Time to get serious about science

[sd'sker]

[BigRedBuster]

Are you all saying that we should totally eliminate the defense budget?

 

 

Attempting to take everyone's stance to absurd extremes doesn't make your point any more cogent.

 

I wasn't taking it to an "absurd extreme". At least that wasn't my intentions with that comment. My point was that the only expense we have all agreed on to cut is defense. That only gets us half way there if we cut the entire thing. So...unless we are going to totally eliminate the entire defense budget, entitlements and other spending needs to be part of it.

[knapplc]

I did that, right here:

 

Why not pare down the ridiculously bloated defense budget while at the same time eliminating tax loopholes for corporations and the ultra-rich? Why not modestly increase taxes for all Americans (fairly), while at the same time having across-the board cuts in government spending?

 

There's no sane reason to cut an entire department like Education without anything remotely resembling a private sector equivalent prepared to take up where the government lets off. Suggestions like that don't do anything to fix the problems we face.

[sd'sker]

This thread is a prime example of the problem we have.

 

Other than defense, not one cut has been mentioned that wasn't argued against.

 

Maybe nobody would ague against cutting school lunches though

 

Are you all saying that we should totally eliminate the defense budget?

no, but it should be limited to defense.

 

i was baiting you with the school lunch thing, sort of. i think we need to increase tax revenue and that is how we get back on track. shredding safety nets will only make american's security more precarious. so we spend less and many more people live in abject poverty, how does that help the economy? you keep saying entitlement programs, but i say those are programs we owe our citizens as part of the social compact we are all forced to enter into by being born in this country.

 

We are forced to enter a social compact by being born here?? Really??? Is that in the founding father's documents somewhere?

 

I'm not against being compassionate (as a populace. The government's job is not to be compassionate), but where in the country's rules and regulations does it say we have a social compact?

 

Increasing by taxing the rich doesn't come anywhere close.

 

http://www.forbes.co...-enough-really/

 

 

Right now, I do not support raising taxes on anyone. However, I have said that I am willing to do it if there are massive cuts on the other side.

first, it is just logical. it is enlightened self-interest. second, we have responsibilities we owe this country and it has responsibilities to us. otherwise, what is the point of a government?

 

it is a founding principle and i will give you a prime example of how they thought, but it has been lost because we only judge their words pretextually, not contextually. americans have a right to land. that is an old principle and one with greater bearing when it was formed than it has now. the right to land now is just that, the right to own land. but when that right was developed, it was a right to everything. a right to land was a right to a job, a livelihood, a home, everything. because that was back in a time when sustenance farming was possible. fdr realized this and tried to create an updated, second bill of rights with the right to employment with a livable wage. his justification was that the right to land essentially was intended to provide this and america should still do so.

 

i understand you and i have drastic differences in what we believe the role and purpose of gov't ought to be. but to me, if it is not to protect us from threats foreign and homebound, what is the point. the threat of poverty is as well and pernicious as the threat of terrorists. i believe the gov't should strive to provide a higher quality of life, otherwise what was the purpose of all the generation's toil before us? you do not need gov't to live in a hobbesian world, you just need the biggest stick. however, i do not want to live in that country (by the way, that country exists, it is called 'somalia').

[knapplc]

Can we please stop with this straw man about raising taxes for the rich solving all of our problems? Nobody, anywhere, in any thread, has ever said this.

[strigori]

This thread is a prime example of the problem we have.

 

Other than defense, not one cut has been mentioned that wasn't argued against.

 

Maybe nobody would ague against cutting school lunches though

 

Are you all saying that we should totally eliminate the defense budget?

no, but it should be limited to defense.

 

i was baiting you with the school lunch thing, sort of. i think we need to increase tax revenue and that is how we get back on track. shredding safety nets will only make american's security more precarious. so we spend less and many more people live in abject poverty, how does that help the economy? you keep saying entitlement programs, but i say those are programs we owe our citizens as part of the social compact we are all forced to enter into by being born in this country.

 

We are forced to enter a social compact by being born here?? Really??? Is that in the founding father's documents somewhere?

 

I'm not against being compassionate (as a populace. The government's job is not to be compassionate), but where in the country's rules and regulations does it say we have a social compact?

 

Increasing by taxing the rich doesn't come anywhere close.

 

http://www.forbes.co...-enough-really/

 

 

Right now, I do not support raising taxes on anyone. However, I have said that I am willing to do it if there are massive cuts on the other side.

From dictionary.com:

social contract or social compact — n (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) anagreement, entered into by individuals, that results in theformation of the state or of organized society, the prime motivebeing the desire for protection, which entails the surrender ofsome or all personal liberties

 

Everyone living in a society or community is a member of a 'social contract' Even animals like wolves or any herd, function under something similar.

 

So yes, by choosing to remain a member of a community you are subject to a 'social contract/compact' Different societies will have different nuances of what makes one up.

 

No lasting society operates on a cutthroat, everyone for themselves mentality.

 

When you start talking about 'massive cuts' I'm going to assume you are talking about social programs first and foremost (its simply what the right hates) and protect things like defense. The chart earlier in the threat perfectly explains why cutting some programs out entirely doesn't do diddly.

 

Also, what happens when 'budget cuts' go down? The first thing that usually happens is people lose income, benefits, or their jobs outright. That is exactly what happened to most states. And we need to be careful about taking policy choices that will directly lead to unemployment, when the 'benefit' of the policy is always a loose expectation that somehow cutting spending creates jobs somewhere else.

[krill]

I don't think we had this debate when Eisenhower was president. What happened to that Republican party?

[sd'sker]

I don't think we had this debate when Eisenhower was president. What happened to that Republican party?

it was eisenhower who warned us of the military-industrial complex, how right he was. defense spending should be for just that, defense. why do we need such an immense military. maslow's hammer, and such.

[carlfense]

I don't think we had this debate when Eisenhower was president. What happened to that Republican party?

Excellent question. They've been Palin-ized.

[zoogs]

I am not against federally funded research. Just as an example, look at all the great things that have come out of the federally funded space program? But, when are we going to get serious about cutting our spending?

 

We can't spend the way we have been. And, raising taxes on the rich doesn't even come close to covering what we are spending?

 

If we're going to be serious about cutting our spending, we should look to stuff that isn't a) useful and very important pursuit (regardless of tangible or non-tangible results), and b) drop-in-the-bucket amounts compared to the serious spending sinkholes that are causing problems.

 

If all we do is argue and quibble over tiny, barely impactful amounts, the problem is never going to be solved.

 

knapp, I think that chart is a little bit misleading. That category by its nature is dominated by military spending. Although I'm not going to argue that the wars have been seriously expensive to the point of excess. Ultimately though, the budget is going to be dominated by three things: medicare, social security, and defense. It's what the federal government in its limited role should do.

 

So while that chart doesn't necessary show that defense spending is too excessive, it's a great way of putting things into perspective. You hear these politicians making talking points out of cutting the EPA, or spending in so-and-so-department. So what?! it isn't going to do anything. It's not even acknowledging the root problem. That's not even half a percentage point of discretionary spending, which doesn't even cover medicare/socsec to begin with.

[tschu]

I once had a science dream. Then I learned that academic scientists spend about 1% of their time actually doing science...at your typical university the rest is spent applying for grants (months-long processes often), teaching menial introductory classes to brainless kids who will probably drop out anyway, supervising grad students, undergrads, and post-docs, going to a constant flow of faculty and staff meetings, seminars, traveling around to go to more meetings and seminars, and then finally working towards an end goal not of a big discovery, but simply of getting published. Enormous pressure on your entire professional life not to discover something, but to get the most articles published in the most prestigious journals. It's all about getting published at any cost. Not to mention that I've heard so much about the shady practices employed by other scientists - fudging results, getting inside connections with people responsible for determining what articles get published in the major journals and other stupid political bullsh#t.

 

Given all of that, I don't find it surprising at all that science lags behind in this country.

[sd'sker]

I once had a science dream. Then I learned that academic scientists spend about 1% of their time actually doing science...at your typical university the rest is spent applying for grants (months-long processes often), teaching menial introductory classes to brainless kids who will probably drop out anyway, supervising grad students, undergrads, and post-docs, going to a constant flow of faculty and staff meetings, seminars, traveling around to go to more meetings and seminars, and then finally working towards an end goal not of a big discovery, but simply of getting published. Enormous pressure on your entire professional life not to discover something, but to get the most articles published in the most prestigious journals. It's all about getting published at any cost. Not to mention that I've heard so much about the shady practices employed by other scientists - fudging results, getting inside connections with people responsible for determining what articles get published in the major journals and other stupid political bullsh#t.

 

Given all of that, I don't find it surprising at all that science lags behind in this country.

have you seen the documentary filmed in real-time 'planet of the apes'? that is my response to that.

[BigRedBuster]

I once had a science dream. Then I learned that academic scientists spend about 1% of their time actually doing science...at your typical university the rest is spent applying for grants (months-long processes often), teaching menial introductory classes to brainless kids who will probably drop out anyway, supervising grad students, undergrads, and post-docs, going to a constant flow of faculty and staff meetings, seminars, traveling around to go to more meetings and seminars, and then finally working towards an end goal not of a big discovery, but simply of getting published. Enormous pressure on your entire professional life not to discover something, but to get the most articles published in the most prestigious journals. It's all about getting published at any cost. Not to mention that I've heard so much about the shady practices employed by other scientists - fudging results, getting inside connections with people responsible for determining what articles get published in the major journals and other stupid political bullsh#t.

 

Given all of that, I don't find it surprising at all that science lags behind in this country.

 

What???

I find it interesting that people from other countries come to our universities to become educated in these things and we are behind? Our country has developed a very large number of the amazing technologies we have today and we are behind?

 

Also, silly me, I always thought professors at universities were there to teach kids out of HS, grad assistants and post doc students.

[ZRod]

I once had a science dream. Then I learned that academic scientists spend about 1% of their time actually doing science...at your typical university the rest is spent applying for grants (months-long processes often), teaching menial introductory classes to brainless kids who will probably drop out anyway, supervising grad students, undergrads, and post-docs, going to a constant flow of faculty and staff meetings, seminars, traveling around to go to more meetings and seminars, and then finally working towards an end goal not of a big discovery, but simply of getting published. Enormous pressure on your entire professional life not to discover something, but to get the most articles published in the most prestigious journals. It's all about getting published at any cost. Not to mention that I've heard so much about the shady practices employed by other scientists - fudging results, getting inside connections with people responsible for determining what articles get published in the major journals and other stupid political bullsh#t.

 

Given all of that, I don't find it surprising at all that science lags behind in this country.

 

What???

I find it interesting that people from other countries come to our universities to become educated in these things and we are behind? Our country has developed a very large number of the amazing technologies we have today and we are behind?

 

Also, silly me, I always thought professors at universities were there to teach kids out of HS, grad assistants and post doc students.

Nope the majority are there to get their grants, publish their stuff, and maybe put together a lecture for their students. But there are some that still believe in teaching the next generation.

[Junior]

I once had a science dream. Then I learned that academic scientists spend about 1% of their time actually doing science...at your typical university the rest is spent applying for grants (months-long processes often), teaching menial introductory classes to brainless kids who will probably drop out anyway, supervising grad students, undergrads, and post-docs, going to a constant flow of faculty and staff meetings, seminars, traveling around to go to more meetings and seminars, and then finally working towards an end goal not of a big discovery, but simply of getting published. Enormous pressure on your entire professional life not to discover something, but to get the most articles published in the most prestigious journals. It's all about getting published at any cost. Not to mention that I've heard so much about the shady practices employed by other scientists - fudging results, getting inside connections with people responsible for determining what articles get published in the major journals and other stupid political bullsh#t.

 

Given all of that, I don't find it surprising at all that science lags behind in this country.

 

I feel as though I can address this quite easily, as I work in academic science.

 

Yes, a lot of time by professors is indeed spent applying for grants. Given that the grants are what fund the research, I would say that is an important task. Granting is a competitive process; federal research dollars aren't just given away to anyone who asks. You have to prove that your research is important, useful, and properly planned/well thought out, in addition to proving that you and/or the people in your lab have the training and capability to actually perform the tasks. Additionally, the grant writing/review process is a unique opportunity to have your work reviewed by fellow experts. They can address deficiencies in the research and suggest ways to improve, in addition to determining if your work is worthy of funding.

 

Some research professors do teach introductory courses, however, often research professors teach upper level courses while instructors are hired specifically for intro courses or research postdocs teach these to gain valuable experience. However these intro courses are the first steps in generating the next batch of scientists. Some of them are English majors filling credits, but many are nursing students, premed students, pre-vet students, or future scientists learning their trade. I fail to see how teaching these students can, in any way, be considered a waste of time.

 

A substantial amount of any research professor's time is devoted to mentoring and overseeing undergraduates, graduate students, and postdocs in their lab. This is absolutely true. These are the researchers in the lab every day who carry out the work. They generate ideas and implement them. The professor's job is to oversee them and make sure they are doing things the right way. Think of the professor as the CEO of the lab, postdocs as managers, etc. Someday these postdocs and grad students move on to start their own labs and train the next group of scientists. Again, I fail to see how training the next round of scientists, while they do research on important topics such as biofuels or antibiotic discovery, could be considered a waste of time.

 

Indeed, the professors rarely do the physcial research in the lab. Just like CEOs rarely work with customers. If I walk into State Farm to get insurance, the CEO of the company isn't going to handle my case, is he? And yes, professors spend a lot of time in meetings. They meet with their grad students, they meet with other professors to develop collaborations, they meet with grad students from other labs whose thesis committees they serve on. These are all critical parts of the training process.

 

For example, I am a postdoc, and the project I work on in the lab involves my direct supervising professor who is a microbiologist. However, we collaborate on my project with professors in Chemistry and in Physics, because they can simply do things we are not trained to do. So our meetings with them are crucial to advancing the project and advancing the overall knowledge on the subject.

 

Then there are seminars. Seminars are again, critical components of the scientific process. During seminars, professors from other institutions visit and present their research. This serves several purposes. First, it is another opportunity for the presenting scientist to gain critiques and suggestions from colleagues. Second, it is an opportunity to present new topics to people in the audience. Third, and probably the most important, is this is how ideas and new techniques are disseminated. I can go to a seminar and learn about a new experimental idea that I can implement in my research. And this is how knowledge is advanced. Are there too many meetings? Maybe. But I'd rather see too many than too few.

 

Finally, I'll address your complaint about the importance of publication. I could simply say "Duh", but I suppose I'll expand. Publications are the lifeblood of science. It is the single most important tool to advance knowledge on a subject. If I want researchers in Germany to see what I've discovered, I write up a paper to present my data and submit it for publication. The paper then goes through the review process, in which typically 3 but sometimes 2 researchers in the field read the paper and data to determine if you did the correct experiments and if your conclusions are valid. If it works, you are published. There are definitely more prestigious journals than others, and whether or not your papers get into higher journals depends on the importance of your work. Ultimately, publication leads to other researchers seeing what you've discovered and building off of it. If we did not share our research, then there would be massive duplication of the same research, which would be a colossal waste of time, effort, and research dollars.

 

Is the process perfect? Hell no. As you pointed out, the granting process takes months, as does the publication process. Though granting agencies and the journals are both working to streamline the process. But ultimately it is a good system, and academic science has developed an awful lot of good things for the country and world.