After they fund the education of future scientists...sure.

I was referring more to the mini-future scientists, but agree tha university research is great too.

Would funding for "all sorts of scientific research" exclude anything?

If so, what would be the criteria Ray?

If not, why not?

I am all for the government funding research, but I think the more if funds the less the private sector feels the need to fund things.  The government needs to pick and choose where it focuses its funds. 

I think a lot of money gets wasted, due to the red tape and beauracracy, in government funded research. I think privately funded research would therefore tend to be more efficient and timely.

However, I think that some things should not be researched privately, specifically products and drugs meant for human consumption. There is too much conflict of interest and potential for fraud -- which we see all the time with recalled drugs that were not adequately researched prior to approval due to pharmeceutical pressure for research to show the drug to be safe and effective.

However, that is based on an assumption that government funded research would be free of such problems (which I don't believe is true either).

Ray, I don't think that the question is so much about whether scientists waste money. I'm sure that some do and some don't. I honestly have no idea about the percentages.
I think that the issue of waste comes in the form of the government apparatus filtering the money down to the researcher. They take out huge chunks of the money taken from tax payers and redirected to scientists. And there is a lot of bureaucratic red tape involved in deciding who is worthy of money and dispensing that money.
I think the government should get out of the business of funding research altogether. The money would be used a lot more efficiently if it came directly from people and corporations instead of filtered through the government. And people are generous regarding research. The founder of one company I worked for made a contribution of over $200 million to UC Boulder to open a new research facility.

count me in for those opposed to almost all govt research  and almost all govt grants.  interesting thought on the pharm stuff though.  basically, I see it as an unconstitutional disposal of my tax dollars.  don't like it!  jobs should exist in the private sector for research and development, and if they don't, then the market forces of supply and demand have not necessitated their existence.  overall, I am not happy that my govt spends my money to track the mating habits of the fruit fly.  <------(gross generalization)

and as far as grants go, there are professionals grant writers nowadays who do nothing but go around and help non-profits or other entities get grants.  for a small percentage of course.  and I definitely don't think supporting their salaries are worthy of my hard earned tax dollars either.  some of their salaries are pretty good, if they know how to write a mean grant.

so there's my take.  govt oversteppin bounds and not being fiscally conservative when it comes to grants and research. 

they're 2 different issues ray.  but once again, my hard earned dollars handed over by my govt in a tidy little package called "grant money".

the scientist who fills a legitimate need will be able to find a job in the private sector or obviously is not marketable enough.  once again, supply and demand.

my complaints about grant monies, grant writers, etc,  are based on fiscal irresponsibility, not credibility or lack thereof.

-- Edited by ethos at 19:29, 2006-09-01

Pink,

How did Douglas Firs, and Pinion Pines survive before research grants?

Where economic incentive occurs, it usually exists consequent to a conflicting commercial enterprise. In these circumstances there is motive for funding research. Logging companies have not had the luxury of clear cutting for some time now. Forrest management is a supply and demand equation. 

And what percentage of the Federal Budget goes to research? It isn't much. I found this very instructive.

America is the leading nation of the world for research and innovation. I think it is appropriate that the people give some support to this from the public Treasury. Of course it needs oversight and auditing, to avoid abuse and waste.

Pink Floyd wrote:

---

ethos wrote:

---

 

the scientist who fills a legitimate need will be able to find a job in the private sector or obviously is not marketable enough.  once again, supply and demand.

 

---

This and the example you used of scientists studying the mating habits of fruit flies, I think is wrong.  Government scientists are needed to fill in the science for the masses.  If scientists weren't studying the mating habits of fruit flies, we wouldn't have the quality of fruit we have.  Without government scientists studying space, we wouldn't have the high optic cameras we have now in our spy satellites.  No private sector scientist is going to study pine beetles to find out how they get from Douglas Firs to Pinion Pines and destroy whole forests.    All the loggers care about are lodgepole pines. 

Things like that there is no "supply and demand" type equation.

---

this is where you are incorrect pink.  there is a supply and demand equation for practically everything.  it just so happens that economically, there may be no demand for some things.  and granted, in a civilized society, we can use our pooled public resources to fill in important gaps that further the common good (such as military, policing, and firefighters).  however, a pragmatic and sensible reading of our constitution does not lead me to believe that space exploration or many other pet programs are allowable expenses of my money.  additionally, there are many folks who would gladly foot the bill (privately) for space travel and exploration.  govt is stifling that desire as we speak with regulations and rules that allow no private initiative in that area.

back to research on the earth, if you can't justify an economic reason for a research project to exist in the private sector, and you can't show just cause for common defense or general welfare, then it shouldn't be funded from my tax dollars.

 

ethos wrote:

---

back to research on the earth, if you can't justify an economic reason for a research project to exist in the private sector, and you can't show just cause for common defense or general welfare, then it shouldn't be funded from my tax dollars.

---

Perhaps we're talking passed each other.  Are you in favor of Government funded R&D or not?  "General welfare" is a pretty broad catagory.

Pink Floyd wrote:

---

ethos wrote:

---

 if you can honestly say that the govt is efficient and fiscally responsible, then maybe it would be a different story, but I don't think anyone can at this point.  one word brother... bloated!!!

-- Edited by ethos at 10:44, 2006-09-02

---

And can you say that privately funded R&D is not ALL about the profit to the companies that fund it? 

There is a need for both. 

-- Edited by Pink Floyd at 11:04, 2006-09-02

---

I am a capitalist.  it is obvious that privately funded r & d is about profit.  that is ok.  and I have already conceded that there is a need for both.  but very very limited on the govt side.

Pink Floyd wrote:

---

ethos wrote:

---

Pink Floyd wrote:

---

this is where you are incorrect pink.  there is a supply and demand equation for practically everything.  it just so happens that economically, there may be no demand for some things.  and granted, in a civilized society, we can use our pooled public resources to fill in important gaps that further the common good (such as military, policing, and firefighters).  however, a pragmatic and sensible reading of our constitution does not lead me to believe that space exploration or many other pet programs are allowable expenses of my money.  additionally, there are many folks who would gladly foot the bill (privately) for space travel and exploration.  govt is stifling that desire as we speak with regulations and rules that allow no private initiative in that area.

 

---

So, you are saying that when the Soviets launched Sputnik into space, we should have turned to some huge company, say, General Electric to build and compete with their satellite production?  I've been wrong before, but I don't think I am here.   I wouldn't want some private company in charge of the satellites and other stuff orbiting the planet.   I don't completely trust the government, but I trust big business to look out for my welfare even less.

Check through this link (that I wish I could link to in a far, far better way, but can't) to see some of the benefits that NASA has produced over the years.  Sure some of the things may have eventually been developed through the private sector, but we may still be waiting around for cell phone technology to be developed.  Not to mention CAT scanners.

http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html

-- Edited by Pink Floyd at 11:29, 2006-09-02

---

with regard to sputnik, I would put initial space technology in the category of military necessity, just as I would spy and communication satellite  capability of today.  that still doesn't justify the footloose and fancy free nasa bloatation of today's budget.  once again, it's about fiscal conservativism, not about cool stuff that nasa has done.  I saw the i-max version of roving mars.  I watched with anticipation the news programs about the little rover buddies of ours, and I love to see the old footage of armstrong and aldrin.  I have touched meteorites at the smithsonian and marveled at the feats of mankind.  but always, in my heart of hearts, I couldn't justify public resources for much of it.  and then to see corrupt administration after corrupt administration handing those billions out like they were growing on trees... well enough is enough.  it is time for accountability, it is time for change... and often, I tend to agree with the bumper stickers that read "never vote for an incumbent, throw the rascals out!"

pink, I don't think we are really all that different politically.  problem is all the cool stuff to be researched.  you might think that space is cool, and I might be inclined to agree, and I'll bet we could both come up with intelligent sounding arguments about why nasa should be given even more funding because of life saving techniques or safety from lightning on airplanes (via your link).

problem enters in because our tax dollars can't support it all.  and there are millions of other areas that may be "helpful" to dump r & d dollars into.  but still doesn't mean that we can or should.  the only answer, imho, is to prioritize, accountabilitize, and revamp as needed, all within the confines of reducing the bloat of the fed govt and getting back to basics.  cut govt spending, cut govt jobs, and let the private sector do what it's good at doing.  american innovation is not about govt taxation.  it's a spirit of entrepreneurship that if left alone, can foster progress much faster and more efficiently than any govt rival.

Pink Floyd wrote:

---

ethos wrote:

---

problem enters in because our tax dollars can't support it all.  and there are millions of other areas that may be "helpful" to dump r & d dollars into.  but still doesn't mean that we can or should.  the only answer, imho, is to prioritize, accountabilitize, and revamp as needed, all within the confines of reducing the bloat of the fed govt and getting back to basics.  cut govt spending, cut govt jobs, and let the private sector do what it's good at doing.  american innovation is not about govt taxation.  it's a spirit of entrepreneurship that if left alone, can foster progress much faster and more efficiently than any govt rival.

---

Well, the problem you aren't addressing is that it is very difficult for "non-scientists" (in this case politicians) to tell scientists what they can or cannot study.  It is one of the reasons that NASA is such a poor example you keep coming back to.  The politicians say to NASA, "We'll give you this much money to spend however you want, but we want to see concrete results."  That leave it up to the NASA scientists to decide if they want to send men to the moon, or rovers to Mars, or probes to Pluto.  And as long as they keep developing new and innovative technologies that have private sector benefits, they keep getting money.  Outsiders may say:  "A trip to Pluto is silly.  Spend the money on doctors in the inner city."  But they don't see that one of the benefits of such trips are tools to help doctors in inner cities do their job better. 

It just is shortsighted of people to say things like, "I can't believe the government is spending 200 million dollars to study the mating habits of mosquitoes."  But what they don't realize is that the scientists are trying to find new ways to control mosquito population, and therefore West Nile Virus, without using chemicals that are harmful to the environment, and to us when those chemicals leech into the water supply.   Sometimes that research brings results and sometimes it doesn't.  It is the nature of science. 

---

the ends do not justify the means.  if tax dollars are spent irresponsibly and or unconstitutionally for 50 years, yet there are a few "innovative" technologies that come from it, the powers wielded by those in charge of the money have certainly been utilized incorrectly, unrighteously, and in many cases criminally.  fruit will grow as farmers grow it successfully to meet market demands.  logging companies will (as you have mentioned) be concerned with greater amounts of forestry which meets their needs.  airplanes and airlines will develop safer travel because consumers will demand it or the company goes out of business.

it is not shortsighted to complain about mosquito research or fruit fly mating habits.  it is wrong of the govt to engage in such activities.  there are no national crises from either one.  and no amount of convoluted politispeak can change that.  shortsighted is to continue deficit spending, add to a vastly ballooning national debt and not address fiscal conservation as a viable option.

so, as I mentioned before and to come back to the first line of your post, politicians shouldn't be telling scientists to study or not study anything.  that should be left to the scientist and the private sector company with which he or she is employed.

edison, bell, einstein, da vinci, whitney, ford, carver, carnegie... products of a state science/research & development program???  no.  sometimes quickly snatched up by govt agencies after they had proved their usefulness, but not working in a govt sponsored r & d environment when they started to create and enhance innovative technology or creative processes.

-- Edited by ethos at 19:10, 2006-09-04