The US National Debt is about $20,000,000,000,000. Isn't it time to encourage scientists to seek non-gov't funding?

Only one out of 12 Pentagon employees are land-attack grunt soldiers, so I'd farm out 11 and 12 jobs in the Pentagon to low-wage nations and unemployed Americans.

Kets Make America Great Again wrote:

Only one out of 12 Pentagon employees are land-attack grunt soldiers, so I'd farm out 11 and 12 jobs in the Pentagon to low-wage nations and unemployed Americans.

Well that's another government sinkhole, but the representatives of the military-industrial complex are not all over the TV today with their marches.

Here are some reasons that I am pulling out of my butt:

- Private funding carries with it conflicts of interest, and thus diminishes some research.

-Research is how you get ahead--an investment for the government. The return may not be in the short term or necessarily financial, but it is still important. Defunding of sciences would be another step away from the greatness that our president supposedly want to reclaim. There are plenty of other areas that should go before this.

-We complain about how our kids aren't as good in the sciences as some other countries. Cutting funding, and subsequently hurting the job market for research and universities, is a pretty bad way of encouraging our students to want to succeed in math or science.

Look, I'm a scientist so I'm biased. But most of the major advances in science, medicine, and technology that make our current quality of life so good, all started with university research mostly funded with public dollars. Yes, private companies may have picked it up later on, but the foundational first studies or inventions, the long-term bets, often start with public funding.

The USA is currently the world leader in research, meaning that the best minds come here, producing research that helps American people and companies. If we cut funding at a high scale, we put that status at risk and the long term effects will be very bad for us.

A final point is that research funding is a drop in the bucket compared to military spending and the broken healthcare insurance system. So cutting it is not going to make any difference to that $120,000 / taxpayer figure.

This post is all anyone needs to read on this issue.

Prof. Frink wrote:

Presumably this will lead to more accountability and provide a profit motive as well so we don't end up with situations like AMTRAK (though not a scientific entity, still a good example of government unaccountability) which loses money year after year, decade after decade.

Im always surprised when I hear complaints about Amtrak. The government subsidizes automobile travel and roads far more than rail yet we don't hear complaints about that subsidy losing money year after year, decade after decade. Why not be fair? Because you drive and don't take the train?

Universities and public money should only support college running and football. Science is useless

R1200 wrote:

Prof. Frink wrote:

Presumably this will lead to more accountability and provide a profit motive as well so we don't end up with situations like AMTRAK (though not a scientific entity, still a good example of government unaccountability) which loses money year after year, decade after decade.

Im always surprised when I hear complaints about Amtrak. The government subsidizes automobile travel and roads far more than rail yet we don't hear complaints about that subsidy losing money year after year, decade after decade. Why not be fair? Because you drive and don't take the train?

What if we ended ALL or nearly ALL subsidies? Sure, the gov't would lose some ability to encourage change, but more power could be left with the people to invest in enterprises they believe in with their own money.

You're, first, a fcckin idiot.

You, second, do not seem to recognize that discretionary spending on research is a drop in 55gal drum in terms of contribution to the deficit and debt. We are in debt/run a deficit almost entirely due to defense/medicare/ss/unemployment and related expenses. These together are 75% of the budget. Add interest/VA/transportation/eduction and your pushing 90%.

Yet you and other espousers of teabilly nonsense think we can fix things by cutting something that is a tiny fraction of the remaining 10% or so???? And by the way, is worthwhile?

Furthermore, you stupid sack of shit, researchers DO look for funding from corporate and non-profit sources.

Do the world a favor and smash you computer so no further idiocy may spew forth.

monocle afficionado wrote:

You're, first, a fcckin idiot.

You, second, do not seem to recognize that discretionary spending on research is a drop in 55gal drum in terms of contribution to the deficit and debt. We are in debt/run a deficit almost entirely due to defense/medicare/ss/unemployment and related expenses. These together are 75% of the budget. Add interest/VA/transportation/eduction and your pushing 90%.

Yet you and other espousers of teabilly nonsense think we can fix things by cutting something that is a tiny fraction of the remaining 10% or so???? And by the way, is worthwhile?

Furthermore, you stupid sack of shit, researchers DO look for funding from corporate and non-profit sources.

Do the world a favor and smash you computer so no further idiocy may spew forth.

+20,000,000,000,000.

Although I think the OP should also smash his head into a brick wall as hard as he can 20,000,000,000,000 times

Dude you're an idiot. Funding Science is a drop in the bucket when compared to healthcare, SS, and defense spending. If anything the government should spend more on science and medical research as those dollars probably do way more for our country than the excessive ammount we spend on defense and SS.

And this coming from a conservative.

"Science" is a code word for islamic terrorism given the fact that Islamist nut-case cleric Al-Hayatham invented science in 1000AD back in Ancient Egypt.

Your stupidity is practically treasonous.

How about cutting tax breaks to corporate multinationals paying executives ungodly bonuses for sitting on their hands and using the extra revenue to pay down our debt?

Scientists have been lobbying private sources for years. Mostly since NIH cuts started about 05. Everyone ooo's and aaaah's at donors giving 8 (sometimes more)figure sums, which is wonderful. Problem is, that in no way makes up for the cuts in public grants. There is no substitute for public $.

Science is for terrorist nuts wrote:

"Science" is a code word for islamic terrorism given the fact that Islamist nut-case cleric Al-Hayatham invented science in 1000AD back in Ancient Egypt.

Figures. No wonder Russia sucks up to Iran so muchly.

Basic research is publicly funded is because it is considered a positive externality; that is, the social benefits exceed the private gains. Basic research contributes to the general body of knowledge, which in turn contributes to other discoveries, and so forth. While this benefits society as a whole, the return on investment can’t be easily captured by private companies or investors.

Take an obvious example, such a treatment for malaria. Pharma companies and investors have no incentive to fund this research as there is no viable market. But maybe a researcher working on a more effective malaria cure makes a discovery that turns out to have a real benefit in curing another disease. Without public funding many of those serendipitous discoveries may not occur.

Prof. Frink wrote:

[quote]R1200 wrote:

[quote]Prof. Frink wrote:

Presumably this will lead to more accountability and provide a profit motive as well so we don't end up with situations like AMTRAK (though not a scientific entity, still a good example of government unaccountability) which loses money year after year, decade after decade.

I'm always surprised when I hear complaints about Amtrak. The government subsidizes automobile travel and roads far more than rail yet we don't hear complaints about that subsidy losing money year after year, decade after decade. Why not be fair? Because you drive and don't take the train?

What if we ended ALL or nearly ALL subsidies? Sure, the gov't would lose some ability to encourage change, but more power could be left with the people to invest in enterprises they believe in with their own money.

You mean things like Farm subsidies ($20 billion) the home mortgage interest deduction ( $70 billion in 2013) food stamps ($74 billion or so) and perhaps the tax break for employers who provide employee health insurance? (250 billion in 2013).

This is so stupid it's hard to read