Poll: Do you support federal funding of science?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Do you support federal funding of science?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
While most people recall President Eisenhower's warnings about the military industrial complex few recall his warnings about Federally funded science.

"“…the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Just as we should beware of the military industrial complex the same warnings should be heeded about Government cotrolled and run science.
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,135
1,594
126
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.

<---- Padded forum and free tinfoil hats.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Anarchist420

Nice to know that you're in Jenny's looney tune parade.

Government funding of science has given us bounty beyond measure.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,277
125
106
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

What the hell? I suggest you take a history lesson in the science. The fact that SOME advancements were discovered by accident doesn't mean that ALL advancements were discovered by accident. Even more rare is a advancement in one field coming from a completely different field of research.

As for the chemistry comment... Yeah, chemistry was held back for generations because of the work of alchemists. Yes, they developed some of the methods used today, but to say that "all of chemistry was founded on work of people trying to transmute lead into gold" Shows the level of ignorance you truly have.

For every cross disciplinary discovery, I could list 1000 discoveries that came from a concentrated effort in one discipline. For example, pretty much ALL of modern medicine. Our drugs came from chemists looking specifically for those drugs. Our machines came from engineers specifically trying to build those machines. Not from some guy researching why men like women with bigger breasts.

Not all research is worthwhile, and spending money in the BS projects is a waste. Studies of common sense human interactions is one category of BS projects that I would slash.
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,135
1,594
126
Not all research is worthwhile, and spending money in the BS projects is a waste. Studies of common sense human interactions is one category of BS projects that I would slash.

Research provides the tools for other scientists to use in pursuit of their 'worthwhile' projects. Unfortunately, most of the time you can't determine if the research matches your criteria for being 'worthwhile' until after the fact. Discarding research into human society as bull shit is foolish at best and ruiness at worst. Perhaps we wouldn't have the trade deficit with Japan or our own current financial crisis would be mitigated if we'd understood "human interactions" a little better.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
Pure research is almost inherently unprofitable from a monetary standpoint. No pure research yields a marketable product, despite the great costs. The research provides a baseline knowledge so that others can actually develop a product.

Pfizer does not develop drugs from scratch.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
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.

Can you show me a business plan that makes something like a particle accelerator a profitable investment for private investors? The moon shot? The basis of the internet, cellular networks, satellites, etc without the government first doing the expensive pure science research?

Do you really understand what we would not have today if the .gov had your view for the last century or so? Hell, private industry is just barely getting into the space business and 98% of that is currently putting "stuff" in space but do you really think those private companies would be putting satellites in space right now had NASA not existed?

What about scientific research for .mil R&D? Should we just say "fuck it, we are gonna let everyone else catch up and surpass us because we don't want to fund scientific research"?

The fact is that some science is just to big, expensive and not quickly profitable for the private sector and that includes universities when you take away their .gov grants. Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in a balanced budget but saying that the government shouldn't invest in pure science is flat out foolish. I personally like technological advancement and evidently you do too seeing that we are having this discussion on that fancy internet thing.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
You can also see why Government funding is such a concern in the Global Warming field. Here's 2 of the Climategate e-mails. One concerning funding of CRU by the U.S. DOE

From: Phil Jones
To: &#8220;Neville Nicholls&#8221;
Subject: RE: Misc
Date: Wed Jul 6 15:07:45 2005

Neville,
Mike&#8217;s response could do with a little work, but as you say he&#8217;s got the tone
almost dead on. I hope I don&#8217;t get a call from congress ! I&#8217;m hoping that no-one
there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25
years.
I&#8217;ll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil

and this one by Phil Jones head of the CRU telling other scientists to illegally delete e-mails after they were a subject of a FOI request mentioned above.

From: Phil Jones To: &#8220;Michael E. Mann&#8221;
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He&#8217;s not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don&#8217;t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil:

Abuse of Government funding is pretty rife in some areas of science, it's something that needs to be effectively monitored.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,865
10
0
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.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
See, the whole concept that the federal government *must* be the driving force behind science, really it builds on the idea that we as individuals do not have the capacity or the want to take care of ourselves, to take care of one another. And I think that is absolutely false.

I don't mind if the government supported science, but I have little faith it is capable of leaving partisan politics out of it. "Let's fund the sciences which best furthers our partisan ideology."
 

Gigantopithecus

Diamond Member
Dec 14, 2004
7,665
0
71
I don't mind if the government supported science, but I have little faith it is capable of leaving partisan politics out of it. "Let's fund the sciences which best furthers our partisan ideology."

Could you please provide examples of how specific sciences support specific ideologies?
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,277
125
106
Research provides the tools for other scientists to use in pursuit of their 'worthwhile' projects. Unfortunately, most of the time you can't determine if the research matches your criteria for being 'worthwhile' until after the fact. Discarding research into human society as bull shit is foolish at best and ruiness at worst. Perhaps we wouldn't have the trade deficit with Japan or our own current financial crisis would be mitigated if we'd understood "human interactions" a little better.

I would like to study the effects of a large monetary deposits on researchers. I don't know what sort of advancement it could lead to, but I'm sure I'll find it very valuable...

So, should I get funding?
 

k3n

Senior member
Jan 15, 2001
328
1
71
The government discovered Nuclear power plant, satelites (sputnik), internets (sic), and patent free vaccines and other things that actually benefit humanity... hells yeah..

Free marketeers can take a hike! and fuck these universities and their overpriced tuitions.
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,135
1,594
126
I would like to study the effects of a large monetary deposits on researchers. I don't know what sort of advancement it could lead to, but I'm sure I'll find it very valuable...

So, should I get funding?

The NSF already has that job. :)
In general though, if you fill out the paper work correctly and can show how the results can be accurately measured, you get funding. That's oversimplified but, that's how the NSF works.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
See, the whole concept that the federal government *must* be the driving force behind science, really it builds on the idea that we as individuals do not have the capacity or the want to take care of ourselves, to take care of one another. And I think that is absolutely false.

I don't mind if the government supported science, but I have little faith it is capable of leaving partisan politics out of it. "Let's fund the sciences which best furthers our partisan ideology."

Show us a way for the private sector to profitably spend money on pure research and you will be a very wealthy man.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
I would like to study the effects of a large monetary deposits on researchers. I don't know what sort of advancement it could lead to, but I'm sure I'll find it very valuable...

So, should I get funding?

Would be an interesting study. srsly.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
Could you please provide examples of how specific sciences support specific ideologies?

Evolutionary biology is incredibly offensive to fundamentalist Christians. Climate change research is incredibly offense to Conservatives and BP apologists. Research into the effects of illegal drugs is offensive to the War on Drug types who just want punishment.

Its not that science supports ideology - its that the discoveries made in the sciences are offensive to people with ideology.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
< Sigh! > Every time we get to a subject where intellect and reason could/should prevail, I'm disappointed that the usual wingnut tards show their wingnut tard-ness and opt for dumbatude. For example...

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

Exactly what is your objection to this study? :confused:

Obama admin skewers GOP attack on stimulus cocaine monkeys

Are your stimulus dollars really being wasted on getting monkeys high on crack and cocaine?

In recent days, select Republicans and conservatives have taken to bashing the Obama administration over this claim. Sharron Angle has blasted Dems for giving money to "coked-up stimulus monkeys," and many others on the right have taken a similar tack.

Turns out, however, that this money is actually being spent on research into how to treat drug addiction in humans. And the Obama administration is going on record forcefully defending the project, sending over a statement pointing out that drug addiction is a rather serious problem and wondering whether GOP critics would prefer that we experiment on humans instead.

In case you missed it, senators John McCain and Tom Coburn got a lot of attention the other day when they issued a report alleging all kinds of ludicrous stimulus waste.

One bullet point in the report that got a ton of attention: "Monkeys Getting High for Science."

The McCain/Coburn report claimed this was a reference to a Federal grant of $71,623 to the Winston-Salem college to "study how monkeys react under cocaine."

And that's true. But the report didn't tell you why the monkeys' reaction to cocaine is being studied: To develop our understanding of how the brain chemistry of addiction works, in order to better combat drug addiction.

Administration officials say this grant was part of the roughly $8 billion in stimulus grants that the National Institutes of Health has doled out for scientific research, with the goal of creating jobs while advancing scientific knowledge. This particular grant is based on recent studies showing that drug users may get addicted because of a chemical in the brain called glutamate.

This research on cocaine monkeys is meant to determine how the parts of the brain that use glutamate change during and after exposure to cocaine. The idea is that knowing this will help develop more effective treatments for cocaine addiction -- in people, not in monkeys.
.
. (continues)

Are you opposed to studying the effects of cocaine to learn more about relieving and preventing cocaine addiction, or are you opposed to the jobs this program has supported in trying to relieve human suffering? :rolleyes:

Would you rather they conducted these experiments on human beings, or are you jealous because you're not one of the monkeys getting free blow? :eek:

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.

< sarcasm >

Nah, we'd rather have the return of deadly epidemics of diseases from the past like polio, the flu epidemic of 1918 - 1919 and worse and no hope for treatments or a cure for AIDS, ebola and any as yet unknown deadly disease that comes after that.

< /sarcasm >

That's not "conservative;" it's rampant stupidity. Bad monkey! No cocaine for you. You're already broken, and there is no cure. :hmm:
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Evolutionary biology is incredibly offensive to fundamentalist Christians. Climate change research is incredibly offense to Conservatives and BP apologists. Research into the effects of illegal drugs is offensive to the War on Drug types who just want punishment.

Its not that science supports ideology - its that the discoveries made in the sciences are offensive to people with ideology.

Notice that BP is a prominent fund source for Hadley/CRU and climate research.

“This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):”

British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

"BP apologists" ? They expect to make BILLIONS on Cap'n Trade
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
"Real" science? Maybe.
Spending $71,000 to study the effects of cocaine on monkeys? No.
Conclusion of the study - monkeys really seem to like cocaine :awe:

One of the earlier posts was right about only the government funds lots of topics. For example, why would ANY drug company do research to cure a disease? Obviously they wouldn't. The drug companies I worked for were in the business of selling antiviral drugs that treated HIV but didn't actually cure anything. I'm really glad those drugs exist, but at the same time I think it would be nice for some gubment money to look for a cure.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,381
7,444
136
If you're fiscally conservative and support these agencies, isn't that inconsistent?

I support the funding of a great many things, science included. My entire point of contention is where our participation is forced.

States should have the right to say no to whatever is established and support their own programs. This is consistent with my utmost belief in plurality and liberty.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Could you please provide examples of how specific sciences support specific ideologies?

Here's a very good article by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. that deals with just that issue. Here it is, supporting links are in the article.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...he-board-on-atmospheric-sciences-and-climate/

"The Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National Academy of Sciences has become a clear lobbying advocate for specific policy actions. Of equal (or perhaps even greater concern) is the lack of scientific balance in their reports which they are distributing to policymakers and others."

"The Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National Academy of Sciences has failed so far to broaden out its perspective and assessments from a greenhouse gas-centric focus. As a result, policymakers and the public are being misled in terms of the current understanding of the climate system as well as the risks we face to critical social and environmental resources in the coming decades."
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,477
6,900
136
Stem cell research: Where the clash of ideologies from the scientific, religious, political and corporate interests make for such convoluted policy-making on the Hill.

And yes, I do support our gov't funding other such worthy research projects.

And yes, I do believe Bush was guided by his political priorities rather than his purported moral/religious feelings (not that he had any of it to begin with) when he denied federally funding such a worthy cause.
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
Conclusion of the study - monkeys really seem to like cocaine :awe:

One of the earlier posts was right about only the government funds lots of topics. For example, why would ANY drug company do research to cure a disease? Obviously they wouldn't. The drug companies I worked for were in the business of selling antiviral drugs that treated HIV but didn't actually cure anything. I'm really glad those drugs exist, but at the same time I think it would be nice for some gubment money to look for a cure.

HAY GUIZ LOOK ANOTHER STUPID FUCKING POST

moron
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Could you please provide examples of how specific sciences support specific ideologies?

No, not about honest science. But?
Tobacco company funded cancer studies? Auto company seat belt research? Coal mining employee safety studies? Examples of how science can be bought and perverted.