Poll: Do you support federal funding of science?

[Infohawk]

Do you think the NSF and NIH should exist? Why?

I do. Science and technology is a national security issue.

If you're fiscally conservative and support these agencies, isn't that inconsistent?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

No one would fund pure research except the government.

 

[Infohawk]

No one would fund pure research except the government.

Devil's advocate: Wouldn't universities still do it in smaller amounts if they were forced to? For example I believe most social science research is funded through the universities themselves.

 

[cubby1223]

No one would fund pure research except the government.

Everyone hates science except the government? What are you trying to say here? No one wants to fund science, therefore we must rely on some people to decide to fund science?

 

[Patranus]

"Real" science? Maybe.
Spending $71,000 to study the effects of cocaine on monkeys? No.

 

[cubby1223]

It must have been horrible living in the days before federally funded science - everyone hated progress, everyone wanted to remain living in caves hunting bears with nothing but their two hands.

It was a blessing upon mankind when the federal government finally stepped in and said "Let There be Science!" and there was science.

 

[Patranus]

It must have been horrible living in the days before federally funded science - everyone hated progress, everyone wanted to remain living in caves hunting bears with nothing but their two hands.

It was a blessing upon mankind when the federal government finally stepped in and said "Let There be Science!" and there was science.

Funding for things like the telephone, the automobile, and the air plane?

Ya, people sure lived in caves and did nothing without government.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I hypothesize that this thread will be filled with fail.

 

[Cogman]

So long as it is research that can be worth something, I'm all for it. Not retarded research projects to see things like "If woman are more attracted to men with money."

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Devil's advocate: Wouldn't universities still do it in smaller amounts if they were forced to? For example I believe most social science research is funded through the universities themselves.

Where do you think the Universities get their research money?

Everyone hates science except the government? What are you trying to say here? No one wants to fund science, therefore we must rely on some people to decide to fund science?

Poor troll is poor troll. I said "pure research."

 

[Infohawk]

Where do you think the Universities get their research money?

Devil's advocate: private funding and tuition... obviously it would be a drop compared to federal funding.

 

[Craig234]

No one would fund pure research except the government.

I'd rephrase this to say, no science serving 'the public good' but not profitable to the funder would get funded without the government sponsoring what's good for society.

So we'd have *tons* of funding for the profitable things, but practically none for other things.

This is partly why the Moon project - which got 5% of the federal budget at the height - was such an effective combination of furthering science with the political backing.

Even if it took the Cold War to get people to really want to 'beat the USSR'.

Things that advance the human race that aren't short term profitable generally happen from the government doing them on behalf of the people with their money.

Of course, many Americans haven't seen so much of that. Go back to Kennedy, and you find a lot of the agenda talking about these sorts of priorities for government.

The great achievement of the moon landing wasn't just the science - it was the political too of people supporting such a common societal goal at great expense.

When that public spirit existed with the government doing such things, note the cultural result as people thought there would be great progress fast - all kinds of movies and shows assuming within a few years that there would be great advancement, with man more places, with great science, and a lack of poverty. Note how today, generally the 'post-disaster' scenerario with the few stragglers is much more popular, and there's not nearly the progress.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Devil's advocate: endowments and tuition...

Endowments without strings attached are almost non existent. Tuition doesn't even cover operating expenses these days.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Yes, scientific advancements are vital for national security. I favor a balanced budget, but I also would hand tax dollars over to military R&D, NASA, certain pure scientific endeavors, etc. instead of corporate and social welfare.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Irony that people are slagging federally funded science using their internet connection.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Irony that people are slagging federally funded science using their internet connection.

People bash defense spending all the time using devices / services originally developed to better slaughter / stave-off The Reds.

 

[XZeroII]

To an extent, yes. NASA has brought about tons of new technology that has greatly benefit society. It's not just about sending bombs into orbit, we actually get something out of it.

But science for the sake of science is nuts. Let the universities do that.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

To an extent, yes. NASA has brought about tons of new technology that has greatly benefit society. It's not just about sending bombs into orbit, we actually get something out of it.

But science for the sake of science is nuts. Let the universities do that.

Sigh, one more time, where do you think universities get the money for research?

 

[Brainonska511]

To an extent, yes. NASA has brought about tons of new technology that has greatly benefit society. It's not just about sending bombs into orbit, we actually get something out of it.

But science for the sake of science is nuts. Let the universities do that.

What's wrong with science for the sake of science? Where do you think universities get money for research?

Do you think things like the TV just popped out of nowhere? No. It was pure science that discovered the electron and slowly found random uses and interactions of the electron that eventually were applied to the creation of television.

 

[XZeroII]

Sigh, one more time, where do you think universities get the money for research?

My point is that universities should be responsible for footing the bill, not the gov't. There are plenty of students out there that would gladly work for free (or a small amount) to get some experience before moving into a full time job.

 

[Sclamoz]

No one would fund pure research except the government.

There are private institutes that do research without government funding like the Howard Hughes medical institute for instance.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

My point is that universities should be responsible for footing the bill, not the gov't. There are plenty of students out there that would gladly work for free (or a small amount) to get some experience before moving into a full time job.

Big universities can't exist without the government. They would be unable to do large research projects, hire the best people or, provide 'Johnny' an education. ALL grad students currently do "work for free (or a small amount)." How many research jobs do you think exist that can be done by untrained uninterested students?

 

[Tristicus]

Voted no because I can now claim I am a minority.

 

[Lemon law]

So long as it is research that can be worth something, I'm all for it. Not retarded research projects to see things like "If woman are more attracted to men with money."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its very much why cogman has quite a few cogs loose in his brain. To a large extent, most of the scientific discoveries in history are made by people looking for something else.
To a large extent all of chemistry was founded on work of people trying to transmute lead into gold. The proof of continental drift was found by the US navy as it tried to map the sea floor for military purposes, and the list is endless. And the other thing to note is that science is collaborative and multi disciplinary, part of the evidence for the super volcano at Tobo 70.000 years ago came from human geneticists noting all modern human diversity could be traced back to that date.

Its just common sense, the more rocks you turn over, the more we find out what is buried beneath each rock.

 

[Anarchist420]

Fuck no the government shouldn't be funding science. I'm a fiscal conservative, plus the government lies and has the power to enforce their lies on people. The reason so many people believe that vaccines don't cause Autism is because Big Pharma is linked with the FDA.