the benefits that the investors were looking for in the first place. At first, basic science was perfectly acceptable, possibly even desirable, because of how little a foundation there was to build on. Even a fundamental understanding of how things work lead to wild changes that benefited those willing to foot the bill.

But now, while it may certainly be true that basic science could still lead to revolutionary improvements that investors would want. The further developed capitalist societies no longer want things they can't immediately see the benefits for. After all, they aren't scientists, and are subject to the same inability to properly contextualize information as any of us laymen. As the fields of applied science grew larger and larger, it may only be natural that investors look to that for more development a at faster pace. This is especially true when it's believed that the economy is in a bit of a downturn, as innovations brought by science can often help turn that around.

What we're seeing now may just be the later stages of a relationship lasting over 500 years.
PSN: kazukifafner
(edited 1 week ago)reportquote
Dragonblade01 posted...
Ever since the scientific revolution, science has always been born on the backs of the people and organizations willing to provide the money.

There's your answer: Patronage.
Idiocracy
COVxy 1 week ago#31
Dragonblade01 posted...
I think it's an unfortunate inevitability of the historical link between modern scientific research and funding driven by capitalism. Ever since the scientific revolution, science has always been born on the backs of the people and organizations willing to provide the money. Of course, the opposite is true as well, as the success of scientific endeavors provides the benefits that the investors were looking for in the first place. At first, basic science was perfectly acceptable, possibly even desirable, because of how little a foundation there was to build on. Even a fundamental understanding of how things work lead to wild changes that benefited those willing to foot the bill.

But now, while it may certainly be true that basic science could still lead to revolutionary improvements that investors would want. The further developed capitalist societies no longer want things they can't immediately see the benefits for. After all, they aren't scientists, and are subject to the same inability to properly contextualize information as any of us laymen. As the fields of applied science grew larger and larger, it may only be natural that investors look to that for more development a at faster pace. This is especially true when it's believed that the economy is in a bit of a downturn, as innovations brought by science can often help turn that around.

What we're seeing now may just be the later stages of a relationship lasting over 500 years.


This isn't entirely true, as this is the entire reason we have federal funding of science. Unfortunately, even federal funding has shifted its focus to more applied work.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
COVxy posted...
This isn't entirely true, as this is the entire reason we have federal funding of science. Unfortunately, even federal funding has shifted its focus to more applied work.

This is what happens when a government forgets what "general welfare" means, and instead sticks its hand into individual welfare.
COVxy 1 week ago#33
Questionmarktarius posted...
This is what happens when a government forgets what "general welfare" means, and instead sticks its hand into individual welfare.


If anything, I think traditional republican policy would applaud the shift.

I mean, there's the numerous instances of Ted Cruz and others misrepresenting basic science to ensure that it looks worthless and silly, to justify reductions in spending for basic science.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
Irony 1 week ago#34
Basic science? You mean mixing vinegar with baking soda?
I am Mogar, God of Irony and The Devourer of Topics.
http://i.imgtc.com/tHc3mIo.png http://i.imgtc.com/PYxw8Lm.png
COVxy posted...
I mean, there's the numerous instances of Ted Cruz and others misrepresenting basic science to ensure that it looks worthless and silly, to justify reductions in spending for basic science.

But, they're heavy into jingoism, which big things like physics discoveries and moon landings do quite well.
Clad 1 week ago#36
If there's no money in what you're doing, switch gears and do something else.
COVxy 1 week ago#37
Clad posted...
If there's no money in what you're doing, switch gears and do something else.


Are you suggesting that only things that have direct monetary reward are valuable?
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
Dathrowed1 1 week ago#38
COVxy posted...
http://www.nature.com/news/survey-reveals-basic-research-in-canada-is-falling-by-the-wayside-1.22224

This is specifically in Canada, but this general phenomenon seems to be true in the US from my experience. Funding for basic science is in the crapper, applied science and engineering fairing much better.

We are turning from Ionians to Latins.
sig
E32005 1 week ago#39
SGT_Conti posted...
E32005 posted...
whats considered basic science?

From my understanding, it's the foundation of science like how cells would work and such. Things that provide knowledge but don't have much practical use. Applied science would be taking that knowledge and creating a medical treatment with it.

Ty
Clad 1 week ago#40
COVxy posted...
Clad posted...
If there's no money in what you're doing, switch gears and do something else.


Are you suggesting that only things that have direct monetary reward are valuable?


When you work, you need to get paid. If you don't get paid enough, find something else. If money isn't a problem for you, then I don't understand why you're complaining.
COVxy 1 week ago#41
Clad posted...
When you work, you need to get paid. If you don't get paid enough, find something else. If money isn't a problem for you, then I don't understand why you're complaining.


I mean, the point of grants usually isn't to take a salary (although it can fund salaries of graduate students and post-docs) but to pay for the scientific experiments themselves...
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
Clad 1 week ago#42
COVxy posted...
Clad posted...
When you work, you need to get paid. If you don't get paid enough, find something else. If money isn't a problem for you, then I don't understand why you're complaining.


I mean, the point of grants usually isn't to take a salary (although it can fund salaries of graduate students and post-docs) but to pay for the scientific experiments themselves...


I don't see how this changes what I said.
E32005 posted...
SGT_Conti posted...
E32005 posted...
whats considered basic science?

From my understanding, it's the foundation of science like how cells would work and such. Things that provide knowledge but don't have much practical use. Applied science would be taking that knowledge and creating a medical treatment with it.

Ty


"Applied science" is just an alternative word for engineering.

Science is about testing / experimentation / validating hypotheses.

Engineering is about using the knowledge gained from science to accomplish some task.
COVxy 1 week ago#44
Clad posted...
I don't see how this changes what I said.


Because the fundamental issue isn't that scientists aren't getting paid or even that they aren't getting grants (though that's a different issue, the general level of funding), but that these grants aren't funding basic research.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
(edited 1 week ago)reportquote
Annihilated 1 week ago#45
Funding still needs to be given to research in quantum physics. There is so little we still understand about quantum mechanics, but the knowledge we do have has the potential to transform the entire world as we know it.
COVxy posted...
Clad posted...
I don't see how this changes what I said.


Because the fundamental issue isn't that scientists aren't getting paid or even that they aren't getting grants (though that's a different issue, the general level of funding), but that these grants aren't funding basic research.


Yep. There was the same issue years ago when there was a shortage of GPs / Primary Care because everyone went into specialized fields for money.

I haven't heard if there was ever a resolution for that.
Clad 1 week ago#47
Annihilated posted...
Funding still needs to be given to research in quantum physics. There is so little we still understand about quantum mechanics, but the knowledge we do have has the potential to transform the entire world as we know it.


source?
Darkman124 1 week ago#48
COVxy posted...
I mean, the point of grants usually isn't to take a salary (although it can fund salaries of graduate students and post-docs) but to pay for the scientific experiments themselves...


at least in practice i found that usually each new grant actually paid for the previous research project, and the work it funded didn't begin until another new grant started

but maybe that's why my adviser didnt get tenure
And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
SerperiorThanU posted...
COVxy posted...
Last bump, since I think it's an important issue for everyone to think about.

You know what CE does with actual important issues

Use them as bait?
~A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men ~
TWSSted since~ 3/27/12 https://i.imgur.com/zlaENmx.png
COVxy 1 week ago#50
Darkman124 posted...
at least in practice i found that usually each new grant actually paid for the previous research project, and the work it funded didn't begin until another new grant started

but maybe that's why my adviser didnt get tenure


Well, the way that big labs get a leg up on grant applications is that they usually appropriate funds from other grants to run the project up until very close to completion, and then have extensive "preliminary" data, such that the granting agency knows that there's pretty much no risk involved in funding the project. This is one of the contributors to why funding stagnates within well funded labs. Sounds similar, though a bit backwards.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
(edited 1 week ago)reportquote
  1. Boards
  2. Current Events 
  3. Funding leads the rate of scientists doing basic science to drop to 1%
    1. Boards
    2. Current Events
    3. Funding leads the rate of scientists doing basic science to drop to 1%
    Darkman124 1 week ago#51
    mm, so we were just playing the game

    my lab was 3 people competing with Dr. Joe Katz's "Chinese army"
    And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
    Clad 1 week ago#52
    TC, why should your lab get more funding? What value are you contributing to mankind's future?
    COVxy 1 week ago#53
    Clad posted...
    TC, why should your lab get more funding? What value are you contributing to mankind's future?


    I mean, I don't really care about my lab having a lot of funding right now. My current projects are utilizing primarily freely available data, with a couple of collaborations paying for the rest. I think the bigger thing to question is why you can only imagine motivations to be self serving.
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    Clad 1 week ago#54
    COVxy posted...
    Clad posted...
    TC, why should your lab get more funding? What value are you contributing to mankind's future?


    I mean, I don't really care about my lab having a lot of funding right now. My current projects are utilizing primarily freely available data, with a couple of collaborations paying for the rest. I think the bigger thing to question is why you can only imagine motivations to be self serving.


    Why should ventures which provide no value to mankind be funded with taxpayer dollars?
    Clad posted...
    TC, why should your lab get more funding? What value are you contributing to mankind's future?


    people who are educated and can research more advanced things later.

    You know this reminds me of a really old movie called Curly Sue, where a guy drags this little girl around and the two of them are con artists, and she's impressing people by spelling out big words like "asphyxiate" and eventually one of the other main characters says "Can you spell cat?" and she goes "... I don't know how."
    Darkman124 1 week ago#56
    Clad posted...

    Why should ventures which provide no value to mankind be funded with taxpayer dollars?


    they shouldn't. followup:

    should all ventures which provide value to mankind be funded with taxpayer dollars?

    second followup:

    if your answer is anything other than an unequivocal yes, where is the line?
    And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
    (edited 1 week ago)reportquote
    Clad 1 week ago#57
    ChromaticAngel posted...
    people who are educated and can research more advanced things later.


    Those people should pay for their own education and training. If a lab isn't investing into anything of value, their demand for tax dollars seems out of place.
    Clad posted...
    COVxy posted...
    Clad posted...
    TC, why should your lab get more funding? What value are you contributing to mankind's future?


    I mean, I don't really care about my lab having a lot of funding right now. My current projects are utilizing primarily freely available data, with a couple of collaborations paying for the rest. I think the bigger thing to question is why you can only imagine motivations to be self serving.


    Why should ventures which provide no value to mankind be funded with taxpayer dollars?

    Your argument so far has seemed more like "there is no value to mankind unless you get funding" than what you're asking here.
    Support local music.
    But not if it sucks.
    Clad 1 week ago#59
    Darkman124 posted...
    Clad posted...

    Why should ventures which provide no value to mankind be funded with taxpayer dollars?


    they shouldn't. followup:

    should all ventures which provide value to mankind be funded with taxpayer dollars?

    second followup:

    if your answer is anything other than an unequivocal yes, where is the line?


    Depends on what the role of government is and whether or not the venture won't succeed on its own despite it having value. IE the Tesla bail out in 2008.
    Clad 1 week ago#60
    shockthemonkey posted...
    Clad posted...
    COVxy posted...
    Clad posted...
    TC, why should your lab get more funding? What value are you contributing to mankind's future?


    I mean, I don't really care about my lab having a lot of funding right now. My current projects are utilizing primarily freely available data, with a couple of collaborations paying for the rest. I think the bigger thing to question is why you can only imagine motivations to be self serving.


    Why should ventures which provide no value to mankind be funded with taxpayer dollars?

    Your argument so far has seemed more like "there is no value to mankind unless you get funding" than what you're asking here.


    uh try reading the posts again fam
    Darkman124 1 week ago#61
    Clad posted...
    Depends on what the role of government is and whether or not the venture won't succeed on its own despite it having value. IE the Tesla bail out in 2008.


    1) i am asking you to answer the questions for our present government. answer the questions.

    2) discussion of applied sciences is off-topic. tesla does not do basic science.

    3) what tesla bailout? do you mean the $350m loan that tesla later paid back?
    And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
    (edited 1 week ago)reportquote
    Clad 1 week ago#62
    Darkman124 posted...
    Clad posted...
    Depends on what the role of government is and whether or not the venture won't succeed on its own despite it having value. IE the Tesla bail out in 2008.


    1) i am asking you to answer the questions for our present government. answer the questions.

    2) discussion of applied sciences is off-topic. tesla does not do basic science.

    3) what tesla bailout? do you mean the $350m loan that tesla later paid back?


    one thing at a time. first tc has to justify why his lab deserves funding if it isn't contributing anything of value to mankind.

    obviously we shouldnt be spending tax dollars for no reason, fam.
    Darkman124 1 week ago#63
    Clad posted...


    one thing at a time. first tc has to justify why his lab deserves funding if it isn't contributing anything of value to mankind.

    obviously we shouldnt be spending tax dollars for no reason, fam.


    no no no

    this isnt about tc 

    i'm asking you

    answer the questions
    And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
    Turtlebread 1 week ago#64
    isn't knowledge valuable idk lol tbh
    COVxy 1 week ago#65
    Clad posted...
    Why should ventures which provide no value to mankind be funded with taxpayer dollars?


    My entire viewpoint is that despite no monetary payout, basic science has intrinsic value.
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    COVxy 1 week ago#66
    Just for background Darkman, last time we discussed something around these lines, Proudclad refused to accept that Tesla doesn't do basic science, and claimed that I was obfuscating the issue by making any such distinction between basic and applied sciences.
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    (edited 1 week ago)reportquote
    Clad 1 week ago#67
    COVxy posted...
    Clad posted...
    Why should ventures which provide no value to mankind be funded with taxpayer dollars?


    My entire viewpoint is that despite no monetary payout, basic science has intrinsic value.


    I didn't say that value is only in monetary payout. I asked what value you're providing. What knowledge or potential applications can come out of what you're doing? That's what's most important here, because investing into anything requires that there be value. It doesn't require immediate value or just monetary value, but there are multiple ways to measure value.

    Is it going to save money? Cure diseases? Or are you expecting to get paid to tinker and play in a lab while taxpayers do real work? Because no doubt there are useless ventures that subsist on the tax dollars without any hope of actually providing any value, ever.
    Clad 1 week ago#68
    Darkman124 posted...
    Clad posted...


    one thing at a time. first tc has to justify why his lab deserves funding if it isn't contributing anything of value to mankind.

    obviously we shouldnt be spending tax dollars for no reason, fam.


    no no no

    this isnt about tc 

    i'm asking you

    answer the questions


    Do you feel like you're one of the cops in those movies? Where the cop or lawyer demands his way and slams his hand on the table and says "ANSWER THE QUESTIONS DAMMIT" and then stares profusely into the other person's eyes?
    COVxy 1 week ago#69
    Clad posted...
    I didn't say that value is only in monetary payout. I asked what value you're providing. What knowledge or potential applications can come out of what you're doing? That's what's most important here, because investing into anything requires that there be value. It doesn't require immediate value or just monetary value, but there are multiple ways to measure value.

    Is it going to save money? Cure diseases? Or are you expecting to get paid to tinker and play in a lab while taxpayers do real work? Because no doubt there are useless ventures that subsist on the tax dollars without any hope of actually providing any value, ever.


    Do you agree that understanding the organization and function of the brain, and how that relates to cognition, is a valuable goal?

    Right now, my work focuses on understanding organizational features of the brain the constrain the possible computations certain brain regions can perform.

    And again, this is all beside the point. I think it's a tragedy that basic science isn't being funded not because I do basic science, but because I value basic science and knowledge.
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    (edited 1 week ago)reportquote
    Clad posted...
    ChromaticAngel posted...
    people who are educated and can research more advanced things later.


    Those people should pay for their own education and training. If a lab isn't investing into anything of value, their demand for tax dollars seems out of place.


    How do you propose uneducated people pay for this? In university, they'll be lucky to have lab access for 2 hours a day, 3 days a week. If someone wants to study in a lab full time, they can't as science labs are insanely expensive, even basic ones.

    Effectively what you're saying at this point is that academia should only be open to the rich.
    Clad posted...
    Darkman124 posted...
    Clad posted...


    one thing at a time. first tc has to justify why his lab deserves funding if it isn't contributing anything of value to mankind.

    obviously we shouldnt be spending tax dollars for no reason, fam.


    no no no

    this isnt about tc 

    i'm asking you

    answer the questions


    Do you feel like you're one of the cops in those movies? Where the cop or lawyer demands his way and slams his hand on the table and says "ANSWER THE QUESTIONS DAMMIT" and then stares profusely into the other person's eyes?

    This is a weird reaction to being asked for your views.
    Support local music.
    But not if it sucks.
    Darkman124 1 week ago#72
    Clad posted...

    Do you feel like you're one of the cops in those movies? Where the cop or lawyer demands his way and slams his hand on the table and says "ANSWER THE QUESTIONS DAMMIT" and then stares profusely into the other person's eyes?


    idk but you are acting guilty as f*** right now

    answer the questions
    And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
    (edited 1 week ago)reportquote
    Clad 1 week ago#73
    Darkman124 posted...
    Clad posted...

    Do you feel like you're one of the cops in those movies? Where the cop or lawyer demands his way and slams his hand on the table and says "ANSWER THE QUESTIONS DAMMIT" and then stares profusely into the other person's eyes?


    idk but you are acting guilty as f*** right now

    answer the questions


    haha relax and have some fun, Mr Bad Cop. bring in Balrog to be the good cop.

    1) All ventures which provide value should be funded, but can they all be funded? No, because resources are limited and we need to decide which ones we prioritize based on how much value they provide, what the costs are, etc. In an ideal world we'd set aside funding for everything of value. But in our realistic world we can't do that, so we need to rely on corporations and private investors to do heavy lifting where possible and government to do some heavy lifting where needed. I feel like your question was hinting at whether or not government should fund all valuable ventures, and the answer to that is no because it can't and because it would do an awful job if it tried.

    2) I brought up Tesla as an example of when government invested correctly. Not as an example of basic science. If something is immensely valuable, like space exploration or renewable energy, and cannot get a good running start without some government intervention...it's fair for the government to use tax dollars.

    The line between what gets funded and what does not is not black and white. There's no easy line to draw. Gotta ask what the costs are, what the opportunity costs are, what the people want, and what our competitors are doing. What is best for mankind in the long run, etc.
    Clad 1 week ago#74
    COVxy posted...
    Clad posted...
    I didn't say that value is only in monetary payout. I asked what value you're providing. What knowledge or potential applications can come out of what you're doing? That's what's most important here, because investing into anything requires that there be value. It doesn't require immediate value or just monetary value, but there are multiple ways to measure value.

    Is it going to save money? Cure diseases? Or are you expecting to get paid to tinker and play in a lab while taxpayers do real work? Because no doubt there are useless ventures that subsist on the tax dollars without any hope of actually providing any value, ever.


    Do you agree that understanding the organization and function of the brain, and how that relates to cognition, is a valuable goal?

    Right now, my work focuses on understanding organizational features of the brain the constrain the possible computations certain brain regions can perform.

    And again, this is all beside the point. I think it's a tragedy that basic science isn't being funded not because I do basic science, but because I value basic science and knowledge.


    If it's just going to enter the compendium of useless facts and rote memorization we impose on college students, I'm not convinced that every lab is producing something worth funding. Especially not when there are much more immediate and pressing things we can invest in, including applied science that actually does real s*** lmao.
    COVxy 1 week ago#75
    Clad posted...
    If it's just going to enter the compendium of useless facts and rote memorization we impose on college students, I'm not convinced that every lab is producing something worth funding. Especially not when there are much more immediate and pressing things we can invest in, including applied science that actually does real s*** lmao.


    Applied science wouldn't exist without "useless facts" (which is a really incomprehensible way to actually characterize basic science, as fact collecting is very much so what most basic science isn't, as most basic science is theory driven).
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    COVxy posted...
    Clad posted...
    If it's just going to enter the compendium of useless facts and rote memorization we impose on college students, I'm not convinced that every lab is producing something worth funding. Especially not when there are much more immediate and pressing things we can invest in, including applied science that actually does real s*** lmao.


    Applied science wouldn't exist without "useless facts" (which is a really incomprehensible way to actually characterize basic science, as fact collecting is very much so what most basic science isn't, as most basic science is theory driven).


    How much new discovery happens when trying to stretch existing knowledge into applications? I feel like people uncover more knowledge about the universe when they're trying to solve a material problem of some kind, rather than when they're just meandering about a lab without a clear objective or idea in mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the material researchers at SpaceX are uncovering more new knowledge than some PhD student in some college lab somewhere doing basic science.
    COVxy 1 week ago#77
    Transcendentia posted...
    rather than when they're just meandering about a lab without a clear objective or idea in mind


    This does not characterize what basic science is. It's more like "Theory x says this, theory y says this, I've developed an experimental protocol that will gather evidence to either support theory x or theory y. The results suggest that theory x is more likely to be true, given these assumptions".

    Basic science is directed, hyper directed.

    Transcendentia posted...
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the material researchers at SpaceX are uncovering more new knowledge than some PhD student in some college lab somewhere doing basic science.


    I mean, this is demonstrably false. Find the number of basic science publications headed by industrial labs, and those by academic labs. I'm relatively certain the industrial labs value will hover around zero unless you go back to the 60's and 70's when Bell Labs made a blip.
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    Industrial labs aren't going to publish their s***. They're going to keep it as trade secrets and make products/services that give them the competitive edge.
    COVxy 1 week ago#79
    I mean, traditionally, if industry labs are doing basic science they have been happy to publish, to my understanding, e.g. Bell Labs.
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    COVxy 1 week ago#80
    Clad posted...

    I think cutting to the chase, the real question is whether or not you believe there to be any value in basic science? And if so, whether you'd be able to list an example of basic science you think is not valuable, and and example in which you think is.
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    Annihilated 1 week ago#81
    Clad posted...
    Annihilated posted...
    Funding still needs to be given to research in quantum physics. There is so little we still understand about quantum mechanics, but the knowledge we do have has the potential to transform the entire world as we know it.


    source?


    Source for what exactly? How quantum mechanics works or the possibilities it has? Because it's a pretty huge field that is extremely hard to understand let alone master, and the list of possibilities once you understand it is pretty endless. I can point you to a few videos or documentaries on how quantum physics works, or a few articles related to advances in applied research, but that would only be scratching the surface. I can give you a few examples though.

    First, there's quantum computing. They exist, but they are still in their infancy. While a classical binary computer uses bits, 1's and 0's, to perform operations, a quantum computer uses Q-bits, which includes a total of four states: 1, 0, and a superposition of each one simultaneously. For practical uses, classical computers excel at mathematical computation, repetition, and data retrieval. Quantum computers are more intended for solving multiple solutions for a problem at once, which makes them ideal for determining probability and branching paths on a massive scale. Imagine being able to predict tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis months in advance. But the biggest advancement would have to be in artificial intelligence. The level of sophistication in quantum AI would make our current AI look like a Teddy Ruxpin doll. For all their usefulness, Siri and Alexa don't actually do a whole lot of thinking. They mostly defer to search engine algorithms and results and simply present the data to you. If they had quantum intelligence, they would be able to understand any question you asked them, the context in which it was asked, and things you might not have considered when asking it. If you're a fan of automation, which I know you are, this would take us to Skynet levels.

    But quantum entanglement is where things get really cool. Basically, two particles can become linked to each other across any distance, and you would be able to tell the state of one particle by looking at the other. In the short term, this would give us instantaneous 0 latency communication over any distance and with encryption that was completely uncrackable by the very laws of physics. Because as soon as you directly observe the particles, the entanglement is broken, and the particle must then "decide" which of the two locations it's in. In the long term, we would be able to instantly transport matter, making 3D printers obsolete, and in the very long term, possibly even people.

    And then there's quantum tunneling, which I won't even attempt to explain, except that a particle can simply *be* someplace else if it wants to.
    COVxy posted...
    Clad posted...

    I think cutting to the chase, the real question is whether or not you believe there to be any value in basic science? And if so, whether you'd be able to list an example of basic science you think is not valuable, and and example in which you think is.


    Don't ask him those questions it'll show that he doesn't really know what basic science is.
    This seems overblown. First of all, the 1% comes from a self-reported survey of scientists who say 100% of their research is "fundamental research." The number of scientists reporting 10%-90% as fundamental research is obviously far greater.

    Second, the survey asks scientists to compare their current research program to their research program 10 years ago, as they recall it. It is not a like-to-like comparison of contemperaneous reports, and the observed effect could be entirely due to framing or cognitive bias. The actual budget numbers for basic research funding show that it has remained basically steady.

    That said, I think Canada, the US, et al should drastically increase funding for research, fundamental and applied, public and private.
    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.
    -Hume
    COVxy 1 week ago#84
    GFaceKillah1280 posted...
    This seems overblown. First of all, the 1% comes from a self-reported survey of scientists who say 100% of their research is "fundamental research." The number of scientists reporting 10%-90% as fundamental research is obviously far greater.


    This is true, but colloquially, I know several labs, including my own, which had almost zero applied work, whose current work is almost all applied. Further, the funding stats seem to support this as well.

    GFaceKillah1280 posted...
    Second, the survey asks scientists to compare their current research program to their research program 10 years ago, as they recall it. It is not a like-to-like comparison of contemperaneous reports, and the observed effect could be entirely due to framing or cognitive bias. The actual budget numbers for basic research funding show that it has remained basically steady.


    I very much doubt this is an issue. It's not like asking you to report how much meat you ate 10 years ago. A grant application, a scientific leg of your lab, isn't so easy to forget or misremember.

    GFaceKillah1280 posted...
    That said, I think Canada, the US, et al should drastically increase funding for research, fundamental and applied, public and private.


    Yes, but some legs of research are in more need than others. It's shortsighted to let basic research fall by the wayside.
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    Zanzenburger 1 week ago#85
    Don't know how I've missed this topic for this long.

    The way I see Basic Science, it's that it's there to build off of, but we may not necessarily know what we will build from it. Because it's exploratory. We are travelling uncharted waters where we learn what we know and we learn what we don't know.

    If we stop basic science in favor or applied science, it's not necessarily going to shut us down scientifically, as applied science still studies the unknown for specific purposes. But that purpose limits the scope of the study. So we are only studying what we are looking for, and we may miss out on anything that we could have found outside of that limited box of inquiry.

    Basic science is valuable because we explore the unknown and have the potential to uncover pockets of knowledge that can then be used for specific purposes later. The risk with that is that many times we'll come up empty-handed and the research will be a dud (as is most research). I can see why people don't like it, because if it fails, you get nothing in return, and if it succeeds, you still get nothing in return, just the potential to spark a future study with a more direct benefit.

    But as someone said earlier in the topic, science isn't exactly a new concept in our culture anymore, so the perceived need for basic science isn't as strong as it used to be. Only when we hit a serious stagnation point within applied sciences will there be a resurgence of interest in basic science. Or if we magically achieve world peace and we get bored with ourselves.
    Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.
    Zanzenburger posted...
    But that purpose limits the scope of the study. So we are only studying what we are looking for, and we may miss out on anything that we could have found outside of that limited box of inquiry.

    Teflon was discovered while applied-sciencing for better refrigerants.
    COVxy posted...
    I very much doubt this is an issue. It's not like asking you to report how much meat you ate 10 years ago. A grant application, a scientific leg of your lab, isn't so easy to forget or misremember.

    It's not a simple factual question, though. It's asking them to categorize their research into vague, non-mutually-exclusive categories. To expound on my point about possible bias, basic research grants are probably more attractive to scientists because they give them more freedom to pursue what personally interests them. So scientists are (unconsciously) motivated to make the case for increasing funding for basic research.

    COVxy posted...
    Yes, but some legs of research are in more need than others.

    Well, that probably depends entirely on whom you ask.
    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.
    -Hume
    Ahh when your beautiful abstract mathematics are funded due to pragmatics of your field. Feels amazing man.
    "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."
    COVxy 6 days ago#89
    Zanzenburger posted...
    Because it's exploratory.


    I can't agree with this notion that basic science = exploratory. I mean, a subset of basic science is exploratory, but up until recently it wasn't even very well accepted to be exploratory. My guess is that the majority of basic science is hypothesis driven.
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    Darkman124 6 days ago#90
    COVxy posted...
    I mean, this is demonstrably false. Find the number of basic science publications headed by industrial labs, and those by academic labs. I'm relatively certain the industrial labs value will hover around zero unless you go back to the 60's and 70's when Bell Labs made a blip.


    fwiw Caltech-JPL, JHU-APL, MIT-Lincoln, and other UARCs still do this
    And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
    COVxy 6 days ago#91
    Darkman124 posted...
    COVxy posted...
    I mean, this is demonstrably false. Find the number of basic science publications headed by industrial labs, and those by academic labs. I'm relatively certain the industrial labs value will hover around zero unless you go back to the 60's and 70's when Bell Labs made a blip.


    fwiw Caltech-JPL, JHU-APL, MIT-Lincoln, and other UARCs still do this


    Yeah, but I mean the overall point was that industry lead basic research has always paled in relation to academia lead basic research, and that rate has even decreased over the years.
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    A lot of posts went by damn
    Grass Hurricane Master
    Gorbachev 4 days ago#93
    Since its only BASIC science why should we care. Its 2017 ADVANCED science is the way to go.
    COVxy 4 days ago#94
    Lol, unsure if serious.
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    COVxy 3 days ago#95
    If only i could know what type of basic science the cladman finds valuable...
    =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
    This topic will purge before he gives you honest answers.
    Support local music.
    But not if it sucks.
    M3sterybumper 12 hours ago#97
    shockthemonkey posted...
    This topic will purge before he gives you honest answers.
    And he was never seen again.
    COVxy posted...
    If only i could know what type of basic science the cladman finds valuable...

    @Clad
    Support local music.
    But not if it sucks.
    Clad 3 hours ago#99
    take a gander:

    http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/most-scientific-results-are-wrong-or-use
    "private property is theft, mmkay" - averagejoel
    ...like are you unable to just answer the question or something?
    Support local music.
    But not if it sucks.
    1. Boards
    2. Current Events
    3. Funding leads the rate of scientists doing basic science to drop to 1%
      1. Boards
      2. Current Events
      3. Funding leads the rate of scientists doing basic science to drop to 1%
      COVxy 3 hours ago#101
      Apparently.

      Seems like he just googled "bad science" and spat out the first blog post he could find relevant.

      The article seems overly alarmist in the way it describes things like replication issues and especially so with the fMRI methodology paper.
      =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
      Clad 3 hours ago#102
      COVxy, you're pretty fragile. You don't have to worry about whether or not some CEman thinks your lab isn't providing any value.
      "private property is theft, mmkay" - averagejoel
      COVxy 3 hours ago#103
      Lmao. We all know what you've been highly unsuccessfully baiting. Which, as anyone who can read would know, I haven't bitten on. Only redirected to try to get you to honestly assess your opinions.

      Me thinks you're still stinging a little from that topic where a poster had baited you into taking selfies with your paycheck or whatever, and would feel better if other posters were as insecure as you.
      =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
      Clad posted...
      COVxy, you're pretty fragile. You don't have to worry about whether or not some CEman thinks your lab isn't providing any value.

      I'm pretty curious why you can't answer the question
      Support local music.
      But not if it sucks.
      Clad 2 hours ago#105
      you guys seem awfully mad

      you work in the same lab or something?
      "private property is theft, mmkay" - averagejoel
      Balrog0 2 hours ago#106
      COVxy posted...
      Me thinks you're still stinging a little from that topic where a poster had baited you into taking selfies with your paycheck or whatever, and would feel better if other posters were as insecure as you.


      wat
      He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
      Clad 2 hours ago#107
      Balrog0 posted...
      COVxy posted...
      Me thinks you're still stinging a little from that topic where a poster had baited you into taking selfies with your paycheck or whatever, and would feel better if other posters were as insecure as you.


      wat


      i posted a screen cap of my income tax because people were claiming i don't actually pay as much as i say
      "private property is theft, mmkay" - averagejoel
      COVxy 2 hours ago#108
      And some selfies with the window looking down at the Chicago skyline to show how cool you really are, what a hotshot you are up there in that tall building.

      Let's not tell half truths now Clad.
      =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
      Clad posted...
      you guys seem awfully mad

      you work in the same lab or something?

      This is a weird strategy to avoid answering a question where all you have to do is give your opinion
      Support local music.
      But not if it sucks.
      He probably doesn't have one. He always tries to troll with his layperson's knowledge on some subject, so his trolling just comes off as weird and incoherent
      Clad 20 minutes ago#111
      COVxy posted...
      And some selfies with the window looking down at the Chicago skyline to show how cool you really are, what a hotshot you are up there in that tall building.


      i posted a selfie in front of a window where i work to prove i actually work in chicago. some people like to post proof, bruh. get off my back, don't be bitter.
      "private property is theft, mmkay" - averagejoel
      Clad 19 minutes ago#112
      shockthemonkey posted...
      Clad posted...
      you guys seem awfully mad

      you work in the same lab or something?

      This is a weird strategy to avoid answering a question where all you have to do is give your opinion


      i already gave it more than once throughout the topic
      "private property is theft, mmkay" - averagejoel
      --kresnik-- 17 minutes ago#113
      Applied science and engineering are the only fields that need funding. I don't want them wasting time and money on theoretical crap.
      Trump 2020
      --kresnik-- posted...
      Applied science and engineering are the only fields that need funding.

      No they don't, because they're usually profitable anyway.

      Well, I suppose a bridge engineer does get public funding...
      (edited 7 minutes ago)reportquote
      1. Boards
      2. Current Events 
      3. Funding leads the rate of scientists doing basic science to drop to 1%