To fund or not to fund - Are some science projects worth pursuing?

I don't have much to offer up, but I thought I'd give this topic a launching. Of course, there are also a lot of non-science projects of questionable worth for government funding, but let's now focus on science projects.In the not too distant past, funding for a super-collider project in Texas was killed after a lot of money ($1 billion plus?) was already spent, and a lot of construction done. To me, this was a good thing, as the project should never have been started in the first place. The cost/benefit analysis is poor.Another still living example is the space station project. Again, I think a project of this magnitude should never have been started. But once started, it's tough to kill.In general, I think a lot of NASA projects have a poor cost/benefit analysis. The new information may be "neat", but can't the money be better spent?The above said, I'm inclined to think that the Hubble space telescope was worth funding and doing, and probably worth further funding for its maintenance and continued use.Moose

I think this is an interesting question. I was against the supercollider being built in Texas, but I was for the supercollider itself. It should have been constructed at Fermilab. Of course I am biased since I lived within walking distance of Fermi.I do agree the space station was not worth it, yet hubble was.To me, I think the criteria for spending large is some solid gain, and not to waste time on "baby steps" like the space station. Figure out what is wanted and shoot for that goal.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

quote:

---

...I was for the supercollider itself.

---

I was a graduate student in physics at the time this was happening, and I seem to recall that the physics community was pretty ambivalent about this project. In fact, even the people who were initially interested lost interest after their sites were not chosen.-

quote:

---

I do agree the space station was not worth it....

---

My actual research field at this time was planetary sciences, and I can definitely say that no one was really intersted in this, except for the defense contractors who were worried that their corporate welfare was going to end with the demise of the Soviet Union.

I think it is clear that science is not very "efficient" in any way a business would defene it.A large amount of work is done with no expected benefits other than knowing something unknown before. That could all be removed in the interests of efficiency.Another big hunk might be trying for something "useful" but many efforts there fail. This is the nature of trying new things.Another chunk is inherently expensive like the super super collider. (this might also be in the first category too) or most astronomical research today.So if you don't like learning things you shouldn't be too keen on supporting science in general.However, the tiny fraction of things that are useful has remade the world. Perhaps that is the way to measure it. Not one project at a time but the net outcome from the entire endeavour.Of course, I'd allow for an examination of the sense of spending money in one place rather than another. That is part of the argument over maned or unmaned space exploration.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-12-2006 07:29 PMThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-12-2006 07:31 PM

Is that the case at this point? From my understanding... which could be wrong... the US is now behind CERN because of our lack of funding. I was in a seminar course on antimatter by a US physicist when someone began asking questions about recent developments at CERN, and the guy totally went green with envy, before trying to downplay their results. And of course one of the problems is that we are not in a position to doublecheck their results, nor produce original results of our own.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Over here in the UK, we were all (as in those of us in particle/theoretical physics) very excited about the SSC. It's especially good when someone else is footing the bill But those of us not connected to any particular experimental group do not care who does the research, as long as it gets done. There are no national boundaries in pure research. And for those who do care, the competition usually drives research forwards.The demise of the SSC set us back years in research. The LHC, not even finished yet, is much lower in energy... and the SSC was dropped in favour of the ISS! Go figure...Back to moose's point, it is very difficult to assign bang for buck with these research projects. There are so many aspects covering both the science, the public perception of science, and of course the spin-off technologies. And cancellation of grand scale projects has probably done infintely more to damage the public face of science than any over-spend. The SSC would have been awe-inspiring.

To fund, or not to fund that is the question.Where do you draw the line? In art there are many whom most - including myself - would not concider worthy of the term ”artist’ yet who are we to judge? We never know where the next David, Mona Lisa, Metropolis or Amelie will come from. If we deny funding we may deprive ourselves of the next great step. You have to fund exploration in all directions to stand a chance of finding the path.As in art, Science is an act of exploration. A journey down countless paths that we don’t fully know the destination of. How can we predict the outcome of a particular path? How do we know what will be truly worth it in the long run. Had the Beagle’s expedition not been funded what would that have done to the landscape we know today? How can we be certain the Super Collider would not have produced new valuable insights? Tow the ISS out to the moon and we have a permanent station in lunar orbit. Who know what benefit that structure will give in it’s time span?

I'll nominate this next.The difficulty is, ohnhai, we do have to draw some line. We must always make decisions with a recognition of limited resources. However, if one looks at where money is spent in the developed world it is clear there is plenty of money available that, if utterly wasted on dud science, would be beneficial just to have it NOT spent where it is now.

Let me reduce this to a personal level for a second. I am considering a move back to fulltime science, and specifically theoretical physics, next fall.I'm wondering if you feel such an investment of time and money would be valuable at this time? What kind of job outlook would there be for someone with such a degree, both in academia or outside (is there an outside for TPhysics)?The program I am looking at will include time at CERN, but how reliant on such facilities is this field? You mention SSC's demise set you back years. Is it possible to enter the field and discover it becomes useless or stagnant due to lack of funding?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Cool The value will be to your own satisfaction and desire to learn. It can't do any harm (as I am sure you are quite capable of defending such a decision to any relevant parties) but I do not see it as a great leap up in the employability stakes, as you already have a degree.For academia, obviously a degree would only be the beginning. You will need to progress to doctorate, post-doctorate, and the battle for tenured positions only gets worse over time, not better.Particle physics covers a wide-spectrum which I would split into three:1) Instrumentation - the spanners end of physics, getting your hands dirty with the detectors and electronics - essentially a glorified engineer. Normal mathematics background required. Very employable in hi-tech engineering.2) Particle Physicist - designing experiments and exploring the results - the "real" physicist in these three areas. Requires extensive knowledge of particle physics (QED, QCD, extended standard model - Higgs, SUSY, etc) and excellent mathematics.3) Theoretical Physicist (me) - pencil, paper, and the occasional use of the computer - researching the frontiers of knowledge in the standard model, SUSY, quantum gravity, string theory, TOE - to all intents and purposes a mathematician, and a pure mathematician by subject area. 1) and 2) are totally dependent upon CERN, Fermilab, DESY, etc. 3) is wholly independent. I personally was not affected in the slightest by the lack of SSC, other than by annoyance and frustration: I hold a great deal of interest in 2) - but hold virtually none for 1). Certainly, though the EU seems to have its head screwed on when it comes to big science.This is an area you enter for the sheer love of the subject (more so when you are coming in late). I wish you every success and am very jealous given that I am sitting on the far side, having reluctantly given up on full-time professional academia.

To touch upon art briefly - It is not for the government to select an artist and say "Here's a million dollars - Paint us a masterpiece". I'm not totally against government support of the arts, but it should be something that benefits a large part of the population. But all this is off-topic. Certainly, this is good research about the old home planet. It's not something concerning the distant cosmos or in a way, the equally distant "world" of subatomic particles. The second paragraph, of which the above is part, seems to be along the lines of buying a lottery ticket. Invest the money - There's some chance, however slim, that something wonderful will come out of it in the end.I say, spend the money to take care of the planet we live on. There are far more pressing needs for science funding, such as alternative energy sources, other than going cosmos or subatomic.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment."Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

We don't have many frontiers left--and I think that humans have a need for them (this human does anyway). Particle physics and astronomy are among the very few frontiers that we have left. Research in these areas are the best hope we have of figuring out what this universe is all about. I, for one, would like to have as much knowledge as I can in this regard, before oblivion.Cheers.

Here's something that bugs the crap out of me about funding science/arts. I'm going to use an art example, since I have one, but the same thing applies (and probably far worse) on the science side.I work and pay taxes. My money goes to the government which then allocates some of it to go to funding the arts. Fine.Some of that money goes to a particular artist (in this case Maplethorpe). Fine.That artist takes photos of men peeing in eachothers mouths. Not happy about it, but fine.Then that artist puts the photos together in a book which sells for $130 from which Maplethorpe pockets a good chunk. Very NOT FINE.If the government is funding the art project, then the project is for PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. When an artist (or scientist for that matter) is offered money so that they can pursue their dream free from having to hold down a job like the rest of us, then they have a descision to make:"Is the DOING the work more important that OWNING the work?" If so, take the money. If not, suck it up and do what the rest of us do. Work on your hobby on the weekend.I can't stand the idea that the Government will give scientist X $100,000 to run some experiments, from which he discovers a new medicine that he in turn sells for millions of dollars.

I think that certain scientific projects, such as the super-collider and the space station, are merely subsets of the area of government "pork" spending.The smokescreen is that the huge sums of money are being spent because of the collective desire for the pursuit of knowledge. The reality is that the driving forces for the constructions of the above-cited examples are that certain parties can and are making a lot of money doing it. They are technology industry welfare programs.I think that often the constructions of the components are spread around to various locations in the country in order to "distribute the pork". I know I have heard of such happening in regards to military technology expenditures.Moose

Science isn't a hobby. The training is as long and as difficult as that for law and medicine. Do you expect lawyers and physicians to work for free ?Or is it the idea of government funding that bothers you?