tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3549384968513557932..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Why fund basic science?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60696427748079182862014-12-08T12:58:09.814-05:002014-12-08T12:58:09.814-05:00Yes, I personally would rather see the whole hurli...Yes, I personally would rather see the whole hurling-people-into-space thing go away and be replaced by "more scientifically valid" missions. But neither that nor the question of whether "big science" or small diversified projects are more effective comes to grips with the issue of how to inspire young people regarding science. These folks will be the scientists of the future, and the politicians, and the voting public. So continuing support means getting kids to like the idea of doing basic scientific research or having it done by others.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37140440358356510972014-12-08T11:56:25.914-05:002014-12-08T11:56:25.914-05:00Those of us who work in soft-money research profes...Those of us who work in soft-money research professor positions (where 100% of our salary has to come out of grants) have long been aware of the reality of researchers as income sources to their institutions. Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41557546307830800192014-12-08T11:07:28.711-05:002014-12-08T11:07:28.711-05:00"What I find particularly disturbing is that ..."What I find particularly disturbing is that in this case the people were anything but unqualified. They must have been fully aware of what they were doing to their colleague and his career, and how unfair it was."<br /><br />You're right, of course, Piotr. They damn well should be qualified, but somehow after reading David's earlier reports on how UK universities have been evolving during and after the glorious reign of Mrs Thatcher I'm no longer surprised about heads of departments who care nothing for what we used to regard as standards of decency. As David says "I don’t know how people like Martin Wilkins and Caroline Davis manage to sleep at night."<br /><br />I left the UK academic scene in 1987 -- late enough to see how things were moving, but early enough to escape the worst ravages. France has been moving in the same direction, but much more slowly and less single-mindedly, and it's still possible to study the things you want to study if it doesn't need a lot of money.Athel Cornish-Bowdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05993242236208061356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9367370254454883952014-12-08T10:09:51.944-05:002014-12-08T10:09:51.944-05:00People were into the space program because they se...People were into the space program because they seriously believed in a future where people would live on the Moon and what not, and didn't see that the whole thing really was about testing technology for missiles. We didn't colonize the Moon and we won't colonize Mars. But the US (and/or China) probably will spend billions to send a guy to plant a flag on Mars despite not really being very scientifically informative.<br /><br />As for current "big science", there are things like the BRAIN initiative which are frankly more inspiring and more scientifically valid than the space programs, but of course there is the old debate on whether "big science" or small individual-PI driven research is the most effective use of research money.Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84972500749043164382014-12-07T16:49:14.137-05:002014-12-07T16:49:14.137-05:00Yes, that looks to be a new and truly disturbing t...Yes, that looks to be a new and truly disturbing twist to these things. The takeover of the university by administration has been a well known and relatively widely discussed trend. But now it seems that their way of thinking is being adopted by scientists too. <br /><br />That it would come to this is no surprise - it's a logical outcome in fact. If these conditions are met: 1) the university is run by administration, a not by actual scientists who first priority is the science, and 2) the university's incentive to support research is the grant money that come in and the cut it takes from it, it is only a matter of time before the role of the scientists from the point of view of the administration becomes reduced to how much money they bring in. And if they fail to meet the quota, why keep them? What is surprising is that it has taken so long for it to become so obvious. Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86974506734819493192014-12-07T16:40:11.722-05:002014-12-07T16:40:11.722-05:00... what happens when unqualified people get to de...<i>... what happens when unqualified people get to decide which research is valuable and which is not.</i><br /><br />What I find particularly disturbing is that in this case the people were anything but unqualified. They must have been fully aware of what they were doing to their colleague and his career, and how unfair it was. And despite their excellent qualifications they decided that research was "valuable" only if it brought in enough profit for the university.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50022393626356698162014-12-07T16:20:37.634-05:002014-12-07T16:20:37.634-05:00Sad and horrifying, especially if you reflect how ...Sad and horrifying, especially if you reflect how widespread this exploitative approach to research funding has become. So they told Professor Grimm how much grant income he was supposed to bring in every year (so that the Faculty could live off the indirect costs), <i>or else...</i>? Calling it a business is an understatement: it's a bloody <i>racket</i>.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17464446745750559672014-12-07T14:58:26.708-05:002014-12-07T14:58:26.708-05:00David Colquhoun has an appalling story on his Impr...David Colquhoun has an appalling story on his Improbable Science site, at http://tinyurl.com/o8repgk about what happens when unqualified people get to decide which research is valuable and which is not. The opening sentence of the second paragraph provides the main message: “Now Stefan Grimm is dead. Despite having a good publication record, he failed to do sufficiently expensive research, so he was fired (or at least threatened with being fired).” The phrase “sufficiently expensive research” made my blood run cold. Fortunately I grew up in a time when it mattered rather little whether one’s research was expensive of not:if it had mattered I wouldn’t have survived, as the sort of things I wanted to do didn’t cost a lot of money. Of course, we all recognize that some projects cannot be pursued without a large financial investment, but it’s absurd to assess their worth on that basis.Athel Cornish-Bowdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05993242236208061356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48741404855624880882014-12-07T11:45:43.176-05:002014-12-07T11:45:43.176-05:00did a bad good job
Oooops, did a BAD job. (I init...<i>did a bad good job</i><br /><br />Oooops, did a BAD job. (I initially wrote "did not do a good job".)Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36859280806723887402014-12-07T11:35:10.696-05:002014-12-07T11:35:10.696-05:00It's one of the panels of the National Science...It's one of the panels of the <a href="https://www.ncn.gov.pl/o-ncn/zadania-ncn?language=en" rel="nofollow">National Science Centre</a> whose statutory purpose is to support basic science (in the "continental" meaning of the word, including the humanities and the social sciences, which also have their basic research). At one point some of the smarter ministry officials must have realised that a research-funding policy based exclusively on the applicability of the results and the prospects of economic pay-off was slowly killing science by stifling theoretical progress, and that some of the money flow should be diverted to stimulate basic research. Most of the best universities in Poland are state-run. They used to received research funds from the central budget and doled them out to research workers, but in these competitive times the authorities prefer to distribute money via grants. The Ministry of Science and Higher Education did a bad good job of grant management, so a special agency was established to handle the procedures. Its budget is still modest and the chances of obtaining the grant if you apply for the first time are about one in nine on the average, I think, but having seen the Centre from the inside has convinced me that it's working quite well.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75423994087231078082014-12-07T10:16:43.292-05:002014-12-07T10:16:43.292-05:00It is curious that one can delve among ancient rui...It is curious that one can delve among ancient ruins or modern manuscripts, without any requirement that the knowledge gained be demonstrated useful, while science, since it often <i>has</i> produced 'useful' knowledge, must restrict itself to <i>only</i> doing so. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43433997037692874062014-12-07T10:03:20.253-05:002014-12-07T10:03:20.253-05:00What about the value of stimulating young minds th...<i>What about the value of stimulating young minds that will determine the course of the future?</i><br /><br />A "practical application" (or example, really) of what I'm talking about:<br /><br />When the space program captured the imagination of the public, including young people, in the 1960s, how many people were motivated to pursue studies that led to them becoming scientists and engineers? Or even if they didn't become scientists and engineers, how many of these people were imbued with a respect for science as a means of dealing with societal challenges?<br /><br />I would argue the space program engaged people precisely *because* it was not aimed at practical applications that eventually emerged from the program (e.g., advances in computer hardware), but at the "big questions" for which most people have tremendous curiosity.<br /><br />Where is the current research into "big questions" that will engage the curiosity of young people in the way the space program did in the 1960s?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87519929578153103742014-12-07T09:51:21.239-05:002014-12-07T09:51:21.239-05:00Piotr, that's very interesting. Can you tell ...Piotr, that's very interesting. Can you tell us how the panel came to have this emphasis on basic rather than applied research as part of its brief?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65722938062352557102014-12-06T21:57:02.285-05:002014-12-06T21:57:02.285-05:00The people are paying for the research. yet we don...The people are paying for the research. yet we don't owe them a easy fun job of research. They need to show they contribute to important progress. I have a interest in geomorphology and bump into papers from the advanced asian nations. I note, and its funny, how they must stress how some research point they did behind the paper is VERY USEFUL to the nation. for sure they must justify their money.<br />i think our money should pay for research to our gain. Medicine is important. i hear about heaps of evolutionary psychology stuff that should not be financed. <br />Remember whose money it is and how the common people don't have as fun jobs and get a chance for prestige.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42917671300472237702014-12-06T21:43:45.034-05:002014-12-06T21:43:45.034-05:00but I do feel that every bit of research that we e...<i>but I do feel that every bit of research that we expect the public to pay for should have some value</i><br /><br />What about the value of stimulating young minds that will determine the course of the future?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91807203212111206102014-12-06T19:39:07.215-05:002014-12-06T19:39:07.215-05:00Because just one that "definitely proves that...Because just one that "<i>definitely proves that</i>" is not enough! <br /><br />Quest, you never disappoint. I'm so glad you're here defending ID-creationism. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77552291542156064282014-12-06T19:20:01.429-05:002014-12-06T19:20:01.429-05:00Georgia,
Is that right..?. Please link me to at ...Georgia, <br /><br />Is that right..?. Please link me to at lest 10 studies that definitely prove that...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12633897117295686742014-12-06T19:03:43.735-05:002014-12-06T19:03:43.735-05:00The existence of so many people living in slums is...The existence of so many people living in slums is actually closely related ti the fact that most people have zero understanding of evolution. I would say it's even a causal relationship (in both directions). <br /><br />But one would not understand why if one does not understand evolution and you don'tGeorgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62831057306492101222014-12-06T18:25:01.739-05:002014-12-06T18:25:01.739-05:00Pioter,
I very well know where you are coming fro...Pioter, <br />I very well know where you are coming from... Now... lets face the facts...<br />What do the evolution studies bring, according the same requirements you have alluded to...? If evolution is not nonsense...you tell me how I don't benefit by not embracing it ...How..? Let say ...I live in South Africa... which is very close to my heart...and I live in the slums... why would you spent 100 times or more money on evolution studies and shit than on improving the conditions of those unfortunate evolutionary beings...? Why..?According to Darwin... they can't and should not survive ... they are too weak because they are in the wrong environment and the natural selection should and will weed then out...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16638863201547653712014-12-06T14:35:45.781-05:002014-12-06T14:35:45.781-05:00"You appear to be making the argument that ul..."You appear to be making the argument that ultimate economic utility is the only reason for basic research. Is that true?"<br /><br />It isn't *just* economic usefulness that I'm talking about, but I do feel that every bit of research that we expect the public to pay for should have some value, whether it is economic, medical, security, or quality of life. Research competes with other benefits the government can offer its citizens; we owe it to the taxpayers to make it worth them giving up extra social services, transportation infrastructure, and the like that they could have instead.<br /><br />"There is deep value in evolutionary biology because by knowing how life developed (and what is perhaps more important, why it developed the way it did) we gain a better understanding of our place on this planet, and we can also better understand what might happen in the future."<br /><br />Precisely. It's not just empty trivia without use. <br /><br />"[People have speculated about creating small black holes for energy generation] And grant-makers buy that? They must be pretty naive ;)"<br /><br />It's a long shot, yes, but its exactly possibilities like this that make basic science fundable. Program officers at funding agencies are not dissimilar to venture capitalists; they know that most things they fund aren't going to be massively successful, but they want be known as somebody who was responsible for funding a future Nobel laureate just like venture capitalists want to be the person who funded the next Google.<br /><br />"How useful are composers, while we are at it? Their products satisfy out esthetic or emotional needs, but is it something more "practical" than the fact that the findings of basis science satisfy our intellectual curiosity?"<br /><br />Music is big business though -- recorded music is ~$16 billion/year industry alone, not to mention music in concerts, movies, tv shows, video games, etc. It is easy to make the economic argument for music theory based on this.<br /><br />"So only the history and culture of prospective world powers is important worth studying? Do you for a second believe that any Indologist who's spent a lifetime studying Sanskrit and the Vedic literature is motivated by the political and economic importance of present-day India?"<br /><br />During the Cold War, a very popular major in the US was Russian Studies. Why were so many people learning Russian, and reading about its history and literature? They were trying to understand through them the motivations of the current Soviet Union. Islamic Studies and Indic Studies are newly popular in the 21st century West for similar reasons.Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78803757909510318292014-12-06T10:26:57.534-05:002014-12-06T10:26:57.534-05:00People have speculated about creating small black ...<i>People have speculated about creating small black holes for energy generation,</i><br /><br />And grant-makers buy that? They must be pretty naive ;)<br /><br /><i>music theory is useful to composers,</i><br /><br />How useful are composers, while we are at it? Their products satisfy out esthetic or emotional needs, but is it something more "practical" than the fact that the findings of basis science satisfy our intellectual curiosity?<br /><br /><i>and the history is India is important as India becomes a major power as the West has to learn more about its culture to understand how it will respond.</i><br /><br />So only the history and culture of prospective world powers is important worth studying? Do you for a second believe that <i>any</i> Indologist who's spent a lifetime studying Sanskrit and the Vedic literature is motivated by the political and economic importance of present-day India?Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77532058239264829882014-12-06T10:18:29.391-05:002014-12-06T10:18:29.391-05:00I'm not sure I understand your question. Marco...I'm not sure I understand your question. Marcotte studies deep homologies which could be at the level of, say, all vertebrates or at least all tetrapods. Going back hundreds of millions of years. The point is that networks of interacting proteins evolve on a time scale of tens to hundreds of millions of years.<br /><br />As for Lichtarge's method, you must input enough sequences to form a good phylogenetic tree but they must be diverse in sequence and biochemical function. Changes in substrate specificity evolve slowly, so a group of closely related species won't work. E.g. don't bother only analyzing sequences from primates. <b>The more diversity, the better.</b> All primates wouldn't work, all tetrapods might work, all vertebrates better than that, all eukaryotes will definitely work. Lichtarge published many papers predicting specific functions for specific amino acids, then confirmed them by experiment.<br /><br />So the time scales are sufficient to debunk Ken Ham's question, "What technologies were produced by assuming macroevolution?"Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74796304169980279892014-12-06T10:12:28.272-05:002014-12-06T10:12:28.272-05:00This year I've served on the evaluation panel ...This year I've served on the evaluation panel of a governmental granting agency in Poland. The agency in question provides support for basic research only, and any grant proposal that overemphasises the practical impact of the project or its "translational" character may be turned down just because of that. Still, many people can't resist the temptation to boast at length how terrifically useful their research is -- they simply can't believe that the board will not be impressed.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32919079460069624892014-12-06T10:03:01.481-05:002014-12-06T10:03:01.481-05:00What taxa are we talking about here? Humans, a few...What taxa are we talking about here? Humans, a few economically important species, a few model organisms, pathogens? Why study the phylogeny of birds, rotifers, tenrecs? What good, in economic terms, is Afrotheria?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39508144550278263522014-12-06T09:19:05.226-05:002014-12-06T09:19:05.226-05:00It is depressing how often we are required to writ...It is depressing how often we are required to write justifications for our research, justifications that must say how "translational" it is. All research in the U.S. that is funded by the NIH is supposed to be "translational". The translation desired is specifically into medicine.<br /><br />Now NSF, supposedly our only U.S. bastion of pure research, asks us more and more about impacts on the wider world, although they do allow public understanding of science to be a goal. And NSF is *much* worse funded than NIH. It is hard to get congresspeople to vote for any basic research at all.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.com