Switch It On And See

Geez, with Bush back in Texas I never expected to see headlines like this:

Scientists Not So Sure 'Doomsday Machine' Won't Destroy World

I wonder if this large Hadron Collider meets the safety standards of a food additive that may be carcinogenic.

[END OF THREAD]

Comments

[Neo]

FoxNews.com can think of a few other things that didn't seem possible once — the theory of continental drift, the fact that rocks fall from the sky, the notion that the Earth revolves around the sun, the idea that scientists could be horribly wrong.

Wonder what else (climate) scientists have gotten wrong.

[PeterUK]

Scientists didn't seem to know that banning DDT would cost lives.

[sbwaters]

What does it matter. After all, we in the universe are only reflections in a hologram.

[clarice]

Another week of The One in the oval office and I won't care. Really.

[Thomas Collins]

I have no idea what the Hadron Collider will do. The math and natural science are way beyond me. I do have a question for DrJ, kim and any other natural science and math oriented folks who visit JOM. The question is whether you think the pursuit of knowledge about the cosmos through scientific experimentation is a sufficiently fine end that a certain level of risk not only to the folks directly conducting the experiment, but also to others, is justifiable. I also wonder whether whatever risk there is from the Hadron Collider is of more concern than risks from certain experiments involving microorganisms. The idea of the Earth as we know it disappearing at once is arresting, but the release of a pathogen that might cause severe illness to millions would no doubt also be somewhat of a bummer.

By the way, if one is concerned with the Hadron Collider experiments, will one also drive within the speed limit and never drive while impaired (whether by booze, drugs or fatigue) as a matter of course? One who drives impaired may not cause a risk of ending the Earth in its current form, but does pose a substantial risk to the life and welfare not only of the impaired person, but also to others on the road and to the emotional and financial conditions of the families of those victims of an auto accident. Will one obsess about the Earth as an ongoing unit and be indifferent to a the life or financial or emotional health family or group of people put at risk by an impaired roadster?

[Thomas Collins]

Whoops! Looks as if I typed too fast and risked mistakes. Change the end of my last post to "indifferent to the life or the financial or emotional health of a family or group of people put at risk by an impaired roadster?"

[Dan Collins]

Well, considering it's a doomsday machine, that would be disappointing. Especially to Al Gore.

[Dan Collins]

All I am saying, is give doom a chance.

[Old Lurker]

You beat me to it, Clarice. Well said.

[DrJ]

[Is] the pursuit of knowledge ... through scientific experimentation .. a sufficiently fine end that a certain level of risk ... is justifiable [?]

I trimmed it a bit, TC.

I've not followed the Hadron work enough to know if any of the fears are justified (and man, does one have to be careful about spelling Hadron!).

There are of course risks with any science experiment, some more than others. In the biological area, there are many biosafety levels that are applied to various experiments that deal with things like air handling, isolation of the lab from the outside world, worker protection, waste disposal and the like. There is always a chance that some "Andromeda Strain"-like release can happen, but the likelihood is very, very small. That's about the best you can do.

And yes, it is very much worth it. Public health, safety and knowledge benefits from these sorts of activities have been enormous; the loss of life has been very small. Marie Curie did not know any better about the risks she was taking, but we do now as a result of her work.

[Thomas Collins]

Don't worry about trimming my prose, DrJ. My prose often needs to go on a diet. :-))

I agree with you about the benefits outweighing the risks. There are risks in shutting down scientific research. Sometimes I wonder whether those who are most worried about the risks of scientific research contemplate the notion that life prior to the flowering of the scientific method was pretty risky, as far as we know.

[boris]

any of the fears are justified ...

If there was anything to it then any dense star, especially a neutron star or pulsar, would be converted into a black hole by the first cosmic ray that hits it. IMO this is kooksville.

[DrJ]

It was indeed, TC. Look at the life-expectancy statistics, from before sewers were used until now. It is quite enlightening.

There are risks in shutting down scientific research.

There is a real risk that medical research effectively will be shut down if all of this "stimulus" healthcare stuff and its likely follow-ons happen. There is more than one way to kill research. Eliminating the profit motive works as well as any regulation -- much better, in fact.

I once saw a chart of the amount of venture capital invested into biotech/medical device companies, and the market capitalization of pharma, medical device and diagnostics companies when Hillarycare was afoot. Simply, it crashed. Unless things change, we are in for it once again.

Of course it is the eeeevil Rethuglicans who are against science.

[Jane]

"Scientists Not So Sure 'Doomsday Machine' Won't Destroy World"

Oh good, something to look forward to.

[Amused bystander]

DrJ. someone should really publish in one place the Bush science budgets. They are quite good. I think Bush's science policy was quite well handled, wuite first rate, particularly considering we were at war during the whole period. All the unclassified spending data is online. And no, he did not decrease funding.

That one is another total lie.

You know, we pitched in about a half a bil for the LHC (well, for the whole upgrade at CERN).

The irony here is that if the Democrats would not have killed the super conducting collider, we would have had this experiment over here, and some years ago too. But those "Science Friendly" Democrats canned it. Can't spent that sort of money in Texas, now can we? So they spent it on really important stuff like "climate change" research.

I still hold out that either our grid software will find the Higgs boson first, but from the LHC data (that would be too funny), or that the experiment is wrong, that they cannot get anough energy to find it from the Cern ring, and they will have to bounce up to next generation "super" linear colliders level of energy to get it.

Should know soon.

[Amused bystander]

DrJ. someone should really publish in one place the Bush science budgets. They are quite good. I think Bush's science policy was quite well handled, wuite first rate, particularly considering we were at war during the whole period. All the unclassified spending data is online. And no, he did not decrease funding.

That one is another total lie.

You know, we pitched in about a half a bil for the LHC (well, for the whole upgrade at CERN).

The irony here is that if the Democrats would not have killed the super conducting collider, we would have had this experiment over here, and some years ago too. But those "Science Friendly" Democrats canned it. Can't spent that sort of money in Texas, now can we? So they spent it on really important stuff like "climate change" research.

I still hold out that either our grid software will find the Higgs boson first, but from the LHC data (that would be too funny), or that the experiment is wrong, that they cannot get anough energy to find it from the Cern ring, and they will have to bounce up to next generation "super" linear colliders level of energy to get it.

Should know soon.

[Amused bystander]

DrJ. someone should really publish in one place the Bush science budgets. They are quite good. I think Bush's science policy was quite well handled, wuite first rate, particularly considering we were at war during the whole period. All the unclassified spending data is online. And no, he did not decrease funding.

That one is another total lie.

You know, we pitched in about a half a bil for the LHC (well, for the whole upgrade at CERN).

The irony here is that if the Democrats would not have killed the super conducting collider, we would have had this experiment over here, and some years ago too. But those "Science Friendly" Democrats canned it. Can't spent that sort of money in Texas, now can we? So they spent it on really important stuff like "climate change" research.

I still hold out that either our grid software will find the Higgs boson first, but from the LHC data (that would be too funny), or that the experiment is wrong, that they cannot get anough energy to find it from the Cern ring, and they will have to bounce up to next generation "super" linear colliders level of energy to get it.

Should know soon.

[sbwaters]

Luddites! Yeah!

[Amused bystander]

sorry about the repeats, folks. I only clicked once.

[sbwaters]

Let's do the time warp again! ...again! ... again!

[sbwaters]

Amused...

Let's do the [Typepad] time warp, again! ..again! ..again!

[sbwaters]

Amused, I'll back you up. Typepad swallered my first [hic] first time warp.

[kim]

Improbably enough, but intuited early on by a small bunch of internet commenters back in the 21st Century, the Higgs Boson phenomenon was first identified in the software of a primitive program, TypePad. This is not to be confused with Pad Thai, a comestible.
===========================================

[sbwaters]

comestible

Does that mean it's going to blow up?

[sbwaters]

BTW, if you haven't seen pictures of some of the LHC gadgets like this Muon detector on Discovery Channel or Science Channel programs or websites, they really are amazing.

[DrJ]

someone should really publish in one place the Bush science budgets. They are quite good.

I agree with this -- Bush proposed more science funding than was approved, and less money was allocated than approved. Both of those fall on Congress, which was not entirely Republican.

But that is only one portion of the health of science. The Federal government expenditures, by and large, fund university research (and the National Labs). Only a small part of it goes to industry, through SBIR/STTR grants (agency-wide), a few research grants (such as RO1s at NIH) and some development contracts for procurement (many agencies).

There is more science and engineering done in the private sector, both by internal company funding and by venture capital. For both of these, the business climate and capital gains rates are critical. Bush did pretty well on that front, given what he had to work with.

The porkulus bill that is waddling to the Senate contains provisions for some of my "favorite" agencies (like a 50% funding increase for NSF), but I'm afraid a lot of that will be targeted to "green" activities.

Research in the area is of course important -- it is far too early for subsidies -- but I shudder at the poor proposal quality that I will soon have to evaluate. Whenever there are new monies allocated, all of the scientific hucksters come out to feed at the trough.

[clarice]

Obi-Wan signed the Ledbetter Act into law today, thereby adding immeasurably to the coffers of employment lawyers and further imperiling businesses.. http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2009/01/obama-signs-lilly-ledbetter-fair-pay-act.html>The end of law and business

Go defend actions taken decades agao by long dead supervisors if you will..PHEH

[sbwaters]

Yeah. A couple of years ago we had to spend $55K to defend against putting trash in a landfill legally in 1955 when my grandfather was publisher.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

One might think that employers will more carefully consider pertinent factors regarding the likelihood of being hit with such suits when making hiring decisions.

I would imagine that the net effect will be similar to that enjoyed by women of child bearing age in Europe after the imposition of mandatory paid maternity leave. Employers fixed the problem of the two year paid leaves quickly and simply. That's one of the reasons why the unemployment rate among those under thirty in Europe has maintained such a remarkable growth rate.

The Ledbetter legislation should be considered as part of the Democrat Economic Destruction package (DED for short).

[kim]

James Hansen's old boss has publicly rebuked him and called him an embarrassment to NASA. Obama's order to expedite Freedom of Information requests has put the fear of audit into the climate science community, well even more than they have already.
=========================================

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

It's all over for Bloggo. So far unanimous. He stepped on his schwanz politically, and it cost him. Looks like no one in Illinois is afraid of him anymore.

He now has nothing to lose by spilling whatever beans he can spill -- even on The One.

But he has positioned himself as a kook, so where's the credibility?

[Amused bystander]

Dr.J I have been pretty skeptical of a lot of NSF activity over the last 15 years. The fund goes to a lot of silly research. It is sort of scientific pork. It has become so political now.

Making nsf grants has become a sort of perk for senior scientist and is danger of degenerating into a patronage system. I feel we need to rethink it and make it more accountable, It is developing all the pathologies of the "Endowments" to the Humanities and the Arts. Scientists have no right to be subsidized by the state.

I think it is best for government research should proceed from some real need of the Government. Darpa should be the model, and it and the DoE S & T programs have been the most successful. This means broad agreement on what our goals should be, but here the Democrats cause all sorts of problems. Just tossing out money to support the careers of academics leads to a middle class welfare system. If we are honest there is a great deal of poor and mediocre science going on out there and this is unaccountability is why.

Speaking of this and CERN. I was at a conference at CERN a while ago and a EU top scientist and program fund manager were up there quite proudly comparing science budgets between the EU and the USA.

I had to point out to them that while their EU figures were right, they were merely citing NSF budget items, which were not even close to half of our outlays. I had to say that I enjoyed the look on there faces.

The democrats will throw a lot of money at "science" but most of it will be wasted. It is just patronage. The whole business with AGW shows the dangers of politicizing science, but when scientists depend on government, it cannot help but be political. It is particularly irksome with the Democrats because they are so against the country. This really affect funding choices, focus and programs. I do not expect anything to come from Obama's science efforts.

[Amused bystander]

RB: Employment acts like this just moves more jobs overseas.

Clarice: can that law be challenged in SCOTUS

[jimmyk]

The Ledbetter legislation should be considered as part of the Democrat Economic Destruction package (DED for short).

The all-knowing and all-seeing Obami has also now declared that the $18 billion in bonuses received by Wall St. (as spun by the NY Times) are "shameful." Yet when we get to the continuation of the story on p. 12 we find that this is a 44 percent decline from 2007. The Times could have reported this as a $14 billion dollar pay cut. Given that bonuses are the bulk of their compensation, this is probably a 25-35 percent cut in overall pay. I don't see Congress taking that kind of cut for all their screwups.

LUN

[clarice]

The law was written to overturn the SCOTUS decision in the Ledbetter case..19 months ago. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/stare_decisis_eight_recent_cas.html

[clarice]

Nobody asked me, of course, but i think if the Reid-{elosi Act goes thru, Obama is finished with the electorate..If it doesn't, the Dem party will implode.

[clarice]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/stare_decisis_eight_recent_cas.html>Ledbetter

[Amused bystander]

Clarice: I think the electorate really is recoiling from Obama. The MSM is just masking it. Here in NYC a lot of the standard Obamabot professionals are acting like they having terminal migraines. Not happy puppies. They have had their tantrum and now have to live with it. This is worse than Carter, I think. And Oh so much more frightening.

Do you really think that the GOP can do anything in the Senate? It seems clear it will pass to me, and then the Democrats will have to live with it.

Funny thing is, If Obama when in there and tore out an order of magnitude of junk, forced some tax relief, he could completely turn around this botched beginning of his.

It just does not occur to these people to do the rational thing.

[clarice]

AP:"Washington - Samantha Power, the Harvard University professor who earned notoriety for calling Hillary Rodham Clinton a ''monster'' while working to elect Barack Obama president, will take a senior foreign policy job at the White House, The Associated Press has learned. (Snip) Power to be senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, a job that will require close contact and potential travel with Clinton "
HEH--Sounds like Sartre's "No Exit"

And fill 'er up..the bad news just keeps coming:

Bloomberg.com:
Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The United Steelworkers union plans to reject a contract offer from Royal Dutch Shell Plc, setting the stage for a nationwide strike of 30,000 workers at U.S. refineries processing about two-thirds of the country’s oil.

Failure to reach a new accord “poses a real threat of strike action,” Gary Beevers, the Steelworkers’ international vice president in charge of the talks, said in a written message to union members. The offer is the third made so far by Shell and all have been rejected by the union, which is seeking a “substantial wage increase” with a cost of living adjustment

[clarice]

AB:"Do you really think that the GOP can do anything in the Senate? "

This would be an opportunity for some smart Rep to make a name for himself. I don't know if there's a Cantor in the Senate but someone there should do what he did and both sides of the aisle should use this weeked to begin a media blitsz explainig to the muddle that this will bog down, not stimulate the economy--that it is just a payoff to Pelosi and reid's friends and Obama hasn't been doing his homework.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

The steel bit is probably tied to the Smoot-Hawley provisions of the DED plan.

OTOH - China is really screwed.

[DrJ]

I have been pretty skeptical of a lot of NSF activity over the last 15 years. The fund goes to a lot of silly research.

NSF has an extraordinarily broad mandate, and while what you cite may happen, I've not seen it. Some of the solicitation topics sound wild, but the proposals that come back are often fascinating, and contain really good science and engineering.

Making nsf grants has become a sort of perk for senior scientist and is danger of degenerating into a patronage system.

Again, I've not seen this at all. Funding rates for submitted proposals range between 3% and 15%, so there certainly is no guarantee that any proposal is funded. And I also have not seen that "favored" academics are funded more often than younger, more hungry, faculty. Indeed, I have bounced quite a number of proposals from faculty with outstanding reputations that they fully deserve. The proposals smacked of laziness, and all of us who evaluated them agreed.

Scientists have no right to be subsidized by the state.

On that we agree. However, academic research has traditionally been funded by the state, even back to medieval times. Whether we need as much of it as we fund is another issue.

Darpa should be the model, and it and the DoE S & T programs have been the most successful.

Yes and no. There is a place for directed and more applied research, as with the programs you cite, but there is also a place for the more "blue sky" research that NSF tends to promote. Bear in mind that the agencies are of very different sizes and mandates: for 2008, NIH received $30 billion, NSF (research) $4.8 billion, NASA (science only) $5.6 billion, DOE (science only) $4 billion, DOD (research and DARPA) $4.2 billion. Some of these agencies further have procurement branches; others do not. That tends to influence the sort of work that is supported.

If we are honest there is a great deal of poor and mediocre science going on out there and this is unaccountability is why.

The accountability is through the peer review process, and by diligent program directors. It certainly is not perfect, but it does work surprisingly well overall.

Remember that these are grants, and not contracts. There are no specific deliverables for grants. For blue-sky work, that's appropriate. For more specific tasks it may not be, and then contracts and the procurement process become more reasonable approaches.

[mel]

Rick-

Any thoughts as to whether RDS.A shuts 'em down?

[kim]

Richard Lindzen wrote an excellent article last year about how the present nexus of government and academic research has corrupted climate science.
========================

[Rick Ballard]

Mel,

Shell could shut refineries down without hurting much at all in this market. A shutdown might bump crude a bit and it's my understanding that Shell has the capability of actually selling crude outside the US. They even own a few of those big oil boats - they could haul it to China and sell it there.

If China could pay for it.

[Mel]

Rick-

I know the "contango float" is pretty big. I wonder how much of it is Shell's?

The hole in the supply of heating oil might not be very funny in the greater Nor'East, if those few refieries do shut down.

Interesting gambit by the union.

[matt]

maybe Obama can bring in the Army to run the refineries..... It's sounding like the 1920's and 1930's all over again..."Brother Can You Spare a Dime" will climb back into the top 10. This time, though, the unions seem to be in the catbird seat...so when do the people turn against them?

I'm for a General Strike.

[matt]

if the Hadron Collider does create a black hole that just consumes everything in the way, I guess we'll experience the phenomenon of disappearing up our own .....

[Topsecretk9]

hey everyone -- i didn't want to much up this thread and the CIA thread was the perfect place to put this interesting thing I found and would be really interested to know what others think of it

Here's a link to the comment --- if it doesn't work just go to the end of that thread I guess.

[Topsecretk9]

much = MUCK

[Jane]

But he has positioned himself as a kook, so where's the credibility?

I actually think that was the point -aided and abetted by the MSM, once it got started. IMO he got screwed by the process, and the remedy was to highlight that he was a clown and ignore the screwing. I dunno, I rather liked his hubris in this matter. He may be guilty as sin, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing the same thing as nearly every elected official in America.

[BobS]

hi, gang...jane, love ya, missed ya

[BobS]

guess, i'm gonna jump right in...listen folks...we see and sense the reflective response on people whom agree with us....but is it happening for one? and can others be persuaded?

[Rick Ballard]

"I'm for a General Strike."

Matt,

I'm becoming increasingly certain that a Producer's Strike went into high gear on election day. The December new homes and auto sales numbers were spectacularly bad, far worse than anything easily explainable on the basis of what had been a very light recession. Prior to the election.

Do you see anything at all in the Democrat Economic Destruction plan that is an inducement for an entrepreneur to put capital at risk? Anything that might induce a public company to do other than savagely cut payroll while they can?

I've been thinking about Old Lurker's question as to how to pass wealth on and I'm coming around to residential rental property. That's how the Europeans do it. The only problem is that European masonry construction is somewhat more durable than our stick construction. I'd want to own something that was built relatively recently to use for wealth transfer. Something in the outer 'burbs too - as far from the Blue Devil rent controllers in the cities as possible. TX and AZ look to provide decent opportunities.

[BobS]

naturally the DEM hack on OReilly doesnt hold DEMS accountable......deplorable, despicable...only GOP problems get their party named by MSM - and thats one out of 10. DEMS are all about rooting for their football team and act like they won if they lost. They will say its day when it's night if it serves their party.

[BobS]

btw...has a DEM pol EVER been thrown overboard? Nevermind like one like Blago?

[BobS]

The only way to get folks whom do not pay attention to whats actually going on is to call DEMs what they are - and what they call us - STUPID, WRONGHEADED, EVIL, etc....folks don't pay attention and its sad

[Mel]

Oh, I forgot...

Help, I've lost my Governor and he can't run for elected office ever again! (59-0)

WLS-AM: Rod Blagojevich is here from Noon 'Til two, every Sunday.

I hope it's a call-in show.

Right after he finishes his scheduled de-briefing at 219 S. Dearborn St, 5th floor. (LUN)

[Extraneus]

I was listening to Sen. Grassley of Iowa on the radio tonight, and he wasn't hopeful about any chance the Senate could filibuster the "stimulus" bill. He noted that Olympia Snowe voted with the Dems to move the bill out of the Finance committee, and that "it would be difficult for her" to oppose cloture after that.

It may be that the news of what's in the bill keeps dripping out (latest is "stimulus checks for illegal aliens") and things could change, but as of now it appears to be a done deal.

I think it was a future liutenant governor of NY who made her bones by combing through the Hillary health care bill and helping to defeat it. Maybe a new hero or heroine will arise from this pile.

[BobS]

but, mel.....DEMS never throw their own overboard like this...why now? why him?

[BobS]

I'm not so sure, Ex......the move against this bill has surprising momentum....Snow might not be able to maintain her own stand against her own state's conservatives......that fool
Chafee is no longer around thank heavens.....Snow's much more of a party loyalist than him and a pragmatist. There's more of a likelyhood that the GOP will hold firm and a few DEMS will jump ship...oh, it will pass ok, but Obama will have to drop the post-partisan nonesence and lurch left to his roots and play the EVIL card in public......but the jig is up and folks will see that this is a DEM party building bill first, and a stimulus package, like maybe fourth.

[Amused bystander]

NSF has an extraordinarily broad mandate, and while what you cite may happen, I've not seen it. Some of the solicitation topics sound wild, but

Well I should clarify that I am an S & T exec now and not a practicing scientist or engineer any more, but I do get involved in tangential ways with some of these processes, though my focus now is not the NSF proper (I come from a CS background with AI, neuroscience and linguistics POV, with a good real world engineering background (very large systems) and solid math background thrown in.)

Nonetheless, in the NSF and elsewhere, I have seen no small amount of nonsense. Obviously, Climate Studies is the worst, and the whole point was to politicize science. This scam touches on almost every branch of S & T that I come across. This is very dangerous for it could in the public's mind reduce scientist to just another special interest group like teachers or public service unions. I would also say that the large about of AIDS funding in the NIH is purely political and a poor allocation of funds, though here the science is not that bad (and this is not really an NSF matter).

Moreover, I have certainly seen some pretty meaningless nSF stuff in Comp Sci. Most of the problems stem from "Politically Correct" premises and often have some bizarre cross-discipline angle - Computer scientists and sociologists, gender/ethnic "analyses", "community studies", etc. Complete waste of time. Not science at all--just PC fads and throwing political bones.

Also, I have seen things in the funding areas of Education and Human Resources, the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences and Science and Technology Centers that seem to be motivated more by PC concerns and politics (academic political and national politics) than science. EHR and SBE are particularly irksome to me. Uber PC here.

In general, this PC nonsense can also have a bearing on determination on team members and reviewers (this happens in programs outside of the NSF, i am assuming it is there too).
To me, all this actually corrupts science as an institution, as a discipline and as a way of life. It needs to go. A lot of appointments now are happening on the basis of gender or race and this really is not helpful.
Also, I do not like the NSF's International Science and Engineering program for the reason you might expect a conservative not to like it. Liaison yes, some international projects yes, but it is really stating to have a "Internationale" feel to it.

[noname]

I don't know why but I think Blagojevich is great - he is crazy and corrupt but I almost wanted him to win. He was doing exactly what all the other politicans do there and he refused to go away quietly they way they wanted. I still don't understand why this was on the tapes and nobody asked Obama about it.

"Advisor B stated that he likes the...idea, but liked the Change to Win option better because, according to Advisor B, from the President-elect's perspective, there would be fewer 'fingerprints' on the President-elect's involvement with Change to Win," the complaint says.

[Amused bystander]

Dr J:

As to senior scientists and grants, if you read what i said, i was talking about it as a perk of makings grants, not receiving them, and I see some faction disputes (and favoritism too) come up that are often poorly (and bitterly) resolved. This seem to be occurring more these day.

As to government being the primary source of funding for scientific careers, well as a former denizen of Bell Labs and the IBM Research, I obviously have a different opinion. Once opon a time, private industry was expected to pull at least some of their weight, and in both the applied and "blue sky" areas. The balance has tilted too much to the government side in the last 25 years or so. It is not healthy. (note: I have worked both side of the street here, blue sky and applied, and Industry and Government and Academia, so I know both POV's.)

Anyway, there are plenty of blue sky projects in DARPA and the NoE that are still mapped to larger agendas, so I still stick with the DARPA approach as being the most successful. TCP/IP was once "Blue sky" you know. I do not really buy this dichotomy at all. Most great science arose from real needs.

It is unclear to me that science and engineering has advanced primarily on the basis of government grants or patronage. The history of the great leaps do not support this at all, at least not in the sense that we think of government funding today. Aristocratic patronage and academic positions do not constitute government funding to my way of thinking.

I think that there is a lot of waste and a huge sense of entitlement in our current structure that is not appropriate. I find the overarching Liberal environment to be unacceptable, and this is staring to hit Military labs now.

I certainly feel that all funded academic institutions should allow ROTC on campus, and should repeal all the bizarre speech code. I see no reason to fund institutions that teach our children to hate their nation and civilization.

Along these lines, when I was talking about accountability, I was talking about accountability to the taxpayer, not peer review. I do not think it a good idea to let professionals set their own funding agenda in vacuum. We have seen this in the arts and it has been a disaster. The NEH and the NEA should really be done away with. Does science have some special privilege here?

I also do not like how the US funding establishment lets the EU and China push them around.

(As an aside, I have seen some really embarrassing moments oversea where some Liberal US scientist on a podium decided that he would make political comments in a professional context, often disparaging GWB or the GOP. This is infuriating to me.)

I realize that involving the public in S & T strategic priorities and review is a larger political issue, but nonetheless we have not done this very well since the Cold War's end. It was once much better. Look at NASA or the semiconductor industry.

[narciso]

I think Senator Snowe's political near death thanks to the Allen challenge, may have given her a bit of s backbone, mind you, I'm just judging this on the Geithner, how anyone with any self respect can vote for him, well I've proven my point. This stimulus package rightly has the likes of Putin, and Wen Biao laughing at us, and those folks in the third world, will never take our exhortations of transparency or budget discipline, seriously after Geithner
and the stimulus. So who's birthday is it really?

So now "Is Larry King Alive" and the
Snuffalouphagus, are dueling to interview Sarah, now that she'll be in D.C. for the Alfalfa dinner, Rush kind of crowned her as the conservative leader today, in response to a caller; and that will probably be true whether she runs or not. One could think that the stimulus vote, was a proxy one, based on her principles. Why give them the time of day, they don't deserve the ratings blast that would ensue, not yet anyways.

[DrJ]

[I]n the NSF and elsewhere, I have seen no small amount of nonsense. Obviously, Climate Studies is the worst, and the whole point was to politicize science.

That's true, and a lot of it is mandated by Congress. Hold on for the green stuff that is coming down the pike.

Most of the problems stem from "Politically Correct" premises and often have some bizarre cross-discipline angle... Complete waste of time. Not science at all--just PC fads and throwing political bones.

That does indeed happen. There also is the usual diversity/under-represented minorities/women stuff, and now there is an increasing emphasis of forcing researchers to do K-12 outreach as part of their research grants. I've not figured out how much of this is from mandates, and how much is internally-driven. Nevertheless, these tend to be "tick boxes" that the reviewers use, and don't really influence the evaluation of proposals much (if at all).

I have seen things in the funding areas of Education and Human Resources, the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences and Science and Technology Centers that seem to be motivated more by PC concerns and politics (academic political and national politics) than science.

Part of that is the broad mandate: everything from sociology to biology to chemistry to materials science to CS to Physics to running the Antarctic Station (and lots that I neglected). I'd personally prefer that the softer sciences be eliminated, but NSF really is about the only place these things can be funded. That may not be good, but that's political reality.

I have found that by and large the STCs and ERCs are quite useful and valuable.

In general, this PC nonsense can also have a bearing on determination on team members and reviewers (this happens in programs outside of the NSF, i am assuming it is there too).
To me, all this actually corrupts science as an institution.

There is a huge scoop of PC at NSF, but I expect that from any government agency. It has surprisingly little effect on review panels or the program directors. In fact, I have marked proposals submitted by all-woman teams down because they were not diverse. So it can work both ways.

In spite of the layer of PC-ness and the strangulation of working within the government system, the organization at NSF really does do an outstanding job. The good work does get funded, at least in the hard sciences that I know. I've no idea what goes on at the upper levels; I'd imagine that is extremely political. Day-to-day, though, it runs surprisingly well. People there do have very creative ways to work both within and around the system to get the right things done.

[BobS]

i always seem to leave off the "e" off Sen Snowe's name...sorry, Senator....you're here right?

[Manuel Transmission]

Amused and DrJ,

I'm enjoying you discussion on the funding. I have had close to 40 years of experience in R&D with a fair amount of that chasing gummint funding of one sort or another. The key thing to me is the half-life of the organization doling out the cash. Any new bureaucracy needs about seven years to reach the point where their desire to do the right thing hits break-even with the sludge of any large organization clogging their veins. After that it becomes increasingly difficult to get the good stuff done without an unbearable burden on the players.

Like any organization, the bright guys and gals that want to do the right thing, get frustrated and go find more challenging work leaving the zombies to carry on.

On a slightly separate note, the pure sciences (I was more on the engineering side) suffer from peer review tyranny in a way that completely subverts the intended purpose. Best example: how about 25,000 MAN-YEARS of the best and brightest chasing string theory. "How's that working out for ya?" I would gladly bet that another 100K M-Y will reveal exactly the same thing: bupkus.

[centralcal]

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D Calif) stood before the senate and bragged that her office had received approximately 91,000 calls or emails vis-a-vis the "stimulus" porkapalooza, and approximately 85,000 were vehemently against it. But, she was gonna make the tough decision and the tough vote, because "they" (her constituents) obviously didn't know what they were saying.

Gotta love California (as it sinks slowly into the liberal ocean).

[Old Lurker]

RB: "I'm becoming increasingly certain that a Producer's Strike went into high gear on election day."

Actually ED-24 months. I am absolutely certain of that from direct association with commercial developers who liquidated hundreds of millions of equity over the last twenty four months as the likely political outcome became clear: It was obvious that 1)cap rates on commercial properties were stupid low (= prices stupid high), 2)because capital was irrationally priced and overly available (all that CDS stuff and the fantasies they spawned), 3)looters were about to sieze political control and sounded too angry and economically stupid not to do real harm, 4)they would change all the rules of the game and diminish private property rights, perhaps permanently, judging by SCOTUS actions lately and likely getting worse, 5)among the first changes would be to double cap gains tax rates, 6)most of us had huge neg capital accounts which we needed to be taxed as gains and doubling that rate would dwarf any reason to hold, 7)the resulting meltdown would/will impact commercial real estate for a decade as global assets get repriced and deleveraged, 8)if the looters poison the entire well, likely, then our crowd of first wave boomers will not enjoy another boomtime, so why not strike and enjoy?

Hence these guys went to all cash even as McCain was getting the nod, proving the forboding was sound, almost regardless of who won.

My pals have gotten comfortable being out of the game and have zero interest in climbing back into the ring with these clowns making the rules.

Which is why, Rick, I am pleased you are still thinking about my question since we discuss it everyday.

Let me add one more observation supporting your quote I cited at the top. These guys have never cheated on a tax return in their lives, and they would never have worried about keeping all the fruits of their lives here for their kids. But the lawyers we find most in demand now are those who specialize in elaborate, opaque, and complex offshore trusts and LLC's that while promising no tax savings at all on their face, afford such a complex and fast moving shell game that smart heirs (or well advised heirs) might forget to pay 60% to the looters when the old man kicks the bucket.

Just sayin.

[DrJ]

As to government being the primary source of funding for scientific careers, well as a former denizen of Bell Labs and the IBM Research, I obviously have a different opinion.

I never claimed that. I said that government is the primary supporter of academic research (which is true) and blue sky research. These days, that's true too.

The great US industrial research labs are dead. They have largely been replaced by VC-funded start-ups; they develop the technology that larger companies then acquire. VCs fund as much research as the government, and it is focused a whole lot better. Companies invest too, of course, but they tend to be much more conservative.

As to the rest of your post, well, there I agree with some of your points and not others. You should know that I've worked on both the industrial and academic sides too (including productive time spent in industrial research with institutions comparable to yours), and currently run a small biotech company. I'm no academic. In spite of that, I think that NSF plays an important role in the science and technology landscape, and that there is not a single approach that should triumph over all others. They have their place.

[mel]

BobS-

Merely the chance to Show The World We Mean Business (please trademark that for me) and make Illinois look better.

Little do they know, they lit the fuse, today, of their own destruction.

[DrJ]

The key thing to me is the half-life of the organization doling out the cash. Any new bureaucracy needs about seven years to reach the point where their desire to do the right thing hits break-even with the sludge of any large organization clogging their veins. After that it becomes increasingly difficult to get the good stuff done without an unbearable burden on the players.

All that I can say is that you have no idea how sclerotic government organizations are. My god are they hard to work in. Still, the staff does a remarkable job given the obstacles to see that the good stuff gets done. Not always, of course, but a lot more often than you might imagine.

Most of my experience is in industry (though I've worked in academia too, including being one of those dreaded Professors). I'm amazed that most of these companies make money at all, given their many inefficiencies and odd structures and decisions. Yet they do. There is no human organization that is without flaws. Nor is there any that will work universally.

[cathyf]

As to government being the primary source of funding for scientific careers, well as a former denizen of Bell Labs and the IBM Research, I obviously have a different opinion. Once opon a time, private industry was expected to pull at least some of their weight, and in both the applied and "blue sky" areas. The balance has tilted too much to the government side in the last 25 years or so. It is not healthy.

Well, as the saying goes, usta's dead. Bell Labs has been gone for years, and IBM doesn't do anything like basic research anymore. If the government doesn't do it, it doesn't get done. Whether the government is doing not enough, too much, or the right stuff is a different issues, but basic research is a classic public good which there won't be enough of without government funding.

[mel]

Manuel Trans-

I have no defense for string theory. I know just enough of the math to follow it, barely. However, there has been so much mathematical postulation over the centuries and the physicists are now going down this branch of the "proof", makes me think that there is plenty of room on the "theory playing field".

I, obviously, would love to know that there is a true "unified field theory" at some point in my lifetime. There will be some blind alleys that the field needs to grope into, but that doesn't end my hope that the bright ones will figure it out. String theory may, or may not, be another one of those alleys. Pretty hard to design equipment to test your theories when it only works in two or three dimensions, and you need at least six.

Lets throw money at it, that'll work.

[Pofarmer]

Well, had a couple more through the looking glass incidents today. They both involved brand new radio ads. The first one is from something called IraqAfghanistanveterans.org painting our troops as Victims. "It's so hard to come home."

The second one is from the Department of Homeland Security. It says "Do you know that if your name and Social Security number don't match that you're entitled to keep working while the issue is arbitrated."

WWWHHHHAAAAATTTTTT??????

[PDinDetroit]

I just became aware recently that HP has labs that are doing some interesting work - LUN.

[Soylent Red]

something called IraqAfghanistanveterans.org painting our troops as Victims.

F*cked up by Bushitler's illegal war, dontcha know.

Vietnam veteran treatment all over again. I wonder when Winter Soldier II begins, and when the Lifetime Channel will start producing movies about strong, brave women living with crazy Iraq War veteran husbands.

[PD]

I'm for a General Strike.

1959 style?

[daddy]

TC

Physicist Richard Feynmann answered your question with a positive in one of his auto-bio's, probably the second. IIRC, go ahead and chase the knowledge regardless was his opinion, I suppose like the Trafalmadorian who everybody knows will destroy the Universe in those old Kurt Vonnegutt novels but goes ahead and does it anyhow. But as for me, they are telling us a local Anchorage Volcano (Mount Redoubt) is currently on the point of exploding and cooking us all Pompeii style, so I'm predicting immolation rather than Black Hole disentegration for us northern Palinista's. By the way, since Hurricanes and Katrina were blamed on George Bush and his Global Warming policies, does anybody know if we can blame Obama for Volcano's? I dream of a time in this country when we can judge an individual on his Natural Disaster's, and not on the color of his skin.

[mel]

G'Night, all.

[Old Lurker]

"I'm for a General Strike.

1959 style?"

Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957.

[PD]

Fidel in 1959

[Old Lurker]

got it.

Might we have both?

[PD]

O.L.: Sure.

"Resist"

[narciso]

Wasn't that AD News story about the Alaskan Volcano Observatory debunked. or is it a real possibility, unlike Cumbre Vieja and the tsunami which will take out the East Coast some day.

[daddy]

BTW,

Our new Alaskan Senator with the High School Degree is I believe the brother of Nick Begich, a guy who wrote a book on HARP, some super secret military communication system that was also potentially going to destroy the world. He has appeared on Art Bell multiple times, so if you want a confirmed kook's opinion, I'd recommend asking Senator Begich. Unfortunately I am leaving ASAP and can't fact-check, so if I am mistaken and it is not his brother, apologies to the very sensible Senator Begich, the Man who condemned snowman Snowzilla as a safety hazard and a public nuisance.

[narciso]

Hey that happened on the X files, so that must be true, sigh, Is there anyone in that family whose sane, rhetorical question I know.

[Manuel Transmission]

mel,

If you are interested, there is a quantum physics guy, Lee Smolin, who wrote The Trouble With Physics. He does a great job of telling the story from the inside (although he was not specifically a string guy).

My beef with these efforts is that not much consideration is given to alternative schools of thought. Just like our political situation, there is a tipping point where the crowd rules the game and if you are on the outside, you can't even get a paper accepted much less get funding.

Thankfully, I never fought in that ring, so I just had to deliver something that worked. ;-)

[Boatbuilder]

As another epidode of my always exciting life, I happened to catch about a half hour of C-Span tonight, which featured what appeared to be a solid group of Republican Senators--Coburn, Thune, Sessions (no McConnell, though--and of course no McCain) basically saying that there was no way they would support the "stimulus" bill, that Obama's talk of "bipartisanship" was phony because they got no hearing on anything that they proposed with regard to the bill, and that there was very little in the unprecededented spending called for in the bill which could by any traditional measure be considered stimulus. I was impressed, despite my deep cynicism. Maybe they are growing a spine. (Or maybe they are just negotiating for a higher price for signing on). We will see. For the first time in a long time, they seemed to be speaking in a language I understand.

[Captain Hate]

What part of "I won" is supposed to sound bipartisan to anybody with more cognitive ability than that dumb bitch Couric? Speaking of the CBS lead simpleton, I think I heard a kumurshul of her interviewing one of the Winter Soldiers v2.0 before the mute button was employed.

[kim]

Imagine how they'd be acting had our peril required a draft.
========================

[Pofarmer]

I think I heard a kumurshul of her interviewing one of the Winter Soldiers v2.0 before the mute button was employed.

Expect to be hearing LOTS more of that. There is going to be an active blitz to tear down everything the Bush administration has done.

[Captain Hate]

I'm sure you're right, Po, but I'm starting to wonder if disenchantment with Teleprompter Urkel isn't starting to set in among the 52%. I was talking to a bud of mine last night who is one of the most reliable donk voters there is; he's well educated and isn't lacking in smarts, he just comes from a family background where voting D is automatic. And even he was exhibiting skepticism as to whether or not Barry was up to the task of dealing with the economy through the porkapalooza packages.

Blaming Bush has to have a limited shelf life to all but the truly delusional when they experience their net worth dropping like a rock with no end in sight.

[squeakie]

at this point i need to buy a shipping container full of "laugh in a box". when the Bush bashing starts indicated that i need a second - reach into the trusty pocketbook - pull one out and let the canned laughter begin.

[Pofarmer]

I think there were plenty of the "reliable D voters" who didn't beleive, didn't fathom, didn't understand, what Barrack Hussein was about. There's an awful lot of "they're all the same anyway" going on.

I think, one positive thing though. Can you imagine if McCain was Potus with this bailout talk going on????? I can't, or at least I don't want to. I think EVERBODY would be pissed off.

[narciso]

Yes, but the one saving grace, is that she'd be rallying votes against this monstrocity, of course, they'd call her a diva and a rogue, and force her out then. For all the issues we all had with McCain, it was a rash decision to take this much of a chance with the constitution,national defense and our longterm energy prospects.
There's too much I've seen, from the party of Moloch, sacrificing innocent lives to terrorists and well to the cult of eugenics

[narciso]

If you think I was over the top consider the Kathy Lopez post, three down, on Ogden, Johnson, & Perelli. I don't know to section
off each post, yet.

[Jane]

Test

[Jane]

Clarice,

I thought it was very slow in here - but my stuff seems to be posting.