NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8020930.stm

Obama vows investment in science
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

President Barack Obama has set the goal of devoting 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) to US science research.

President Obama made the announcement during a speech on Monday to the US National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC.

He also discussed a US public health emergency over the swine flu virus outbreak.

President Obama added that it was time for America to lead again in the area of research and development (R&D).

“ Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment and our quality of life than it has ever been before ”
President Barack Obama

He said the goal represented the largest commitment to scientific research and innovation in US history.

"I am here today to set this goal: we will devote more than 3% of our GDP to research and development," said President Obama.

"We will not just meet, but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the space race."

US R&D spend is currently of the order of 2.6%, according to the most recent recorded figures.

"A half century ago, this nation made a commitment to lead the world in scientific and technological innovation," he said in his speech.

But President Obama said investment in science had declined since that "high water mark."

"There are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science, that support for research is somehow a luxury at moments defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree," he explained.

"Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment and our quality of life than it has ever been before."

He said his administration would, over a decade, double the budgets of key agencies, including the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

It would also pursue the goal of a cut in carbon pollution of more than 80% by 2050.

"Energy is our big project," he told the audience.

"My recovery plan provides the incentives to double our nation's capacity to generate renewable energy over the next few years."

The new ARPA-E agency, which was set up to carry out "high risk, high reward" research on energy, would help meet some of the country's challenges over coming decades, he said.

He also announced a new commitment to mathematics and science education.

"Our schools continue to trail other developed countries - and in some cases developing countries. Our students are outperformed on maths and science by their peers in Singapore, Japan, England, The Netherlands, Hong Kong and Korea amongst others," said President Obama.

Lisbon target

He added: "We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicised in an effort to advance pre-determined ideological agendas."

President Obama said his budget would also make permanent the US research and experimentation tax credit, which is designed to encourage technology-based companies to invest additional resources in R&D and testing.

Europe has long had an R&D intensity objective of 3%.

The goal is known as the "Lisbon target" because it was set at a meeting of the European Council in the Portuguese capital in 2000.

The objective to make R&D expenditure 3% of GDP is supposed to be met by 2010; but although EU states have made progress to the mark, they will miss the deadline. Currently, spending stands at about 1.84% (EU-27).

The UK government has set a target for GDP spend on research of 2.5% by 2014.

Nick Dusic, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK, told BBC News: "President Obama backs up his rhetoric about the importance of science and engineering with additional investment in R&D and science and maths education.

"Although the UK government has made similar commitments in the past, it needs to redouble its effort if we are to compete and collaborate with the US in the future."

Japan spends almost 4.0%; Korea spends more than 3.2%; and China is catching up fast, spending over 1.4% of its GDP on R&D.

On the swine flu outbreak, President Obama told the audience: "Our capacity to deal with a public health challenge of this sort rests heavily on the work of our scientific and medical community. This is one more example of why we can't allow our nation to fall behind."

Well it is about time a President fully acknowledged what value science has. I only wish he would be spending even more on science and less on the military. Ah well. At least he's improving the way things are.

Incidentally, is that picture hilarious, or what? It's like he's holding a ball of light in his hand.

I have to give props to the Obmanator on this one, good job. *starts hoping for NSF funding* :p

He is making a mistake. History research needs 3% GDP not science.

God will frown on this funding evolutionists to kill babies











I'm kidding for goodness sake

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8020930.stm



Well it is about time a President fully acknowledged what value science has. I only wish he would be spending even more on science and less on the military. Ah well. At least he's improving the way things are.

Incidentally, is that picture hilarious, or what? It's like he's holding a ball of light in his hand.
Who is leading the world in R&D, now, if not the U.S?

Just because I get to be the first for once:

Where's the chaaaaaaaaaange?!


Oh, there it is.

Just because I get to be the first for once:

Where's the chaaaaaaaaaange?!


Oh, there it is.

lets see how he implements it, most of the GDP is outside of his authority.
I think 3% of the GDP would be somewhere online of 15% of the budget.

Who is leading the world in R&D, now, if not the U.S?

well I'm sure we spend more money overall on it, I guess Japan probably beats most every country by % of GDP.

EDIT:http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/s2194/conten2d.htm

"The United States spends more money on R&D activities than does any other country; in fact, it spends more than Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy combined.[10] In 1992 the latest year for which foreign data are available the U.S. spent the same proportion of its GDP on R&D as Japan (2.8 percent) and its ratio of R&D funds to GDP was slightly greater than Unified Germany (2.5 percent). In comparison, the ratio for France was estimated at 2.4 percent and for Italy at 1.4 percent. The British R&D/GDP ratio was 2.1 percent in 1992."

ROFL we pwn them biatches

also, heres one for asia: http://kjs.nagaokaut.ac.jp/mikami/asianSTP/RDEperGDP2.htm

Europe: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/08/34&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Sweden seems to come out on top at 3.8%

He is making a mistake. History research needs 3% GDP not science.

Oh, and because I forgot:

In my completely unbiased position, as a history student I agree. :D

well I'm sure we spend more money overall on it, I guess Japan probably beats most every country by % of GDP.

Yeah but that is all on giant robot and cute sexbot research...

well I'm sure we spend more money overall on it, I guess Japan probably beats most every country by % of GDP.
I'm thinking more about productivity. Results from R&D are what's important. You can probably get more, if you finance more, but who produces the most patents, for instance? That's a decent metric for R&D success.

A onetime investment of 3% of the US' GDP would put a colony on Mars.

I'm thinking more about productivity. Results from R&D are what's important. You can probably get more, if you finance more, but who produces the most patents, for instance? That's a decent metric for R&D success.

Certainly, I think funding this crap doesn't mean much if you get jackshit out of it (unless you want some free $$$ like me...)

The US spends 2.6% of GDP on scientific research? I am skeptical. This sounds about as right as Clinton balanced the budget.

I've no doubt that pots of money is spent on 'stuff'. Hell local news has a 'research' item almost every night. But to call it science is charitable in the extreme.

That said, it would kick ass if the US spent $400 billion a year on real kick ass science. Like warp drives and lasers and shit. But not robots.

I say we use all science money to work up some flying cars and cyborg soldiers. Maybe some giant death rays too.

Oh, and because I forgot:

In my completely unbiased position, as a history student I agree. :D

all history majors/grad students paid 100k a year to research history.
that is how the country should work.

Who is leading the world in R&D, now, if not the U.S?

India!

and it was all the rage like last year that you guys where going to Mars.

ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

It would also pursue the goal of a cut in carbon pollution of more than 80% by 2050.

and I suppose they plan on doing this using magic fairies and a nuclear holocaust

and I suppose they plan on doing this using magic fairies and a nuclear holocaust

Unless there's a change in the law that allows presidential terms to be 40 years long I don't think he's planning on doing it at all..

Yeah but that is all on giant robot and cute sexbot research...

Money well spent. :)

and I suppose they plan on doing this using magic fairies and a nuclear holocaust

He won't have to do anything. He's seen the actual prediction on when fossil fuels will run out not the nice fuzzy ones released to placate the general public.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8020930.stm

Well it is about time a President fully acknowledged what value science has. I only wish he would be spending even more on science and less on the military. Ah well. At least he's improving the way things are.


I heard part of the speech on the radio yesterday and I almost cheered when he said:

"The fact is an investigation into a particular physical, chemical, or biological process might not pay off for a year, or a decade, or at all. And when it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore its costs but also by those who did not.

And that's why the private sector generally under-invests in basic science, and why the public sector must invest in this kind of research - because while the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society."

I was thinking, "Finally! Someone who gets it!"

I heard part of the speech on the radio yesterday and I almost cheered when he said:

"The fact is an investigation into a particular physical, chemical, or biological process might not pay off for a year, or a decade, or at all. And when it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore its costs but also by those who did not.

And that's why the private sector generally under-invests in basic science, and why the public sector must invest in this kind of research - because while the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society."

I was thinking, "Finally! Someone who gets it!"

Hey! Hey! None of this planning ahead, damn it! Next thing you know, he'll be planning exit strategies and budgets and ... and ... what kind of example is this setting? Think of the children!

:tongue:

all history majors/grad students paid 100k a year to research history.
that is how the country should work.

I like the idea. And once we finish all that, if we become professors, tenure should be automatic.

I like the idea. And once we finish all that, if we become professors, tenure should be automatic.

and the pay for history professors should be 250k per year.

Well lets assume the GDP 12 trillion dollars.
current research is 2.6 % of the economy.
So Obama wants to increase that by .4% of the economy.
this would be 4.8e10 dollars or 48,000,000,000
So we are talking about another 48 billion in spending.

So we are talking about another 48 billion in spending.

Or less than half of the amount we piss down the drain every year in Iraq. Even more reason to get the hell out of there...

Or less than half of the amount we piss down the drain every year in Iraq. Even more reason to get the hell out of there...

Among others. I still find our budget deficit to be at unacceptable levels even with the IRAQ war.
And if all spending initiatives were allowed to pass on the grounds of just being cheaper than a war, the government would have gone bankrupt shortly after its inception.

Among others. I still find our budget deficit to be at unacceptable levels even with the IRAQ war. And if all spending initiatives were allowed to pass on the grounds of just being cheaper than a war, the government would have gone bankrupt shortly after its inception.

I agree that these deficits will ruin our economy if they continue at their current pace. However, the cost savings from withdrawal from Iraq could cover a healthy amount of new spending without affecting the deficit.

Of course, I wouldn't mind charging Iraq for the costs of our invasion...even with all the violence, they're now free of sanctions and can start making billions off of their oil under our protection. Not that it would ever happen, but at least we'll get some revenue once our companies start producing oil over there.

I agree that these deficits will ruin our economy if they continue at their current pace. However, the cost savings from withdrawal from Iraq could cover a healthy amount of new spending without affecting the deficit.

We have unfortunately made spending increases both in excess of the savings of withdrawal from Iraq and prior to that withdrawal.
So, to increase spending now in what will likely be ineffective spending (compared to private research.)


Of course, I wouldn't mind charging Iraq for the costs of our invasion...even with all the violence, they're now free of sanctions and can start making billions off of their oil under our protection. Not that it would ever happen, but at least we'll get some revenue once our companies start producing oil over there.

I find the idea of charging them for something they didn't ask for to be a travesty and imperialist.

We have unfortunately made spending increases both in excess of the savings of withdrawal from Iraq and prior to that withdrawal.
So, to increase spending now in what will likely be ineffective spending (compared to private research.)

As Obama pointed out, there is very little private funding of basic science research. The possible payoffs are too far out in the future for such research to be profitable. So private companies really don't do it. There are a few private endowments out there that give a grant here or there, but the vast majority of all basic science research is publicly funded - because that's the only place to get funds for it.

As Obama pointed out, there is very little private funding of basic science research. The possible payoffs are too far out in the future for such research to be profitable. So private companies really don't do it. There are a few private endowments out there that give a grant here or there, but the vast majority of all basic science research is publicly funded - because that's the only place to get funds for it.

Government funding of research accounts for only 30% of total funding at current. 65% comes from private industry.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/45/24236156.pdf

That is largely the defense industry where private industry is doing the research.

The problem with government research is it adds bureaucratic oversight to process. Government direction in research also tends to be unresponsive to changes in the field and produces a minimum of results even on the long term.

I agree that these deficits will ruin our economy if they continue at their current pace. However, the cost savings from withdrawal from Iraq could cover a healthy amount of new spending without affecting the deficit.

Of course, I wouldn't mind charging Iraq for the costs of our invasion...even with all the violence, they're now free of sanctions and can start making billions off of their oil under our protection. Not that it would ever happen, but at least we'll get some revenue once our companies start producing oil over there.

Waitwaitwait... you're saying that we should charge them money for invading them, ruining their shit, destabilizing their country, and generally being huge assholes?

*walks up to you and hits you, hard, in the gut*

Now, that'll cost you $100. I accept cash only.

God will frown on this funding evolutionists to kill babies

Apparently that's all God does these days. Back when things were less complicated and genocide wasn't considered a crime against humanity yet, He just went wild and drowned, burned or obliterated sinners and dissidents whenever He wanted to prove that He still was the indisputed Alpha Male.

Mind you, maybe God just found another hobby.

Apparently that's all God does these days. Back when things were less complicated and genocide wasn't considered a crime against humanity yet, He just went wild and drowned, burned or obliterated sinners and dissidents whenever He wanted to prove that He still was the indisputed Alpha Male.

Mind you, maybe God just found another hobby.

I hear God's quite the skeeball fanatic these days.

He thinks we can really afford this during an economic crisis while the deficit continues to climb? I have no doubt he will get this from slicing our military budget and replacements for old equipment. All too often these government grants create an environment when a scientist does work for the sake of getting another government grant. You can't force scientific developments overnight, and in better economic times when we can afford such thing are lower taxes + more private funding a better solution anyway?

If Iraq were to get on track we might as well get some of their oil profits. Especially considering some U.S. forces will remain there for the foreseeable future.

I heard part of the speech on the radio yesterday and I almost cheered when he said:

"The fact is an investigation into a particular physical, chemical, or biological process might not pay off for a year, or a decade, or at all. And when it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore its costs but also by those who did not.

And that's why the private sector generally under-invests in basic science, and why the public sector must invest in this kind of research - because while the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society."

I was thinking, "Finally! Someone who gets it!"

He thinks we can really afford this during an economic crisis while the deficit continues to climb? I have no doubt he will get this from slicing our military budget and replacements for old equipment. All too often these government grants create an environment when a scientist does work for the sake of getting another government grant. You can't force scientific developments overnight, and in better economic times when we can afford such thing are lower taxes + more private funding a better solution anyway?

If Iraq were to get on track we might as well get some of their oil profits. Especially considering some U.S. forces will remain there for the foreseeable future.

Please read the quote I quoted above your post.

As for short-sheeting the military, I don't believe Obama was president when we had soldiers in the desert making their own armor for their vehicles because the stuff they came with was crap, or when the families of soldiers collected money and bought their sons and daughters body armor because the DOD was trying to fight a bargain-basement war. Not to mention stripping the National Guard of equipment and leaving it unable to deal with emergencies at home. Uh huh. :rolleyes:

I only wish he would be spending even more on science and less on the military.


Because military spending on new forms of weapons and robotics isn't science....

If Iraq were to get on track we might as well get some of their oil profits. Especially considering some U.S. forces will remain there for the foreseeable future.

That is something we could arrange with the agreement of the Iraqi government. However if they don't want us there we have no justification to take payment.

That is something we could arrange with the agreement of the Iraqi government. However if they don't want us there we have no justification to take payment.

Most of their politicians certainly want our presence there to ensure that nobody tries to chop off their heads. Should be simple enough to get them to agree if they want continued support from some of our forces, training of their military, sales and U.S. supported efforts to modernize their security forces, and etc.


As for short-sheeting the military, I don't believe Obama was president when we had soldiers in the desert making their own armor for their vehicles because the stuff they came with was crap, or when the families of soldiers collected money and bought their sons and daughters body armor because the DOD was trying to fight a bargain-basement war. Not to mention stripping the National Guard of equipment and leaving it unable to deal with emergencies at home. Uh huh. :rolleyes:

Nope, Clinton was president when all of that stuff (body armor, new vehicles, new uniforms, and countless other things) should have been funded and Bush took too long to fix it. Logistics and other rhear-line units that were suffering attacks usually lack well-armored vehicles and that is something that has to be changed for COIN operations but that is beyond most politicians understanding of military strategy.

What? I was hoping hed keep allowing ancient dogma and superstition to dictate science policy. What is this?

A onetime investment of 3% of the US' GDP would put a colony on Mars.

I say let's do it.

What makes anyone think that government led research will be more productive than private research?

You know why MNDOT always seems to be in the red? Because if they don't use up all of their cash their budget will get cut in the next biennium. So they tear up roads that are still in good condition on some seldom used culdesac to widen it about 6 feet on either side and throw down a curb even if no one asked and the residents protest it. That's how all state and local governments act. That's how the federal government acts. That's how the system works and it's been working for over 200 years.

What kind of ground-breaking research will this money fund? The discovery of some new yeast? Maybe protecting some endangered species of algea. Or maybe we could just dangle a dollar over the private sector.

Most of their politicians certainly want our presence there to ensure that nobody tries to chop off their heads. Should be simple enough to get them to agree if they want continued support from some of our forces, training of their military, sales and U.S. supported efforts to modernize their security forces, and etc.



Nope, Clinton was president when all of that stuff (body armor, new vehicles, new uniforms, and countless other things) should have been funded and Bush took too long to fix it. Logistics and other rhear-line units that were suffering attacks usually lack well-armored vehicles and that is something that has to be changed for COIN operations but that is beyond most politicians understanding of military strategy.

I'm sorry, I forgot, it was Clinton's fault. Please forgive me for that lapse. Or for thinking that GWB and his people would rush into a war without preparation.

What makes anyone think that government led research will be more productive than private research?

history.

That is largely the defense industry where private industry is doing the research.

Who's their customer?

I don't see why funding can't be invested in private companies, it surely doesn't necessarily mean government bodies themselves have to do the research.

Who's their customer?

I don't see why funding can't be invested in private companies, it surely doesn't necessarily mean government bodies themselves have to do the research.

But it is government directed research.
It is also one of the reasons the big three have a hard time designing fuel efficient cars. The aero space industry flush with government money can hire most of the engineers and designers. The Pay difference working for GM or working for Boeing makes most engineers change their focus in school.

But it is government directed research.
It is also one of the reasons the big three have a hard time designing fuel efficient cars. The aero space industry flush with government money can hire most of the engineers and designers. The Pay difference working for GM or working for Boeing makes most engineers change their focus in school.

If I was inclined to put in the effort, I'd very much question everything in your post.

Mainly, I don't really think the big 3's issues is that engineers prefer to work at Boeing, I think it's partly because they suck, partly because the consumer trend was for SUVs but mostly it's because of the same pattern one sees with many boom industries - offer all sorts of long-term commitments and perks to employees and then realise one cannot afford them when competition consolidates.

Secondly, the big 3's lack of interference from government would surely make them more profitable and Boeing a shambles according to the creed.

Anyway, the plans seem very vague and if there's something that bothers me about this whole thing it's that it's just not going to happen is it?

I see the EU is committed to 3.4% by 2010, currently standing at 1.4%, no chance they're going to make it.

Much as I prefer Barack Obama, what I would really like from politicians is some basic damn realism rather than looking to appease whatever interest they're talking to.

If I was as late on everything at work as politicians, or constantly manipulated the goalposts to fool people with figures, well I wouldn't last 4~6 years that's for sure.

Just be realistic.

Having said that, the banks all tried it with their last figures, missing out entire loss-months because they happily changed their financial year, or forgetting to mention their 'profit' is due to selling a stake for cheaper than they bought it.

Yet I digress.

How can the Prez or Congress know how best to allocate money? Cut spending, cut taxes, and stop manipulating the economy. This is a waste of stolen resources, even if the goal is noble. The government cannot perform the role of a Robin Hood.

Government funding of research accounts for only 30% of total funding at current. 65% comes from private industry.

Basic research is not quite the same thing as research.

About 57 percent of funding for basic research now comes from the federal government. That share was about 70 percent through the early 1980s. In the late 1980s it fell to about 60 percent and has been at about 57 percent since 1991.

Other funding sources for basic research include universities and colleges, whose share has increased from 3.4 percent in the 1960s to 9.1 percent in the last decade; and private industry, whose share was as high as 25 percent in the mid-1990s but has since fallen to about 19 percent.

Source (http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1207)

The government cannot perform the role of a Robin Hood.

I'm pretty sure it can.

If I was inclined to put in the effort, I'd very much question everything in your post.

Mainly, I don't really think the big 3's issues is that engineers prefer to work at Boeing, I think it's partly because they suck, partly because the consumer trend was for SUVs but mostly it's because of the same pattern one sees with many boom industries - offer all sorts of long-term commitments and perks to employees and then realise one cannot afford them when competition consolidates.

Follow Bush administration military research spending. Compare it to a declining numbers of engineers in the big 3.

As for long term commitments when Boeing needs engineers they employ head hunters. The thing with contract labor is it is really easy for the person under contract to get out of it. So if Boeing comes and offers a much better contract yeah they break contract with GM or whoever.

The SUV boom was no just an American phenomenon
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4893/is_200605/ai_n17952940/
It happened in Europe(especially Germany) as well, the difference was they had the engineers to work on more then one design route.


Secondly, the big 3's lack of interference from government would surely make them more profitable and Boeing a shambles according to the creed.

If the government gave the big three several hundred billion dollars to design a new compact, and a promise to buy 500 billion dollars worth of them after design and research. They would be very profitable.

If the government gave the big three several hundred billion dollars to design a new compact, and a promise to buy 500 billion dollars worth of them after design and research. They would be very profitable.

GM doesn't have government contracts for the military?

Seems to, but clearly not as much as Boeing :)

http://www.govexec.com/top200/02top/s3chart1.htm

But it is government directed research.
It is also one of the reasons the big three have a hard time designing fuel efficient cars. The aero space industry flush with government money can hire most of the engineers and designers. The Pay difference working for GM or working for Boeing makes most engineers change their focus in school.

i don't think the engineers are primarily at issue here

GM doesn't have government contracts for the military?

Seems to, but clearly not as much as Boeing :)

http://www.govexec.com/top200/02top/s3chart1.htm

yes about 1/ 30th of what Lockheed martin has.
Do you think 500,000 dollars a year can save a company from going under?
More over your source doesn't list research grants as a source of income. I doubt GM has been paid to research a new car.

i don't think the engineers are primarily at issue here

okay we move onto scientist.
Instead of being employed to conduct marketable research the government will now employ them to conduct "pure research".
this will decrease the pool of available scientist to corporations, and rasie cost of employing them.
Which if the government is going to artificially create demand for any field it needs to be history majors.

countries that are considered major innovators such as Germany and Japan, Have less government funding as a % of the total not more. Japan I think is 77% privately funded and Germany is 68%. it is in the source I posted earlier.

all history majors/grad students paid 100k a year to research history.
that is how the country should work.

Fuck yea, sign me up!

Money well spent. :)

*forwards this to Ms. LG's e-mail Inbox*

and the pay for history professors should be 250k per year.

Fuck yea! Where do I sign up for this?!

Fuck yea, sign me up!



*forwards this to Ms. LG's e-mail Inbox*



Fuck yea! Where do I sign up for this?!

Vote for me during the next presidential election.

Vote for me during the next presidential election.

Very well, but I want my own team too.

Very well, but I want my own team too.

How about being Secretary of state?

How about being Secretary of state?

Hmm, sure why not.

What kind of ground-breaking research will this money fund? The discovery of some new yeast? Maybe protecting some endangered species of algea. Or maybe we could just dangle a dollar over the private sector.

Who's their customer?

I don't see why funding can't be invested in private companies, it surely doesn't necessarily mean government bodies themselves have to do the research.

Though I'll admit I'm less up to date on research funding in the US than the UK, but the majority of government-funded research will be done through Universities and university-affiliated research centres not government organisations. How funding works is thus - a research agency (say NSF) will get a pot of money. They will then put out the call for bids, which research groups will put in - the lead investigator will usually be tenured professor or a senior fellow. If the bid seems to have merit, they will get the funding - at which point the onus of the actual organisation of the research falls on the researchers and the university, not the government. Are there bureaucratic hoops, well yes, you have to render reports and publications to justify the money. But I can assure you similar hoops exist for private funding too.

okay we move onto scientist.
Instead of being employed to conduct marketable research the government will now employ them to conduct "pure research".
this will decrease the pool of available scientist to corporations, and rasie cost of employing them.


You seem to be under the mistaken impression that
a) We don't already have a glut of well qualified scientists who are looking for research positions We do (http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i04/04a00102.htm)
b) That private industry doesn't pay much more and offer far more job security than doing the academic/pure research route - which is where you would be if you were looking for government funding.

There are not all that many internal government research organisations - most of those that do exist research security sensitive topics (usually defence) that the government can't farm out to other organisations.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that
a) We don't already have a glut of well qualified scientists who are looking for research positions We do (http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i04/04a00102.htm)
b) That private industry doesn't pay much more and offer far more job security than doing the academic/pure research route - which is where you would be if you were looking for government funding.



Your article only address academic employment, these scientist need to be encouraged to move to the private sector, further more your article proves my point by showing increased funding simply makes more applicants for the job. Such as what happened with the NIH budget.

Your article only address academic employment, these scientist need to be encouraged to move to the private sector, further more your article proves my point by showing increased funding simply makes more applicants for the job. Such as what happened with the NIH budget.

Given the fact that private industry pays more, gives you more job security and better chance to settle down in one place as opposed to moving even couple of years, how exactly do you suggest getting more people to move into private industry?* The fact is there aren't that many more research jobs in industry than in academia.

I still don't see how the fact increasing funding is necessarily going to take people away from private industry? It may mean more highly qualified individuals, or more of our pre-existing PhDs finding research jobs and thus increasing our general knowledge. I thought you would be all for increasing compition for positions, because it means that employers (be they industry or academic) will have better choice and more likely to get the best?


* Trust me, I have a friend doing R&D for industry as an equivalent of a research assistant and getting as much money as some post-docs do - without the added 'bonus' of having the Post-Doc run out after two years or so and having to find a new job.

Given the fact that private industry pays more, gives you more job security and better chance to settle down in one place as opposed to moving even couple of years, how exactly do you suggest getting more people to move into private industry?* The fact is there aren't that many more research jobs in industry than in academia.

If they can't find work in a chose career field then perhaps they need to rethink their education.



I still don't see how the fact increasing funding is necessarily going to take people away from private industry? It may mean more highly qualified individuals, or more of our pre-existing PhDs finding research jobs and thus increasing our general knowledge. I thought you would be all for increasing compition for positions, because it means that employers (be they industry or academic) will have better choice and more likely to get the best?

Government intervention warps the markets.


* Trust me, I have a friend doing R&D for industry as an equivalent of a research assistant and getting as much money as some post-docs do - without the added 'bonus' of having the Post-Doc run out after two years or so and having to find a new job.

Or the perks of Tenure as professor ?

If they can't find work in a chose career field then perhaps they need to rethink their education.

Of course - there's no reason going into a field with a competetive job market despite it being something I love and am passionate about - what was I thinking.

Government intervention warps the markets.

Yet the fact remains that if we had no government funding of science then we probably wouldn't have much, if any, science simply because a lot of research will not be profitable in the short term (if at all) despite causing dramatic benefits for society in the long term.

Now I believe that government funding should be distributed by autonomous bodies based of general mandates (eg Phsycial Sciences, Biological Sciences) to avoid it becoming too politicised or based around gut reactions. But that's different from saying the government shouldn't fund research at all. Government funded blue skies research in turn helps stimulate industry research, since they can use these theoretical principles to develop practical applications.

Earlier in the thread you mentioned some of the most innovative countries have the highest % of their research total provided by industry (Japan and Germany) - however if you look at the OP and reported links, these are also the countries where the government puts the highest % of their GDP into research. Government funded research stimulates private industry research, not hinders it.

Or the perks of Tenure as professor ?

Tenureship is very difficult to get, you usually won't until your well into your career and in a position, given the level of achievement of your average PhD student, where you'd probably have quite a few different perks (and higher salary) if you were in the private sector. People do not going into academia because of tenure - because before you get there you have 10-15 odd years of insecure, poorly paid research jobs. If it was just for the perks you'd have a hell of a lot less people making it through the process.

However, tenure is an issue with the universities not the government and looking at trends it's on it's way out and, I'll admit, that's probably a good thing. In the UK we don't have tenure any more - University lecturers have normal employment contracts like everyone else.

But it is government directed research.
It is also one of the reasons the big three have a hard time designing fuel efficient cars. The aero space industry flush with government money can hire most of the engineers and designers. The Pay difference working for GM or working for Boeing makes most engineers change their focus in school.

This....is not true. ME and MET are much larger programs than Aero. You're ignoring the fact that, really, aero is damned hard and the few engineers that do think they'd fit into the field well often simply cannot cut it. Now, does Boeing attract non-aero engineers and potentially steel them from other firms such as GM? Entirely possible. But the claim that this actually makes people change their academic focus is unlikely.

This....is not true. ME and MET are much larger programs than Aero. You're ignoring the fact that, really, aero is damned hard and the few engineers that do think they'd fit into the field well often simply cannot cut it. Now, does Boeing attract non-aero engineers and potentially steel them from other firms such as GM? Entirely possible. But the claim that this actually makes people change their academic focus is unlikely.
The another side of the equation is that L&M, GD, etc, pay poorly. I don't think I ever met anyone that had left Detroit for a career in aerospace.

Speaking of science, I like to see Obama to put a man on Mars by 2015. That man would be George W. Bush, yet in this case Obama shouldn't bother trying to get him safely back to Earth. That'll be a one-way ticket mission and cheaper.

Government funding of research accounts for only 30% of total funding at current. 65% comes from private industry.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/45/24236156.pdf

You know, in English, we have these things called adjectives. Sometimes, a phrase can be used as an adjective. Now, what an adjective does is modify a noun. So, for instance, putting the phrase "basic science" before the word "research" suggests that one is not talking about all research or, even more broadly, all R&D. It, in fact, suggests that one is talking about a specific subset of research denoted "basic science."

Now, armed with this information, do you see why the pdf you linked to is completely irrelevant to what I said?

But it is government directed research.

Not exactly. The government allocates the funds to very broad areas of research. Calls for proposals and the determination of which grant applications get funded are carried out by scientists.


Tenureship is very difficult to get, you usually won't until your well into your career and in a position, given the level of achievement of your average PhD student, where you'd probably have quite a few different perks (and higher salary) if you were in the private sector. People do not going into academia because of tenure - because before you get there you have 10-15 odd years of insecure, poorly paid research jobs. If it was just for the perks you'd have a hell of a lot less people making it through the process.

Going into academia really isn't about the perks or it being a better job than industry. It's largely about personal preference. Some people prefer that career track, while some of us would vastly prefer to make more money and maybe have less bureaucratic hassle out in industry. (Can you tell which career track I'm planning on once I finish my doctorate?)

Going into academia really isn't about the perks or it being a better job than industry. It's largely about personal preference. Some people prefer that career track, while some of us would vastly prefer to make more money and maybe have less bureaucratic hassle out in industry. (Can you tell which career track I'm planning on once I finish my doctorate?)

Oh very much so - I had very much planned to go into academia. I've actually managed to land a government research job which is in some ways middle route really. I'm happy with this as it will give me amazing experience and allow me to get into an area of research I'm very interested in but wouldn't otherwise have the opportunity to do. But I haven't written off going back into academia in a few years (when hopefully there's more research funding around), in a good part for the, relative, research freedom, despite the fact that in doing so I'll probably end up taking a pay cut and loosing a lot of benefits.

So yes, staying in academia is something you do for personal preference when it comes to research, not for perks or an easy life, because it isn't.

However, tenure is an issue with the universities not the government and looking at trends it's on it's way out and, I'll admit, that's probably a good thing. In the UK we don't have tenure any more - University lecturers have normal employment contracts like everyone else.

in USia we've been phasing out tenure, and replacing it with 'teaching post-docs', having people with only masters degrees (current grad students or otherwise) do the jobs, or just making classes enormous and letting departments die off slowly. it's done wonders for the quality of education available. also, jacked up the costs of administration.

http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/bousquet/more-drivel-from-the-new-york-times
http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/bousquet/stimulating-higher-ed

in USia we've been phasing out tenure, and replacing it with 'teaching post-docs', having people with only masters degrees (current grad students or otherwise) do the jobs, or just making classes enormous and letting departments die off slowly. it's done wonders for the quality of education available. also, jacked up the costs of administration.


Ugh - not the way to go. Do people have to go to extremes - what's so difficult with phasing out tenure and having staff on decent employment contracts with appropriate protections and possibilities for promotions. Is that really that hard?

We have teaching fellows here - but they tend to there to supplement the lecturers and half the time they will also have PhDs. I believe for a lot of course to be accredited by the appropriate professional bodies (eg for Psychology the British Psychology Society) you need a minimum staff-student ratio, and that staff has to have the appropriate qualifications.

Ugh - not the way to go. Do people have to go to extremes - what's so difficult with phasing out tenure and having staff on decent employment contracts with appropriate protections and possibilities for promotions. Is that really that hard?

hey, our way looks way cheaper on the balance sheet (as long as you don't look too hard or think about it for too long)

Ugh - not the way to go. Do people have to go to extremes - what's so difficult with phasing out tenure and having staff on decent employment contracts with appropriate protections and possibilities for promotions. Is that really that hard?

We have teaching fellows here - but they tend to there to supplement the lecturers and half the time they will also have PhDs. I believe for a lot of course to be accredited by the appropriate professional bodies (eg for Psychology the British Psychology Society) you need a minimum staff-student ratio, and that staff has to have the appropriate qualifications.

hey, our way looks way cheaper on the balance sheet (as long as you don't look too hard or think about it for too long.

Is there a Nobel Prize for Bookkeeping?

hey, our way looks way cheaper on the balance sheet (as long as you don't look too hard or think about it for too long.

And sod the quality of education, because students will continue to come here anyway since all they actually care about is the piece of paper at the end?

At a guess there isn't a university lecturer's (well college professors I suppose would be the right term) union in the US? Despite some of the more annoying things they've done, I;d say the union over here is instrumental in protecting both the lecturers and the students and stopping universities from taking the piss in a desperate attempt to save money.

And sod the quality of education, because students will continue to come here anyway since all they actually care about is the piece of paper at the end?

apparently, yes. go team capitalism!

I love the logic of some posters. Apperantly, the government giving big, fat, defense contracts worth billions to companies is still someone in the private sector doing research without any help from the government.

The mind boggles.

I love the logic of some posters. Apperantly, the government giving big, fat, defense contracts worth billions to companies is still someone in the private sector doing research without any help from the government.

The mind boggles.

Whereas of course giving big fat research grants to (often private) universities is government directed research and thus evil, evil I tell you!

The another side of the equation is that L&M, GD, etc, pay poorly. I don't think I ever met anyone that had left Detroit for a career in aerospace.

Actually Lockheed paid ok out in California. One facility had 44000 workers when I was there. Regan's downsizing era took care of that.....