Lowest US science spending since WWII 'threatens America's future' – MIT

[Natural Citizen]

Federal investment in scientific research is "the lowest it has been since the Second World War as a fraction of the federal budget," said MIT physicist Marc Kastner, leader of the report committee. "This really threatens America's future."

Past surveys (http://rt.com/usa/science-education-survey-americans-178/) have shown Americans’ knowledge of basic science to be lacking compared to other developed nations.




Continued - Lowest US science spending since WWII 'threatens America's future' – MIT (http://rt.com/usa/253505-science-funding-america-future/)

Relevant listening...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qty1xqvQBrA

[GunnyFreedom]

Because nobody in America will do science unless the government does science first. :rolleyes:

[angelatc]

Let China fund it all, and we can just steal the technology.

[Natural Citizen]

Because nobody in America will do science unless the government does science first. :rolleyes:

The problem with that is that we see the actual health and validity of science itself put into danger. A lot of disingenuous things are done in the name of science when, in fact, no scientific methods are actually practiced in any genuine way by special interests. We see this a lot with agribusiness and the pharmaceutical industry just to name a couple. Sure, we'll hear and read them talk about the old "it's science" gag, but, really it isn't science in any genuine way. These are the results of revolving doors between industry and government and at the end of the day, as I said, the actual health and validity of science itself becomes corrupted and bastardized by such a mercantilist/protectionist system.

[Natural Citizen]

Let China fund it all, and we can just steal the technology.

China will be funding the infrastructure of nations by way of the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank. And, as I've mentioned elsewhere, that list of nations is growing fast. Many of the traditional allies of the U.S. have already jumped ship. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?456224-72-points-of-BRICS-Summit-Declaration&p=5846330&viewfull=1#post5846330

[Zippyjuan]

The last big government investment in science spending was the space program which launched (yes, pun but works) lots of other technology including the microchip which led the tech revolution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/5893387/Apollo-11-moon-landing-top-15-Nasa-inventions.html


Apollo 11 moon landing: top 15 Nasa inventions

Here are the top 15 space spin-offs:
1. CAT scanner: this cancer-detecting technology was first used to find imperfections in space components.
2. Computer microchip: modern microchips descend from integrated circuits used in the Apollo Guidance Computer.
3. Cordless tools: power drills and vacuum cleaners use technology designed to drill for moon samples.
4. Ear thermometer: a camera-like lens that detects infrared energy we feel as heat was originally used to monitor the birth of stars.
5. Freeze-dried food: this reduces food weight and increases shelf life without sacrificing nutritional value.
6. Insulation: home insulation uses reflective material that protects spacecraft from radiation.
7. Invisible braces: teeth-straightening is less embarrassing thanks to transparent ceramic brace brackets made from spacecraft materials.
8. Joystick: this computer gaming device was first used on the Apollo Lunar Rover.
9. Memory foam: created for aircraft seats to soften landing, this foam, which returns to its original shape, is found in mattresses and shock absorbing helmets.
10. Satellite television: technology used to fix errors in spacecraft signals helps reduce scrambled pictures and sound in satellite television signals.
11. Scratch resistant lenses: astronaut helmet visor coating makes our spectacles ten times more scratch resistant.
12. Shoe insoles: athletic shoe companies adapted space boot designs to lessen impact by adding spring and ventilation.
13. Smoke detector: Nasa invented the first adjustable smoke detector with sensitivity levels to prevent false alarms.
14. Swimsuit: Nasa used the same principles that reduce drag in space to help create the world’s fastest swimsuit for Speedo, rejected by some professionals for giving an unfair advantage.
15. Water filter: domestic versions borrow a technique Nasa pioneered to kill bacteria in water taken into space.
Nasa scientists have pioneered more than 6,300 technologies during their bid to understand space that are now routinely used in day-to-day living.

[Ronin Truth]

So I assume they just must not be counting the trillions in black project secret military science killing research spending.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The last big government investment in science spending was the space program which launched (yes, pun but works) lots of other technology including the microchip which led the tech revolution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/5893387/Apollo-11-moon-landing-top-15-Nasa-inventions.html


Apollo 11 moon landing: top 15 Nasa inventions






Your list ranges from the simplistic to the downright inaccurate. NASA itself, for example, has said it did not "invent" the smoke detector:


...NASA did not invent the smoke detector.

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinfaq.htm



NASA did not "invent" the cordless drill:


Did NASA invent cordless power tools?

No. The first cordless power tool was unveiled by Black & Decker in 1961.

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinfaq.htm




A more accurate representation would be that NASA contracted with private companies to DEVELOP technologies:


Did NASA invent the ever-popular memory foam found in many consumer applications?

Memory foam, also known as temper foam, was developed under a NASA contract in the 1970s that set out to improve seat cushioning and crash protection for airline pilots and passengers.

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinfaq.htm




In other words, private companies benefitted with government money to build products they were going to sell. Basically, a subsidy.

Furthermore, there is nothing to say that these technologies would not have been developed on their own. The development of prosthetic limbs, for example, would not have been impossible without robots on the moon. Vacuuming rocks on the moon is probably cool, but not a prerequisite to develop handheld devices like the Dustbuster.

[fisharmor]

NCL, Gotta spread some around before your next "thanks for having an active bullshit detector" rep.

[fisharmor]

Because nobody in America will do science unless the government does science first. :rolleyes:

I'm personally pretty OK with fewer thermonuclear doomsday devices, and more Android phones.

[libertarianMoney]

The problem with that is that we see the actual health and validity of science itself put into danger. A lot of disingenuous things are done in the name of science when, in fact, no scientific methods are actually practiced in any genuine way by special interests. We see this a lot with agribusiness and the pharmaceutical industry just to name a couple. Sure, we'll hear and read them talk about the old "it's science" gag, but, really it isn't science in any genuine way. These are the results of revolving doors between industry and government and at the end of the day, as I said, the actual health and validity of science itself becomes corrupted and bastardized by such a mercantilist/protectionist system.

You seem to be assuming publicly funded science doesn't have it's own set of biases to worry about.

Politicians don't just throw money to every scientific experiment ever from every scientist. They pick and choose the things that are in their own best interest (just like the disingenious stuff done by private companies.) Scientists are smart enough to know where their bread is buttered. All science is stained by this problem. Biases of the person funding the experiment cause problems. The best we can hope for is having opposing biases researching the same subject to find some balance.

None of this is solved by government science funding.

[Natural Citizen]

You seem to be assuming publicly funded science doesn't have it's own set of biases to worry about.



No, I understand that publicly funded research has some biased people in the mix as well.

[muh_roads]

The last big government investment in science spending was the space program which launched (yes, pun but works) lots of other technology including the microchip which led the tech revolution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/5893387/Apollo-11-moon-landing-top-15-Nasa-inventions.html

I often wonder how much of this stuff could've been provided by the private market if the Federal Reserve, Income Tax and Social Security Tax never got off the ground.

And of course if all the instigating shenanigans that caused the great depression and the world wars never happened either.