If history is a guide, and we want to build more in this time (and in the future), we should all want much more government funding for basic science. Government funding for basic science is in the foundation of almost everything we build.
-
-
Replying to @roybahat
Skip to 42:00 to see why this isn’t exactly true. cc
@patrickc@Noahpinionhttps://youtu.be/Avqi1HeRlCQ2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Unsure which part it challenges? The Progress Studies argument is a strong one. I don't think it suggests that it is good we are spending less, as a pct of GDP, on science than before? We can want both for science to be more effective at discovery and to fund more science.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
While spending as a pct of gdp might be going down, that’s not relevant to the direction of the returns on spending using absolute terms. It’s important to be careful throwing money at a problem that wasn’t caused by a lack of money, which is the case here.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I have yet to hear "lack of money isn't the problem." Maybe I missed that part. One successful funding structure doesn't mean the whole rest of it is broken? I mean, correlation effects, only fits some types of research, etc. The system can be better AND is underfunded.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I’m generally supportive of more funding for science in principle but I *would* say that lack of money is not the primary problem today and that the marginal returns to additional funding would be (have been!) slight.
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likes -
What would you say is the #1 action our society should take? (Or does that require more study before we know?)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Break up NIH and NSF into 10+ bodies with fully independent approaches. Every 5-10 years, reassess their budgets. Hegemonic monoculture today very pernicious.
12 replies 3 retweets 53 likes -
Like. Though we already have DOE, DOD, and other sources of funding so that experiment is already partially afoot? I like idea of a wide diversity of sources. Some light, fast, and private (yours!). Some gargantuan. Everything in between.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
DOE/DOD not that relevant for most scientists. And DOE budget dwarfed by NIH. Certainly better than nothing, yes. I think gargantuan funding institutions are bad because they force ecosystem to adapt to their preferences. (Not doing so is an irrational career strategy.)
-
-
Relevance to most scientists I think less important than the scientific value of the efforts? (And hard to compare full-time government scientists at National Labs to university profs?) No gargantuan funding means no space program, no LHC, etc.? Hard to see how we avoid a mix.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
LHC some of the lowest-ROI science ever done! I’m not *against* funding it but it sure isn’t an example of a healthy funding ecosystem IMO.
4 replies 0 retweets 9 likes - 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.