The LHC and the importance of pure research

TalkBack 5 of 12:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Government science

I had an argument a few years back with Tic Swayback on this subject. My notion was that government-funded science works best when it's focused on achieving specific goals that the public or elected officials think are important, the Apollo program (put a man on the moon) being the prime example. Government-funded science works much less well (if at all), if there are no particular goals, or if the goals are ones that neither contribute to core government functions, or that the public cares much about. The problem is that the state can afford to spend huge amounts of money on research and has relatively little incentive to insure that the taxpayers get their money's worth (the politicians and the general public can only pay attention to so many budget items at a time). It's difficult for lay officials to gauge the merit of particular projects when there is no particular goal in mind, and there is a danger that research will be driven by what scientists think they can get grants for, rather than by what they think is actually promising (or interesting). At worst, government-funded science turns into political patronage (use the research money to reward loyal officeholders and their constituents). Thus, IMHO, open-ended basic research is usually better handled by universities and private institutions than it is by government agencies.

My major objection to the Superconducting Supercollider (to which I was opposed) was that it was looking very much like a patronage deal and the fight to host it in this or that Congressional district frankly disgusted me. Likewise, it seemed to me that at least part of the controversy regarding "cold fusion" was driven by a desire to preserve federal funding for conventional "hot fusion" research (SOGG: "Save Our Government Grants"), rather than the merits of the published paper (and yes, the researchers may well have been wrong).

It is useful to recall that relatively few of the great scientific discoveries of the past were made by government-funded scientists. Indeed, much ground-breaking research has been done by self-motivated amateurs, most notably Charles Darwin (professional landlord) and Albert Einstein (the world's most brilliant patent office clerk until he finally got his first university appointment *after* he published his special theory of relativity). Amateur science is a lot harder than it used to be, but the point still needs to be made.

Posted by: John L. Ries   Posted on: 09/12/08  (Edited: 09/12/2008 @ 09:48) You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now