Did you attend the march for science?

[Skeptic14]

Thanks - not sure this is really meaningful research to spend tax dollars on.

- to me there needs to be a clear path to a benefit from the outcome. In my opinion, we don't have the means to fund research for the sake of research (nor should we).

This is where it can be tough regarding public funded research; sometimes it can take years or decades before a practical application is realized from research results.

One example, there was a time when relativity wasn't of any practical use and was nothing more than a theory albeit one that made some pretty cool and accurate verifiable predictions. But now, 50-60 years later GPS is used nearly ubiquitously (commercial and military) and is built on knowledge and understanding of relativity.

Of course not all publicly funded research works out this way, but IMO we should spend some amount of public money on "just research". How much is a good question and bringing this back full circle, I don't think we are at a place where a science march makes sense (particularly if it's been politically hijacked), again just my opinion.

 

[Joneill]

This is where it can be tough regarding public funded research; sometimes it can take years or decades before a practical application is realized from research results.

One example, there was a time when relativity wasn't of any practical use and was nothing more than a theory albeit one that made some pretty cool and accurate verifiable predictions. But now, 50-60 years later GPS is used nearly ubiquitously (commercial and military) and is built on knowledge and understanding of relativity.

Of course not all publicly funded research works out this way, but IMO we should spend some amount of public money on "just research". How much is a good question and bringing this back full circle, I don't think we are at a place where a science march makes sense (particularly if it's been politically hijacked), again just my opinion.

Fair enough...

 

[Caveeagle]

@JohnN

Maybe you can educate us on exactly how much we should spend on our military?

And just because somebody said it in Latin.. does not make it true.

Si pacem para bellum

(probably misspelled, or used in the wrong context)

 

[RyanT]

Thanks for an interesting conversation all. In terms of overall spending, I think JohnN's point is that we spend vast greater sums of money on military than on science. Is science funding and progress perfect? Certainly not. But if we want to talk about government waste, the paltry sum that we spend on basic science is not going to make a difference in the overall US budget. We could eliminate science funding altogether and it wouldn't put a dent in the national debt. However, science is critical for our economy, healthcare, and progress as a nation. For example, the MRI came about from basic science research in the 1950s. In addition, as I mentioned in my previous post, most of the money spent on research in the US goes straight back into our economy. What we get is progress in knowledge, product development, a better understanding of the world we live in, and educated citizens. Sounds like a win-win to me.

 

[Joneill]

Thanks for an interesting conversation all. In terms of overall spending, I think JohnN's point is that we spend vast greater sums of money on military than on science. Is science funding and progress perfect? Certainly not. But if we want to talk about government waste, the paltry sum that we spend on basic science is not going to make a difference in the overall US budget. We could eliminate science funding altogether and it wouldn't put a dent in the national debt. However, science is critical for our economy, healthcare, and progress as a nation. For example, the MRI came about from basic science research in the 1950s. In addition, as I mentioned in my previous post, most of the money spent on research in the US goes straight back into our economy. What we get is progress in knowledge, product development, a better understanding of the world we live in, and educated citizens. Sounds like a win-win to me.

In addition to the well documented waste in military spending, there is a tremendous amount of scientific research funded as part of the military budget as well.

Much of what is invented eventually trickles down to benefit the broader population as well. So we shouldn't think of military spending as buying bullets and bombs only... now if we could only eliminate the waste and redirect those $, we would not be having this discussion...

 

[Caveeagle]

Much of what is invented eventually trickles down to benefit the broader population as well. So we shouldn't think of military spending as buying bullets and bombs only... now if we could only eliminate the waste and redirect those $, we would not be having this discussion...

Very true statement. Many of our young Americans get career training in technical fields that they would otherwise not have access too. Not to mention programs like the GI bill where they earn money for further education after serving.

I am not aware of any study that tracks this impact on our economy, but I suspect it is significant.

 

[RyanT]

@Joneill the research spending from the military amount to 0.5% of the overall budget. 2.9/600 billion.

 

[Joneill]

@Joneill the research spending from the military amount to 0.5% of the overall budget. 2.9/600 billion.

But how is that broken out - I would suspect the cost of many programs (like the F-35) have R&D costs that end up baked into the per aircraft costs when all is said and done as many (if not most) of these weapons systems are developed "on the fly" - so it's not a clean research phase and then just produce them scenario. I'm not sure I trust the accounting to paint a true picture of all is this?

You won't get any argument from me that there is a huge waste involved - but, I fear there are too many "pigs at the trough" to be able to eliminate much of it (and too many wackjobs trying to kill us that allows the machine to continue justify the spending)...

 

[JohnN]

@JohnN

Maybe you can educate us on exactly how much we should spend on our military?

And just because somebody said it in Latin.. does not make it true.

Si pacem para bellum

(probably misspelled, or used in the wrong context)

Yes you did. . . google should become your friend

(LMAO. . .and that latin phrase has been my signature for about a year now. . )

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

or perhaps

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

[DennisS]

Oh really! For a scientist, your's is a particularly, and historically, inaccurate statement. Without marches, we would still have a racially segregated South, and women would not be able to vote. And, with even a brief Google search, I am sure you can find many other marches that have also brought about much needed change. Free speech is a wonderful thing. You sure don't see anti-government policy marches in N. Korea and the like. Nobody like to be held up in traffic because of a march, but be thankful you live in a country where protest marches are still possible.

Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson and NOVA raise awareness of science more in one episode than all those thousands of people milling around. Who was supposed to get their awareness of science raised by this march? Was it supposed to get the government to fund more scientific research? Did it change anyone's view on climate change? Science is a pretty big umbrella, what science were they trying to get support for.