Can science get by without your tax money?

Times Online ^ | 5 June 2006 | Terence Kealey

[Perdogg]

Yes!

[kinoxi]

No

[Androcles]

Good points in this article but it should not be forgotten that much of America's wartime science came at a vast discount because the Briitish threw open their vast research projects as part of their appeal for aid. The breaking of the sound barrier, for example, rested very very heavily on UK work in this area. Without that science given by the Brits (And being Irish I have little love for my former neighbours), the advances of the US would have come at a much higher price and delay.

[Logophile]

Would either of you care to elaborate?

[tdewey10]

It's Bush's fault. ;-)

[kinoxi]

No

[FlingWingFlyer]

Can science get by without your tax money?

Nope!!

And that's why so many "scientists" have an agenda that leads us into be swamped with junk science. Like the hooker in "Pretty Woman" who asks "Who do you want me to be?" our new age "scientists" ask, "What do you want me to prove?" It's all about the money.

[Perdogg]

I think we need to distinguish the difference between the end user science as opposed for science for science sake.

When DARPA needs a product, then you have the typical procurement funding process.

If we are talking about science for science sake, then private donors and private businesses have enough resources to fund science projects.

[Logophile]

Dr. Kealey has written extensively on this subject. I believe he approves of government funding of defense-related research.

[kinoxi]

What are your thoughts on global warming?

[oblomov]

Can science get by? Yes.
Can "science" get by? No.

[raj bhatia]

Yes, pure science that has immense theoretical value but little immediate practical value and almost all of which is funded by govt. money,is cooked up by rogue scientists. Roy Glaubers's nobel last year in which he proved beautiful fundamental noise properties and one that no private source would fund, are the examples of rouges we should bag.

After bagging a ton of these rogue scientists, we should start stoning people to death so that we are truly on par with the Muslims.

[jude24]

Much of what we take for granted - including this laptop on which I am now typing my reply - is rooted in Cold War era defense research projects and Apollo moon landing technology.

Do we want to miss this technical advances? I don't think our military can afford not to subsidize pure and applied science.

I am a little biased, though, as someone who earned a B.S. in Chemistry.

[Logophile]

What are your thoughts on global warming?

As a professor, I would recommend further research on the subject.

[raj bhatia]

"Much of what we take for granted - including this laptop on which I am now typing my reply - is rooted in Cold War era defense research projects and Apollo moon landing technology"

More importantly, most it it was obscure theoretical science a few decades ago. Without a sound theoretical basis, even the fundamental devices would fail, let alone a laptop with layers of complexity.

[Logophile]

Much of what we take for granted - including this laptop on which I am now typing my reply - is rooted in Cold War era defense research projects and Apollo moon landing technology.

I used to believe that too. However, after years in academia, I am not so sure.

It appears to me that much of the research money spent in the universities is wasted. Perhaps worse, the universities, in their lust for government research money, have neglected teaching.

Do we want to miss this technical advances? I don't think our military can afford not to subsidize pure and applied science.

I do not doubt that the government has an obligation to fund military research.

I am a little biased, though, as someone who earned a B.S. in Chemistry.

My degrees are in Chemical Engineering.

[Logophile]

More importantly, most it it was obscure theoretical science a few decades ago. Without a sound theoretical basis, even the fundamental devices would fail, let alone a laptop with layers of complexity.

Can you be more specific? Which "fundamental devices" do you have in mind?

[jude24]

It appears to me that much of the research money spent in the universities is wasted. Perhaps worse, the universities, in their lust for government research money, have neglected teaching.

Some professors have. Some still realize their primary function is to teach students. I still am in touch with one of those, even though I no longer use my Chemistry degree.

[raj bhatia]

I am talking about an IC. There are myriad fundamental equations but for argument consider the most important feature that makes integration on a large scale possible--lithograpy.. Focusing light through an aperture is fundamental to printing smaller lines on ICs and hence the exponential increase in speed. The problem is fully described by Fourier optics. Solving the diffraction integral for a given boundary condition through an aperture enables you to fully solve the inverse problem--what should the aperture look like to get a required small light spot. This aperture is printed on the mask.

So without the Diffraction integral and determining the spatial components that comes to focus at the focal plane(Fourier Optics), there would be no lithogrpahy. This whole field was characterized to death a 2 centuries ago. The solid theoretical framework enabled large scale integration.

I can go on and on. The work on Noise in Bell labs in the 20's enables proper transistor switching. The heat diffusion equation enables solving for temperature contours across a chip. Quantum mechanics provides the basic framework for carrier transport in devices.

Need more?