- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Open Source Science: A Revolution From Within
|
|
Comments (34)
14 earlier comments in the full thread.
Bob,
You have a very peculiar view of how science funding works.
In most areas of science, most funding for basic research comes from the government. In the physical sciences in the US (where I work) the major funders are: 1) National Science Foundation (budget: 8 billion dollars a year) 2) Department of Energy 3) NASA 4) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 5) Department of Defense (DARPA)
The private sector support in my area of basic research is very limited indeed. There is a lot of private funding for applied research where a direct profit can be obtained. For example: The pharmaceutical industry; the oil exploration industry; the chemical industry. Many researchers work as Professors in private universities but that support (salary) is matched with teaching duties and ability to add to the prestige of the University.
Funding from NSF (my main source) is not a matter of convincing a bureaucrat or two you have a good idea:
First you spend weeks writing a 30 page proposal. This then goes out to review to about 10 other qualified scientists. Unless you can get 2 or three of them to say it is excellent the proposal is dead. Then the proposal goes to a panel of about 20 senior scientists who rate proposals on the basis of both the reviews and their comparitive merit relative to maybe 100 others. A ranking is then prepared and a funding manager from NSF then draws a line in the ranking based on available money. Managers have therefore only minimal input into what gets funding. Their only real influence is in borderline cases.
In addition to the above, scientists are only partially influenced by funding agencies. Mostly they are motivated by trying to do excellent science. This has to be balanced by funding opportunities.
You have a very peculiar view of how science funding works.
In most areas of science, most funding for basic research comes from the government. In the physical sciences in the US (where I work) the major funders are: 1) National Science Foundation (budget: 8 billion dollars a year) 2) Department of Energy 3) NASA 4) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 5) Department of Defense (DARPA)
The private sector support in my area of basic research is very limited indeed. There is a lot of private funding for applied research where a direct profit can be obtained. For example: The pharmaceutical industry; the oil exploration industry; the chemical industry. Many researchers work as Professors in private universities but that support (salary) is matched with teaching duties and ability to add to the prestige of the University.
Funding from NSF (my main source) is not a matter of convincing a bureaucrat or two you have a good idea:
First you spend weeks writing a 30 page proposal. This then goes out to review to about 10 other qualified scientists. Unless you can get 2 or three of them to say it is excellent the proposal is dead. Then the proposal goes to a panel of about 20 senior scientists who rate proposals on the basis of both the reviews and their comparitive merit relative to maybe 100 others. A ranking is then prepared and a funding manager from NSF then draws a line in the ranking based on available money. Managers have therefore only minimal input into what gets funding. Their only real influence is in borderline cases.
In addition to the above, scientists are only partially influenced by funding agencies. Mostly they are motivated by trying to do excellent science. This has to be balanced by funding opportunities.
> In most areas of science, most funding for basic research comes from the government.
Either our definitions of "basic" are different, or we have different sources.
The vast majority of research is done privately, by firms interested in the outcome of that science. Intel and the physical properties of semiconductors, IBM and magnetic fields, etc.
The government funded science gets a lion's share of the attention, due to the fact that it's public. And politically motivated.
Either our definitions of "basic" are different, or we have different sources.
The vast majority of research is done privately, by firms interested in the outcome of that science. Intel and the physical properties of semiconductors, IBM and magnetic fields, etc.
The government funded science gets a lion's share of the attention, due to the fact that it's public. And politically motivated.
Basic research by my definition includes areas where fundamental conceptual discoveries are being made. An example would be the Large Hadron Collider or a Mars mission.
Applied research is where there is a product in mind within a few years. Examples include new drugs, or better techniques for figuring out where an oil deposit is.
It sounds like your definition of basic research is my definition of applied research.
Applied research is where there is a product in mind within a few years. Examples include new drugs, or better techniques for figuring out where an oil deposit is.
It sounds like your definition of basic research is my definition of applied research.
> It sounds like your definition of basic research is my definition of applied research.
That sounds like the rationalization for kicking the computer scientists out of the Prinston Advanced Research Center (or whatever it's called) where Einstein was employed later in his life, because computers became real so it wasn't "advanced" enough any more. Too applicable to actual life.
It sounds like your definition of basic research is my definition of coercively funded. :^)
That sounds like the rationalization for kicking the computer scientists out of the Prinston Advanced Research Center (or whatever it's called) where Einstein was employed later in his life, because computers became real so it wasn't "advanced" enough any more. Too applicable to actual life.
It sounds like your definition of basic research is my definition of coercively funded. :^)
"Coercive" Funding huh?
The Theory of Relativity: coercive waste. Damn that Einstein was a slacker! He should have been working on practical stuff like better detergents for the bathroom. What possible use could relativity have to anyone? Prinston egghead!
Quantum Mechanics: more wastrel dreaming about useless stuff. What's a computer BTW?
All those expensive space missions: yet more coercive waste............................................................
The Theory of Relativity: coercive waste. Damn that Einstein was a slacker! He should have been working on practical stuff like better detergents for the bathroom. What possible use could relativity have to anyone? Prinston egghead!
Quantum Mechanics: more wastrel dreaming about useless stuff. What's a computer BTW?
All those expensive space missions: yet more coercive waste............................................................
> The Theory of Relativity: coercive waste.
He published that in 1912, 25-some-odd years before he came to the US at all.
> All those expensive space missions: yet more coercive waste.
Yep.
If they were actually constructive, they would be done privately. Oh, wait, they _can't_ be done privately because NASA not only has a legal monopoly on space travel in the US, and the various government space agencies ditto in their own territorial monopolies, but they're also tax subsidized to undercut any price that private launch facilities might be able to create.
A business model based on coercive funding doesn't require lots of attention to determine whether it's worthy or not. The coercive funding means it doesn't have to actually be desired or needed or productive or anything at all.
Maybe people would have gotten into space 20 years later without government coercively subsidizing their own wasteful, inefficient system. Maybe 30 years, maybe Dick Rutan would have been the very first. It doesn't matter, because when it is done by interested people working together voluntarily then it will be more efficient, more productive, or it won't get investors. Look at what Rutan built to see just how wasteful the govt rockets are.
And BTW, I wasn't referring to Prinston as publicly funded, even if it is. I don't know. You jumped on that red herring all by yourself. I was referring to their funny rule at the Advanced Research Center (or whatever it's called) that what is done there can't have any actual application in the real world.
He published that in 1912, 25-some-odd years before he came to the US at all.
> All those expensive space missions: yet more coercive waste.
Yep.
If they were actually constructive, they would be done privately. Oh, wait, they _can't_ be done privately because NASA not only has a legal monopoly on space travel in the US, and the various government space agencies ditto in their own territorial monopolies, but they're also tax subsidized to undercut any price that private launch facilities might be able to create.
A business model based on coercive funding doesn't require lots of attention to determine whether it's worthy or not. The coercive funding means it doesn't have to actually be desired or needed or productive or anything at all.
Maybe people would have gotten into space 20 years later without government coercively subsidizing their own wasteful, inefficient system. Maybe 30 years, maybe Dick Rutan would have been the very first. It doesn't matter, because when it is done by interested people working together voluntarily then it will be more efficient, more productive, or it won't get investors. Look at what Rutan built to see just how wasteful the govt rockets are.
And BTW, I wasn't referring to Prinston as publicly funded, even if it is. I don't know. You jumped on that red herring all by yourself. I was referring to their funny rule at the Advanced Research Center (or whatever it's called) that what is done there can't have any actual application in the real world.
Ghostbusters. Great movie.
Ray: Working at the university was great. They gave us facilities and funding, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never worked in the private sector. They expect results.
Ray: Working at the university was great. They gave us facilities and funding, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never worked in the private sector. They expect results.
Bob it's Princeton not Prinston. LOL and a simple wiki search would tell you Relativity was published in 1905 not 1912.
And anyway you just dodged the whole point: Relativity is exactly the type of research which you just condemned as "coercive" waste. It doesn't matter if it was conducted in Germany or the US it was still junk science in your picture of science.
Relatiivity=no results. Boy what a lark dreaming up crap like that and getting paid for it!
Hey Albert get back to the bathroom! I want some god damned detergents not more theoretical crap!
And anyway you just dodged the whole point: Relativity is exactly the type of research which you just condemned as "coercive" waste. It doesn't matter if it was conducted in Germany or the US it was still junk science in your picture of science.
Relatiivity=no results. Boy what a lark dreaming up crap like that and getting paid for it!
Hey Albert get back to the bathroom! I want some god damned detergents not more theoretical crap!
Einstein's relativity research was paid for? That's news to me. Who paid for it?
Quoting:Einstein's relativity research was paid for? (...) Who paid for it?
Einstein.
;)
Quick correction Bob, NASA does not have a monopoly of any sort, the FAA is tasked in the US for certification of worthiness for any civilian manned launches.
*edit* http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/commercial_space_tr...
*edit* http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/commercial_space_tr...
> NASA does not have a monopoly of any sort, the FAA is tasked...
Hahahaha.
> Relativity is exactly the type of research which you just condemned as "coercive" waste.
Nope, didn't say a word about that. You're making up red herrings and straw men by the bushel. I didn't say research was coercive, I said that coercive funding is only required when the project is not efficient.
Einstein did it all by himself. Again Ghostbusters, Venkman: "Einstein did his best work while working as a patent clerk."
> Princeton, 1905
That's what I get for working from memory. On the other hand, the volume on the shelf behind me says 1912, but that's reasonable for the English translation.
I'll add, before someone else does, it's the Institute for Advanced Studies. At least I remembered the "advanced" part.
> Relatiivity=no results.
Monte, please, where did I say that?
> Hey Albert get back to the bathroom!
He was working as a patent clerk, not a janitor, when he looked out the window at some workers on a roof nearby and wondered, "What would that man feel if he fell off?"
So to be pedantic, it would have been "Albert! Stop staring out the windows!"
Hahahaha.
> Relativity is exactly the type of research which you just condemned as "coercive" waste.
Nope, didn't say a word about that. You're making up red herrings and straw men by the bushel. I didn't say research was coercive, I said that coercive funding is only required when the project is not efficient.
Einstein did it all by himself. Again Ghostbusters, Venkman: "Einstein did his best work while working as a patent clerk."
> Princeton, 1905
That's what I get for working from memory. On the other hand, the volume on the shelf behind me says 1912, but that's reasonable for the English translation.
I'll add, before someone else does, it's the Institute for Advanced Studies. At least I remembered the "advanced" part.
> Relatiivity=no results.
Monte, please, where did I say that?
> Hey Albert get back to the bathroom!
He was working as a patent clerk, not a janitor, when he looked out the window at some workers on a roof nearby and wondered, "What would that man feel if he fell off?"
So to be pedantic, it would have been "Albert! Stop staring out the windows!"
Quoting:And once you are in, you have to stick to the "approved" theories and practices. Daring to step outside the boundaries and experiment or research something contrary (or question the "approved" theories and practices) gets you kicked back out of the club.
ROFLMAO
I love conspiracy theories. Tell me more.
@tracyanne:
Have you been following the news lately?
Have you been following the news lately?
indeed I have, which particular news are we talking about here?
I'll tell you in private, since strictly speaking it's off-topic here.
ok
@gus3: PM me as well please.
Gus,
I wonder if those hacked systems were Windows or not?
Just to get back on our regular subject.
I wonder if those hacked systems were Windows or not?
Just to get back on our regular subject.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Money may not corrupt, but it certainly does "influence".
Far, far more money is spent on basic science privately than through public funding, but the public funding is far more concentrated. Convinced two or three bureaucrats/politicians that your research can benefit them, and they can direct what amounts to a "lot" of money your way. "Climate change" instantly comes to mind, as does "non-lethal" weapons systems.
> Is this one of those ethics/math exercises?
I've noticed that it's easy to justify pretty much anything by creating a "lifeboat scenario" that can only lead to the conclusion one wants.
> That kind of highly profitable arrangement for the publishing houses should end in my opinion.
The near-zero publication cost of electronic media is making it possible for scientists without connections to get their theories and results out to a wide audience. Sure, it leads to wide awareness of tinfoil hats and crop circles, but it also means that the information is available to interested parties without having to dig through esoteric journals.
Speaking of which, back in 1990 I was working in an IBM mainframe shop, and one of the IBM techs left their copy of the IBM Basic Research Journal sitting around. I am certain that I have the name wrong, it was a quarterly (I think) book detailing the kinds of basic science research that IBM scientists were working on or had completed.
In this one was a particular article on magnetic field detection using electrically pinched detection fields, directly applicable to making disk-drives far, far more dense.
And, well, 15 years later I read about the same process being used in commodity disk drives.