Worthywads:

Since a lot of your response sounds angry and unreasonable (The Iraq war?! Did you really need to go there?!), I am not completely sure whether or how to continue this conversation. Usually, I'm happy to discuss the merits of scientific research and the value of government funding to the sciences as a part of a strategy of ensuring our national prosperity. Generally I would be glad to provide data to back up my assertions to someone who seems serious about the topic and about having reasonable dialogue, but I wonder whether I am wasting my time here. You barely engaged with any of my points, you criticized my lack of 'data' while making sweeping pronouncements yourself that were possibly more general with less support, and you insulted all my academic friends and relatives, all while quoting song lyrics at me and directing me to the Cato Institute as authority.

Still, you asked for data. If that indicates openness then I should respond to that and ignore all the negativity. Besides, this is 'Anything Goes,' right?

Perhaps you would be interested, then to see what the Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine have to say on the value of scientific research. They authored a publication entitled "Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future," which I have heard presented by a member of the Committee, Norman Augustine. If you think academic credentials aren't especially valid, perhaps you would prefer his: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Augustine. Note the industry experience, contacts, and many successes in the aerospace industry.

I refer you to the complete paper online, if you would really like to see data.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html#toc

The conclusions are very clear:
"In a world where advanced knowledge is widespread and low-cost labor is readily available, U.S. advantages in the marketplace and in science and technology have begun to erode. A comprehensive and coordinated federal effort is urgently needed to bolster U.S. competitiveness and pre-eminence in these areas. This congressionally requested report by a pre-eminent committee makes four recommendations along with 20 implementation actions that federal policy-makers should take to create high-quality jobs and focus new science and technology efforts on meeting the nation's needs, especially in the area of clean, affordable energy:

1) Increase America's talent pool by vastly improving K-12 mathematics and science education;
2) Sustain and strengthen the nation's commitment to long-term basic research;
3) Develop, recruit, and retain top students, scientists, and engineers from both the U.S. and abroad; and
4) Ensure that the United States is the premier place in the world for innovation.

Some actions will involve changing existing laws, while others will require financial support that would come from reallocating existing budgets or increasing them. "

 

While I am okay with #2 through #4, if the federal government had tried #1 when I was in K-12, I would have hung myself. Federal interference in the education system is unconstitutional and it will only serve to make those conscripted into it more miserable. If anything, the several states need to significantly cut funding of the K-12 system and also make it the K-8 system. In order to do anything, people need to be able to think and communicate, and thus people need to know know Math and English. It is ridiculous to insist on teaching a dozen other subjects when people's Math and English skills are lacking and in addition, it is absurd to teach additional subjects with incorrect information, and claim that they are good for people, even though they are teaching people things incorrectly, which will be retaught correctly in college anyway and if not retaught for whatever reason, then entirely forgotten. Having several subjects in addition to Math and English distracts students from doing what is really important, which is to learn Math and English (through having 22 hours out of the 24 hours of the day to work on it and simply allowing their subconsciouses to absorb all of the information, which cannot happen if their short term memories get overwritten with subjects that they will either never need or need to learn over again the correct way anyway), spend time with their grandparents, and be healthy (which is something that the school system does not promote, partially from their policy of forcing sick children to attend school to get everyone else sick until it is absurdly clear that they are sick and also partially from the cafeteria food). Our socialized education system was established to teach people Math and English; the concept of socialized education resulted in such debate that it would have never been socialized if anything but Math and English were being considered, as the notion of redistributing wealth to teach people anything beyond the basic skills they need to specialize and thus obtain a function (i.e. go to college) in our society is absurd. While I agree that people should be well-rounded, no amount of tax payers' money is going to make them well-rounded unless they pursue being well-rounded on their own, and much more often than not, people do not pursue it, and those that do pursue it succeed in the pursue of being well-rounded in the time that they are not in school.

 

This is getting off topic. Please stay on topic or the thread will have to be closed.

 

Sorry if you take my responses as angry. You won't be the first to assume I'm angry, though I'm not. But unreasonable, never.

I only brought up the Iraq war to provide a parallel, but ultimately poor, method of increasing employment through taxation and spending. The entire military-industrial complex is a "jobs package", but an absurd one. One that would tank our economy in the short run if we tried ending it. A jobs package for sustainable energy kills less people but will likely benefit existing large Corporations in states the senior senator's in the controlling party chose, or be doled out to lesser up and coming representatives. That's not mad, that's disgusted.
I agree there are merits and profit to be made with scientific research, as I've said. I question the value of government funding. That generally means companies and colleges then must court our government representatives through lobbying and "publish or perish" which has created the government we have which I don't like. It is my opinion that all the good that comes out of such government programs aren't worth the power that such programs give to government.

I think I touched on most of your points but I seem to disagree with how we get there. You brought up data, I'd like to see a study that shows how government spending on research produces much greater returns. When it comes to government it get's all subjective, with private companies investment money can be easily related to profits. But government research also generally leads to private company profits since the government will not and should not be in the market of manufacturing say ethanol, solar collectors, batteries, hybrids(on topic) etc. I trust that private companies will make important discoveries that benefit us consumers without government money, they don't need welfare.
If you could be specific, we can talk, possibly in a separate thread.

I insulted friends and relatives, I'm not sure how?

I suppose I was competing with bwilson4web, he'd quoted Will Rogers earlier in the thread. Music is important to me, I share it when I can, and thought the lyrics were relevent.
Not as an authority, just a different and to me be legitimate assessment of what is wrong with NASA. It is a money wasting inefficient program that has been a road block to private space exploration and travel. If it went away technology in space travel wouldn't disappear but likely thrive, if profit is allowed to drive it.

Anything goes, but I'm not sure if I'm staying on topic or not, I may have been warned already?

My impression, he is high up the military-industry jobs program that we are stuck with. He and the companies he's worked for must have benefited greatly. That bio could be read as a condemnation, he's been part of the problem, a bomb maker that became a government advisor, then back to making more war machines. That doesn't disqualify his opinion, but you disqualified CATO for some reason. I was involved briefly in 1986 (2 hours actually, my head hunter overstated my skills) with Martin Marietta, the company that Augustine was head of at the time, working on wood hulled mine sweeps. Now he advises an investment company, I can imagine him being a little more inside than Martha Stewart.
As goals I see nothing wrong with that summary, it's the last line that scares me. Do these authorities stand to gain personally if their recommendations are followed? Again, not a disqualifier, but I see bias, these authorities are pitching for spending at their schools and industries.

It can easily be show that we have already continued to increase money for all of the above goals at a pace that far exceeds inflation for the past 50 years. Something needs to change when adjusted for inflation per-pupil spending has quadrupled in 50 years but I think we'd agree the results were better 50 years ago.

To bring this all back on topic, I have no faith that our government knows how to spend massive amounts of money on hybrid subsidies or energy technology and get the results that you expect.

I haven't read through but have "skimmed" a few of the chapters in the NAP article. You gave me a lot more homework than I gave you. Is there an easy way to find out why our current school system is failing so many from this report. My feeling is that the cause is not the lack of money. I have a friend that taught 4th grade science for 3 years, and has left the profession never to return. The teaching was fun, but the stagnant bloated beauracracy was unbearable. I see one of the solutions from the NAP article is 10,000 new excellent teachers. I foresee 10,000 disillusioned ex-teachers. There's got to be something more than higher salaries, and smaller classrooms. I'll continue to skim, but if you can pinpoint some real serious changes that you think are important, that would be cool too.

Peace