Doug:
A major scientific breakthrough was announced this week: for the first time, gravitational waves have been detected. Gravitational waves were predicted by Albert Einstein 100 years ago, and these experiments show that he was correct.
This was a risky project that could have been beyond the reach of what we could detect. But, decades of work (and funding from the US) made this possible.
I suspect that there are some people that don't see the value of our government funding such large "moon shot" type projects. And probably many that don't believe that the government should be providing any money to science, or to the arts.
David:
The answer is yes......and no.
The question is whether or not the "science" benefits Americans, and whether or not the studies and research would be done without government assistance. (Aye, but thars the rub, said the pirate. How do ye know fer sure what is good or what is bad?) Right now, the government is borrowing money at roughly 1 million dollars every minute of every day. It becomes very important to make sure we aren't spending money where we don't need to. Here's a balanced article from NPR that discusses research waste. Note that at no time do researchers defend the studies themselves, or argue the money wasn't wasted, just that they don't like the government criticizing them. Even the last study listed (Why do bowlers smile?), should have been funded privately.
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139852035/shrimp-on-a-treadmill-the-politics-of-silly-studies
"Shrimp on a treadmill" has become synonymous with government wasting money.
Doug:
Funny that you should mention the "shrimp on a treadmill" research, because I was involved in a project also mentioned in that same critique, so I know something about this in detail. First, this critique came from, as noted in the above NPR report, Tom Coburn's annual report "Under the Microscope":
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/gdc/coburn/2014500020.pdf
In addition to criticising the shrimp study, the report also said:
"There is little, if any, obvious scientific benefit to some NSF projects, such as a YouTube rap video, a review of event ticket prices on stubhub.com, a “robot hoedown and rodeo,” or a virtual recreation of the 1964/65 New York World’s Fair." ---Under the Microscope, page 4.
There is no mention of exactly what the "robot hoedown and rodeo" cost, but I can tell you. It was $6,283. What was it for? It was designed to introduce Computer Science educators to low-cost robotics to use in their classrooms to teach computing. This is one area of research that I work in. There were about 5,000 people at the conference hosting the robot rodeo. Although the US government only put in $6k, about 15 PhD's volunteered their time and energy for 4 days to demonstrate these robots.
The end result is that many colleagues I know don't want to volunteer any more to an event ridiculed by our own government. You can check out the summary of the whole event here (and you may even spot me in some of the pictures and videos):
http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kay/sigcse/rodeo.html
Of course the irony is the that more fun and interesting you try to make your project sound (e.g., "robot rodeo") the more likely it can be taken out of context by the Know Nothings that look over NSF funded research looking for reports that sound fishy. Or shrimpy.
David:
Of course, sometimes a shrimp is, in fact, just a shrimp. Not all research needs government funding. Surely, you aren't going to defend the rap video or the review of stubhub ticket prices.
Doug:
Yes, I will defend all of the funded research because I know how the process works. All of the funding goes to the most viable research submitted, and determined by a jury of peers. If you have a problem with a funded project, then you have a problem with the democratic process.
David:
Not so fast. The reason that corporation CEO's get such enormous salaries and benefits, is that a "jury of their peers", the members of the board of directors (many of whom are also CEO's of other corporations) vote on what those salaries should be. That, too, is a democratic process. If the money for scientists is distributed by other scientists who also want to get government money, then the entire process may be tainted.
Doug:
I've been on NSF review panels, and the entire process can't be tainted.
David:
That is very likely true, but are you saying that you could not possibly have obtained any funding for your conference without the taxpayers footing the bill?
Doug:
We did get additional funding from corporations. But it still was not enough.
David:
If the research is important, then scientist should make a pitch to the private sector for funding, just like everyone else. I just went to an emergency medicine conference and paid for it myself. Why? Because the information is useful to me. But, I agree that some beneficial research does need the government to step in. But there needs to be limits.
Doug:
There are already limits. There is very little money for doing science in the US. I bet Coburn's office spent more taxpayer money on this silly report than the scientists did on the "shrimp on a treadmill" experiments (which cost less than $1,000). They had to pay the staffers to produce the report. I believe Coburn even had thousands of these reports printed and mailed out. This report was not peer-reviewed, but every dollar given out in US funding is.
But the robot rodeo was not a typical funded project like the "shrimp on a treadmill." The big funded projects are those selected via peer review, and these awards are very competitive. I trust that the peers are doing their best to be effective stewards of this money. By the way, no one is getting rich off of these grants. These grants just allow researchers to do the science that they are interested in. These scientists are very hard working, and, in all cases I know, we taxpayers get a very good deal for the money that we put into this research.
David:
Thousands of $1000 projects can add up pretty quickly. Just because someone isn't getting rich does not mean they aren't wasting money.
Doug:
My point was about the motivation for these grants. Scientists don't submit proposals to get rich; they do it because the award motivates them to do the science. Perhaps some of this research will lead to something that a corporation will sell and make money. But that is not why we do science. We do science because we want to understand the world around us. I understand that some people don't value that. But I vote for people who do.
David:
I vote for people who are responsible with taxpayer dollars.
The NPR article above also notes that sometimes funding was granted for one study, and later that money was parceled out to others. The original study may have been peer-reviewed, or not, but the money doesn't appear to have gone were it was originally intended.
Doug:
That is not true. If any money goes to anything outside of the bounds of the proposal, then an audit kicks in. All money must go to what was proposed, or the college or university would have to reimburse it, and someone would get fired.
David:
Unless the audit approves the expenditures.
Doug:
The auditors only decide if a charge was under the original proposal. They do not have the authority to approve charges that are outside those bounds.
David:
And I still have not found a good defense of the "shrimp on a treadmill" study as a good use of government cash.
Doug:
Then you didn't look very hard. There are lots of additional articles on the science behind the treadmill experiments. But the idea that someone not in that field would understand the value of any particular study in the context of that science is hubris. You (and I) are not qualified to judge.
David:
They don't want me to judge them, but they do want my money.
You are right in that I didn't look very hard. I'm still chuckling watching that poor little shrimp running on his custom treadmill. It never gets old.
Doug:
There's your argument in a nutshell. I should say that I also support the government funding of the arts. A society that doesn't value the arts is a society that is in decline.
David:
Government funding of the arts is not the same as society valuing the arts. Society should fund it through private donations, not with taxpayer dollars. If particular art does not spark interest in society, then it will fail. In the past, kings and queens would commission certain pieces of art, but they didn't fund "The Arts". And we still have plenty of art that represents what was popular during certain times. Perhaps we should return to that model.
Doug:
Some of the most interesting art through history has come exactly from such sources. Of course, I am concerned about having to borrow money for our government to function. It is obvious that we want to keep on doing cutting-edge science. So we must raise more money. It also seems obvious that the super-rich need to pay their share.
David:
Right. Oh, wait a minute, the "super-rich" are already going to pay for "free" healthcare for all, and for "free" college tuition, and to pay down Obama's debt, and every other "freebie" that Democrats can think of. Unfortunately, if you taxed the top 1% at a 100% tax rate, there isn't enough money to cover even one of those projects, let alone all of them!
Doug:
So, your solution is to give them a tax break? That is definitely heading in the wrong direction by your own admission. How about we raise the taxes somewhat, and we fix some of the problems?
David:
I said nothing of tax breaks. I'm simply talking about math. None of what the Democratic candidates is pushing adds up. It doesn't even come close. How about we cut spending, and solve a lot of the problem. But, to paraphrase all of the Democrats running for office right now, the way to eliminate income inequality is to take all of the money from those who have it. Then, everyone will be happy at the bottom.
Doug:
Your misunderstanding of the progressive movement is impressive. To me, "shrimp on a treadmill" is a project that highlights those people who don't understand science, nor how science works. It is a bullying tactic. Find something that sounds funny, don't look at the details, and make fun of the people behind it. There is a lot of interesting science going on in the NSF, even in the "Under the Microscope" report. To denigrate it because it sounds funny, or that it doesn't match expectation is anti-science.
David:
Making sure taxpayer dollars are wisely spent is not anti-science. If you can't take the heat of scrutiny, then don't take the money.
Doug:
It is very hard to get funded. You act like they give out cash, and then later ask: "so, what'd you do with it?" In reality, you have to specify in fairly precise detail what you will spend the money on.
David:
To me, "shrimp on a treadmill" is rightfully a transparent view of government spending. Right now, we should cut the funding of the NSF by 10%. They would still be functioning as they are, but they might be 10% better at watching where the funds are going. That's what I expect from all of government: Using taxpayer money wisely, and getting the best bang for the buck, not just a reasonable deal. I expect my tax dollars to be used only for the most important studies that absolutely cannot be done any other way.
Doug:
Where did you get 10%? Why not 100%? In any event, I am very proud of the scientists and the US government for the gravitational wave experiments and results. This is very exciting, and it is fascinating to wonder where these experiments might lead.
David:
We should cut 10% across the board. All government agencies get equal treatment. This is just a starting point. We'll never get a handle on the debt unless we start spending less.
Now, turning to another related issue: NASA.
Remember when we were kids? I wanted to be an astronaut (or an Indy 500 racer driver). We watched the race to the moon, and played with our astronaut GI Joes. We pretended we were on our way to the moon, and beyond. With the federal government behind the program, America was able to get men to the moon, and safely back again in 9 years....from scratch. It was a remarkable program, full of remarkable people.
I say "was"for a reason. Now, just to repeat the same mission of placing men on the surface of the moon, is estimated to take 30 years, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. We already have the blueprints, and we have more computing power in the computer I'm using right now than we had in all of NASA during the 1960's. So what's different now? NASA has become a classic bureaucracy. Instead of keeping a focus, and maintaining a force of engineers, NASA now has a mountain of bureaucrats at all levels, and a plethora of various big-government, non-science duties to perform. Like Muslim "out-reach".
http://www.space.com/8725-nasa-chief-bolden-muslim-remark-al-jazeera-stir.html
The way to inspire a new generation of American kids to get involved in science is to do great things, remarkable things, SPACE things. Black holes? That gets kid's imaginations working. NASA could have a base on Mars right now, if the government bureaucrats would just leave them be. And they could do it with much less cost, if they weren't micro-managed, and had a specific focus. Heck, right now we're dependent on the Russian's just to launch supplies to the space station.
Doug:
We're dependant on the Russians because we cut the Space Shuttle program. I don't understand your point. On the one hand you say "leave the scientists alone" and on the other hand you salute the politicians that make fun of the science funding by politicizing it. Which is it? Let them do the science, or let Know Nothings decide which science is worthwhile?
Imagine if Obama had said: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." He would have been ridiculed.
David:
Instead, he said the space agency should focus on making Muslim countries feel like they're included in our space efforts, rather than actually going to space.
Doug:
Really? That was his focus? He didn't do a very good job, because Obama never mentioned it. Everyone connected to NASA has denied that claim:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/07/did-obama-speci.html
David:
The NASA administrator, Charles Bolden, said it, until it was criticized. Then President Obama denied it ever happened. How easily you believe a Democratic administration.
Doug:
How easily you believe that there is a conspiracy involving our top-most elected officials to turn the whole space agency into a Muslim propaganda machine. Or you could believe that one fellow was misquoted, misspoke, or is a tad wacky. Which is more likely?
David:
A top governmental official being wacky? Perish the thought!
If we eliminated the bureaucratic waste in NASA, we'd be able to do much, much more with the funding we have.
Doug:
There is no evidence for the claim that we can do more.
David:
Freeing up money that is tied up in the inefficiencies of bureaucracy allows that money to be used for something else, something productive.
The point is NASA has become a classic government agency, full of bloated bureaucracy that now prevents it from accomplishing the very mission it was created to perform.
Doug:
We should let the scientists figure out what work needs to be done, and let them do it. If that requires shrimp on a treadmill, then so be it. And keep the politicians out of the way.
David:
Well, we both actually agree in principle. However, as long as government is responsible for funding, the politicians, bureaucrats, and ultimately taxpayers, are always going to want a say. This is just one important area that will need to be cut, unless we address and reform entitlement spending. The longer we wait, the bigger the cuts will ultimately be. That will have broad effects for all of us.
Doug:
If we agree in principle, then let's stick to our principles. Either the politicians and taxpayers know enough to be able to weigh in on the science, or they don't. If they think that "shrimp on a treadmill" is a different kind of science than that needed to put people on Mars, then they get what they deserve: a sterile science devoid of curiosity.
David:
Okay then, we don't agree. Scientists, farmers, educators, doctors, or anyone else who take government funding are responsible to the taxpayers for their work and results. No one should get a blank check. To do otherwise leads to corruption and out-of-control spending. Transparency should be the hallmark of science. We should have more, not less transparency in all aspects of government. And that includes the NSF.
Doug:
You make a false dichotomy. As I already have pointed out, there is a rigorous process in place. There is no "blank check." Transparency is the hallmark of science! Reproducibility, double-checking, peer-review... all parts of science. All that is left for you to do is say: "those shrimp look funny on that treadmill." I have a feeling that the next big breakthroughs won't be coming from the US with thinking like that.
David:
Hmmm. All of this talk about shrimp is making me hungry. Now, if I could just catch some of those speedy little fellows.....
A major scientific breakthrough was announced this week: for the first time, gravitational waves have been detected. Gravitational waves were predicted by Albert Einstein 100 years ago, and these experiments show that he was correct.
This was a risky project that could have been beyond the reach of what we could detect. But, decades of work (and funding from the US) made this possible.
I suspect that there are some people that don't see the value of our government funding such large "moon shot" type projects. And probably many that don't believe that the government should be providing any money to science, or to the arts.
David:
The answer is yes......and no.
The question is whether or not the "science" benefits Americans, and whether or not the studies and research would be done without government assistance. (Aye, but thars the rub, said the pirate. How do ye know fer sure what is good or what is bad?) Right now, the government is borrowing money at roughly 1 million dollars every minute of every day. It becomes very important to make sure we aren't spending money where we don't need to. Here's a balanced article from NPR that discusses research waste. Note that at no time do researchers defend the studies themselves, or argue the money wasn't wasted, just that they don't like the government criticizing them. Even the last study listed (Why do bowlers smile?), should have been funded privately.
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139852035/shrimp-on-a-treadmill-the-politics-of-silly-studies
"Shrimp on a treadmill" has become synonymous with government wasting money.
Doug:
Funny that you should mention the "shrimp on a treadmill" research, because I was involved in a project also mentioned in that same critique, so I know something about this in detail. First, this critique came from, as noted in the above NPR report, Tom Coburn's annual report "Under the Microscope":
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/gdc/coburn/2014500020.pdf
In addition to criticising the shrimp study, the report also said:
"There is little, if any, obvious scientific benefit to some NSF projects, such as a YouTube rap video, a review of event ticket prices on stubhub.com, a “robot hoedown and rodeo,” or a virtual recreation of the 1964/65 New York World’s Fair." ---Under the Microscope, page 4.
There is no mention of exactly what the "robot hoedown and rodeo" cost, but I can tell you. It was $6,283. What was it for? It was designed to introduce Computer Science educators to low-cost robotics to use in their classrooms to teach computing. This is one area of research that I work in. There were about 5,000 people at the conference hosting the robot rodeo. Although the US government only put in $6k, about 15 PhD's volunteered their time and energy for 4 days to demonstrate these robots.
The end result is that many colleagues I know don't want to volunteer any more to an event ridiculed by our own government. You can check out the summary of the whole event here (and you may even spot me in some of the pictures and videos):
http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kay/sigcse/rodeo.html
Of course the irony is the that more fun and interesting you try to make your project sound (e.g., "robot rodeo") the more likely it can be taken out of context by the Know Nothings that look over NSF funded research looking for reports that sound fishy. Or shrimpy.
David:
Of course, sometimes a shrimp is, in fact, just a shrimp. Not all research needs government funding. Surely, you aren't going to defend the rap video or the review of stubhub ticket prices.
Doug:
Yes, I will defend all of the funded research because I know how the process works. All of the funding goes to the most viable research submitted, and determined by a jury of peers. If you have a problem with a funded project, then you have a problem with the democratic process.
David:
Not so fast. The reason that corporation CEO's get such enormous salaries and benefits, is that a "jury of their peers", the members of the board of directors (many of whom are also CEO's of other corporations) vote on what those salaries should be. That, too, is a democratic process. If the money for scientists is distributed by other scientists who also want to get government money, then the entire process may be tainted.
Doug:
I've been on NSF review panels, and the entire process can't be tainted.
David:
That is very likely true, but are you saying that you could not possibly have obtained any funding for your conference without the taxpayers footing the bill?
Doug:
We did get additional funding from corporations. But it still was not enough.
David:
If the research is important, then scientist should make a pitch to the private sector for funding, just like everyone else. I just went to an emergency medicine conference and paid for it myself. Why? Because the information is useful to me. But, I agree that some beneficial research does need the government to step in. But there needs to be limits.
Doug:
There are already limits. There is very little money for doing science in the US. I bet Coburn's office spent more taxpayer money on this silly report than the scientists did on the "shrimp on a treadmill" experiments (which cost less than $1,000). They had to pay the staffers to produce the report. I believe Coburn even had thousands of these reports printed and mailed out. This report was not peer-reviewed, but every dollar given out in US funding is.
But the robot rodeo was not a typical funded project like the "shrimp on a treadmill." The big funded projects are those selected via peer review, and these awards are very competitive. I trust that the peers are doing their best to be effective stewards of this money. By the way, no one is getting rich off of these grants. These grants just allow researchers to do the science that they are interested in. These scientists are very hard working, and, in all cases I know, we taxpayers get a very good deal for the money that we put into this research.
David:
Thousands of $1000 projects can add up pretty quickly. Just because someone isn't getting rich does not mean they aren't wasting money.
Doug:
My point was about the motivation for these grants. Scientists don't submit proposals to get rich; they do it because the award motivates them to do the science. Perhaps some of this research will lead to something that a corporation will sell and make money. But that is not why we do science. We do science because we want to understand the world around us. I understand that some people don't value that. But I vote for people who do.
David:
I vote for people who are responsible with taxpayer dollars.
The NPR article above also notes that sometimes funding was granted for one study, and later that money was parceled out to others. The original study may have been peer-reviewed, or not, but the money doesn't appear to have gone were it was originally intended.
Doug:
That is not true. If any money goes to anything outside of the bounds of the proposal, then an audit kicks in. All money must go to what was proposed, or the college or university would have to reimburse it, and someone would get fired.
David:
Unless the audit approves the expenditures.
Doug:
The auditors only decide if a charge was under the original proposal. They do not have the authority to approve charges that are outside those bounds.
David:
And I still have not found a good defense of the "shrimp on a treadmill" study as a good use of government cash.
Doug:
Then you didn't look very hard. There are lots of additional articles on the science behind the treadmill experiments. But the idea that someone not in that field would understand the value of any particular study in the context of that science is hubris. You (and I) are not qualified to judge.
David:
They don't want me to judge them, but they do want my money.
You are right in that I didn't look very hard. I'm still chuckling watching that poor little shrimp running on his custom treadmill. It never gets old.
Doug:
There's your argument in a nutshell. I should say that I also support the government funding of the arts. A society that doesn't value the arts is a society that is in decline.
David:
Government funding of the arts is not the same as society valuing the arts. Society should fund it through private donations, not with taxpayer dollars. If particular art does not spark interest in society, then it will fail. In the past, kings and queens would commission certain pieces of art, but they didn't fund "The Arts". And we still have plenty of art that represents what was popular during certain times. Perhaps we should return to that model.
Doug:
Some of the most interesting art through history has come exactly from such sources. Of course, I am concerned about having to borrow money for our government to function. It is obvious that we want to keep on doing cutting-edge science. So we must raise more money. It also seems obvious that the super-rich need to pay their share.
David:
Right. Oh, wait a minute, the "super-rich" are already going to pay for "free" healthcare for all, and for "free" college tuition, and to pay down Obama's debt, and every other "freebie" that Democrats can think of. Unfortunately, if you taxed the top 1% at a 100% tax rate, there isn't enough money to cover even one of those projects, let alone all of them!
Doug:
So, your solution is to give them a tax break? That is definitely heading in the wrong direction by your own admission. How about we raise the taxes somewhat, and we fix some of the problems?
David:
I said nothing of tax breaks. I'm simply talking about math. None of what the Democratic candidates is pushing adds up. It doesn't even come close. How about we cut spending, and solve a lot of the problem. But, to paraphrase all of the Democrats running for office right now, the way to eliminate income inequality is to take all of the money from those who have it. Then, everyone will be happy at the bottom.
Doug:
Your misunderstanding of the progressive movement is impressive. To me, "shrimp on a treadmill" is a project that highlights those people who don't understand science, nor how science works. It is a bullying tactic. Find something that sounds funny, don't look at the details, and make fun of the people behind it. There is a lot of interesting science going on in the NSF, even in the "Under the Microscope" report. To denigrate it because it sounds funny, or that it doesn't match expectation is anti-science.
David:
Making sure taxpayer dollars are wisely spent is not anti-science. If you can't take the heat of scrutiny, then don't take the money.
Doug:
It is very hard to get funded. You act like they give out cash, and then later ask: "so, what'd you do with it?" In reality, you have to specify in fairly precise detail what you will spend the money on.
David:
To me, "shrimp on a treadmill" is rightfully a transparent view of government spending. Right now, we should cut the funding of the NSF by 10%. They would still be functioning as they are, but they might be 10% better at watching where the funds are going. That's what I expect from all of government: Using taxpayer money wisely, and getting the best bang for the buck, not just a reasonable deal. I expect my tax dollars to be used only for the most important studies that absolutely cannot be done any other way.
Doug:
Where did you get 10%? Why not 100%? In any event, I am very proud of the scientists and the US government for the gravitational wave experiments and results. This is very exciting, and it is fascinating to wonder where these experiments might lead.
David:
We should cut 10% across the board. All government agencies get equal treatment. This is just a starting point. We'll never get a handle on the debt unless we start spending less.
Now, turning to another related issue: NASA.
Remember when we were kids? I wanted to be an astronaut (or an Indy 500 racer driver). We watched the race to the moon, and played with our astronaut GI Joes. We pretended we were on our way to the moon, and beyond. With the federal government behind the program, America was able to get men to the moon, and safely back again in 9 years....from scratch. It was a remarkable program, full of remarkable people.
I say "was"for a reason. Now, just to repeat the same mission of placing men on the surface of the moon, is estimated to take 30 years, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. We already have the blueprints, and we have more computing power in the computer I'm using right now than we had in all of NASA during the 1960's. So what's different now? NASA has become a classic bureaucracy. Instead of keeping a focus, and maintaining a force of engineers, NASA now has a mountain of bureaucrats at all levels, and a plethora of various big-government, non-science duties to perform. Like Muslim "out-reach".
http://www.space.com/8725-nasa-chief-bolden-muslim-remark-al-jazeera-stir.html
The way to inspire a new generation of American kids to get involved in science is to do great things, remarkable things, SPACE things. Black holes? That gets kid's imaginations working. NASA could have a base on Mars right now, if the government bureaucrats would just leave them be. And they could do it with much less cost, if they weren't micro-managed, and had a specific focus. Heck, right now we're dependent on the Russian's just to launch supplies to the space station.
We're dependant on the Russians because we cut the Space Shuttle program. I don't understand your point. On the one hand you say "leave the scientists alone" and on the other hand you salute the politicians that make fun of the science funding by politicizing it. Which is it? Let them do the science, or let Know Nothings decide which science is worthwhile?
Imagine if Obama had said: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." He would have been ridiculed.
David:
Instead, he said the space agency should focus on making Muslim countries feel like they're included in our space efforts, rather than actually going to space.
Doug:
Really? That was his focus? He didn't do a very good job, because Obama never mentioned it. Everyone connected to NASA has denied that claim:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/07/did-obama-speci.html
David:
The NASA administrator, Charles Bolden, said it, until it was criticized. Then President Obama denied it ever happened. How easily you believe a Democratic administration.
Doug:
How easily you believe that there is a conspiracy involving our top-most elected officials to turn the whole space agency into a Muslim propaganda machine. Or you could believe that one fellow was misquoted, misspoke, or is a tad wacky. Which is more likely?
David:
A top governmental official being wacky? Perish the thought!
If we eliminated the bureaucratic waste in NASA, we'd be able to do much, much more with the funding we have.
Doug:
There is no evidence for the claim that we can do more.
David:
Freeing up money that is tied up in the inefficiencies of bureaucracy allows that money to be used for something else, something productive.
The point is NASA has become a classic government agency, full of bloated bureaucracy that now prevents it from accomplishing the very mission it was created to perform.
Doug:
We should let the scientists figure out what work needs to be done, and let them do it. If that requires shrimp on a treadmill, then so be it. And keep the politicians out of the way.
David:
Well, we both actually agree in principle. However, as long as government is responsible for funding, the politicians, bureaucrats, and ultimately taxpayers, are always going to want a say. This is just one important area that will need to be cut, unless we address and reform entitlement spending. The longer we wait, the bigger the cuts will ultimately be. That will have broad effects for all of us.
Doug:
If we agree in principle, then let's stick to our principles. Either the politicians and taxpayers know enough to be able to weigh in on the science, or they don't. If they think that "shrimp on a treadmill" is a different kind of science than that needed to put people on Mars, then they get what they deserve: a sterile science devoid of curiosity.
David:
Okay then, we don't agree. Scientists, farmers, educators, doctors, or anyone else who take government funding are responsible to the taxpayers for their work and results. No one should get a blank check. To do otherwise leads to corruption and out-of-control spending. Transparency should be the hallmark of science. We should have more, not less transparency in all aspects of government. And that includes the NSF.
Doug:
You make a false dichotomy. As I already have pointed out, there is a rigorous process in place. There is no "blank check." Transparency is the hallmark of science! Reproducibility, double-checking, peer-review... all parts of science. All that is left for you to do is say: "those shrimp look funny on that treadmill." I have a feeling that the next big breakthroughs won't be coming from the US with thinking like that.
David:
Hmmm. All of this talk about shrimp is making me hungry. Now, if I could just catch some of those speedy little fellows.....
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!