You can cut science!

[CharonY]

I just came across that bit here:

My link

 

Essentially Eric Cantor proposes to cut wasteful spending by having citizens sift through grants approved by the National Science Foundation and pick out grants that are "questionable". As you may know, grant applications go through a rigorous review process and the vast majority of all grants are kicked out (depending on mechanism success rate is somewhere between 1-10 %).

 

In the "Search Award For" field, try some keywords, such as: success, culture, media, games, social norm, lawyers, museum, leisure, stimulus, etc. to bring up grants. If you find a grant that you believe is a waste of your taxdollars, be sure to record the award number.

 

While outreach is a good thing, this call puts the science to be discussed already in a negative perspective. Moreover, NSF grants require a statement of their broader impact. From the submission guidelines:

 

It must describe as an integral part of the narrative, the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activities, addressing one or more of the following as appropriate for the project: how the project will integrate research and education by advancing discovery and understanding while at the same time promoting teaching, training, and learning; ways in which the proposed activity will broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.); how the project will enhance the infrastructure for research and/or education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships; how the results of the project will be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding; and potential benefits of the proposed activity to society at large.

 

 

 

What do you think about that?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think the public is equipped to decide just how beneficial nuclear magnetic resonance force microscopy will be in their everyday lives.

 

From what I've heard, scientists already go to great lengths to claim their research will somehow result in a cure for cancer, and this'll only encourage that even more.

[John Cuthber]

Having the decision made by "the people" might be better than having it made by the beancounters.

[timo]

I wish my research was as valuable as the cited "questionable" examples.

[lemur]

how the project will enhance the infrastructure for research and/or education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships; how the results of the project will be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding;

This is the part that's funny to me: that research spending can be justified because it enhances infrastructure, facilities, education, partnerships, etc. It's like saying, "research snot patterns in used tissues is useless but it creates partnerships between different research centers interested in snot-patterns, gives students something to learn and get paid to do when they get good grades in snot-studies, plus it helps fund the super-snot image-scope that analyzes the snot using state-of-the-art technology. It's funny that the public and/or grant selectors would cut research because it doesn't have a social impact, even if it has potentially interesting scientific value. Basically, this is just more reason for science to become independent from tax-funded government. As long as science is at the mercy of funding, it will be abused to get access to that funding, imo. Too bad that's so much easier said than done.

 

[CharonY]

Having the decision made by "the people" might be better than having it made by the beancounters.

 

Which beancounters are you referring to?

[swansont]

Consider the kind of ridicule we hear from politicians, who should be better informed than the average layperson. Anything investigating evolution is bound to get panned by a vocal group that knows next to nothing about evolution. Anything that can be tied in with values that don't align with what is deemed acceptable by the social conservatives will get a similar treatment. Science should be evaluated based on scientific merit, not ideology, which is what this invites.

[lemur]

Consider the kind of ridicule we hear from politicians, who should be better informed than the average layperson. Anything investigating evolution is bound to get panned by a vocal group that knows next to nothing about evolution. Anything that can be tied in with values that don't align with what is deemed acceptable by the social conservatives will get a similar treatment. Science should be evaluated based on scientific merit, not ideology, which is what this invites.

Ironically, if research was properly falsificationist, projects dealing with evolutionary theory would be geared toward asking questions that would prove the theory wrong. Such research would serve the scientific function of strengthening the validity of evolution while satisfying the public desire to disprove it. So why is there a conflict of interests?

Edited December 3, 2010 by lemur

[CharonY]

Lemur, you kind of misunderstand the research on evolution. Research in the are could e.g. be focused on the use of molecular clocks to time divergence. In that case a hypothesis regarding how it could be done is made and the subsequent analysis should contain controls.

 

 

Studies geared towards falsifying evolution (and failing) is basically like proposing to build a perpetuum mobile (and failing). It does not add scientific relevant information.

[John Cuthber]

Which beancounters are you referring to?

The ones who know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.

[swansont]

Ironically, if research was properly falsificationist, projects dealing with evolutionary theory would be geared toward asking questions that would prove the theory wrong. Such research would serve the scientific function of strengthening the validity of evolution while satisfying the public desire to disprove it. So why is there a conflict of interests?

 

Any experiment could (in principle) falsify evolution, though it is so well-established — because of prior research — at this point it's unlikely. Just like one experiment isn't going to overthrow gravity. The problem is that there will be people who will object to the experiment simply because it concerns evolution.

[CaptainPanic]

So, already science requires a large effort to get grants/subsidies.

In practice this means that of any 10 people working in a research organization, on average there is 1 manager, 1 person for acquisition, 1 for all kinds of services... leaving only 7 for the actual core-business: research... and that's the best-case scenario.

 

Now, this Eroc Cantor suggests that all research organizations also employ someone for marketing too, to explain the value of the science to the masses.

It will certainly waste more money than it will save.

[lemur]

Any experiment could (in principle) falsify evolution, though it is so well-established — because of prior research — at this point it's unlikely. Just like one experiment isn't going to overthrow gravity. The problem is that there will be people who will object to the experiment simply because it concerns evolution.

I think that if the experiment was legitimately intended to falsify evolution, it would be embraced by people who dislike evolutionary theory. The question is why verification research should continue if most evolutionists are convinced it has been more or less proven. The point is that science is supposed to focus on seeking out falsifying tests for existing theories or, of course, creating new ones to be falsified (at least according to Karl Popper). Endlessly verifying established theories doesn't serve any purpose, really. As long as they're accepted, their veracity proceeds under its own momentum.

 

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that if the experiment was legitimately intended to falsify evolution, it would be embraced by people who dislike evolutionary theory. The question is why verification research should continue if most evolutionists are convinced it has been more or less proven. The point is that science is supposed to focus on seeking out falsifying tests for existing theories or, of course, creating new ones to be falsified (at least according to Karl Popper). Endlessly verifying established theories doesn't serve any purpose, really. As long as they're accepted, their veracity proceeds under its own momentum.

 

All you're doing is showing a thorough lack of understanding about how science works. You can't verify a theory without attempting to falsify it, you can't attempt to falsify an accurate theory without the result being verification. Failed falsification = verification, failed verification = falsification, there is no other way to do it. You can't do one without attempting the other.

 

But please, be my guest and tell me what sort of experiment would be "legitimately intended to falsify evolution". If you can find one I'm sure it will be funded; after all it would be nice to have additional verification for such an important theory.

[swansont]

I think that if the experiment was legitimately intended to falsify evolution, it would be embraced by people who dislike evolutionary theory. The question is why verification research should continue if most evolutionists are convinced it has been more or less proven. The point is that science is supposed to focus on seeking out falsifying tests for existing theories or, of course, creating new ones to be falsified (at least according to Karl Popper). Endlessly verifying established theories doesn't serve any purpose, really. As long as they're accepted, their veracity proceeds under its own momentum.

 

 

The primary goal is not going to be falsification at this point. There is so much evidence in favor of evolution that an experiment whose sole goal is falsification is a poor use of research money. Experiments can always act in unexpected ways, though, if evolution were false. So there is always that possibility in addition to the stated goal of the research. The problem would be that the stated goal is in keeping with evolution.

 

Similarly, one would not get funding for an experiment to confirm that gravity merely exists. One would have to be doing something else, like measuring G to a competitive precision, to even hope to get funded. However, a novel result would mean that there was something new to learn about gravity.

[pioneer]

Different types of science approaches require different amounts of resources. Empirical tends to need the most resources per unit of science. For example, a drug company trying to get a new drug to the market could take years at a considerable cost, since the process is blind empirical. Many drugs still have side effects, but get through the process after one has paid their dues to the union of regulations. The dues level of many areas of empirical science is an expensive use of resources. To lower the cost, the theory/approach would need to advance.

 

Say hypothetically we cut the funding in half, for all aspects of science research. Would there be enough incentive/necessity to induce the needed ingenuity/approach to compensate? Instead the most common approach is to cut funding for certain areas of empirical science, so other empirical areas have all the resources needed not to change anything.

 

Someone like Thomas Edison, had a very low cost per unit of science. He used a combination of rational theory and limited experiments.

 

As an analogy, say you were given $1000 or $100 for a party for 25 people. Obviously you can do more with $1000. You only need to call a caterer. With $100 one has to be more involved in the trenches and also needs to figure out ways to made something nice out of little. More people can do a good job with $1000 than with $100. Yet those with the skills to do something nice with $100, will look less impressive than anyone who has $1000 to spend regardless of capability.

 

Cutting science funding across the board and then storing the science surplus in an account for the future, should result in those who can throw the party for $100 standing out. This is where the stored science account money should go, so we can get more for less. This would not be popular for the inefficient but it would benefit science. There are too many who need a lot of resources to be the talk of the party, but who under more spartan times, could only spin their wheels. The human mind is the most important resource, but when all the trinkets of science have the funding one can often mistake trinkets for something else.

Edited December 4, 2010 by pioneer

[John Cuthber]

I'm looking for etiquette guidance here. There's another lab up the road that does research that overlaps with mine. Am I allowed to vote to cut their funding, or do I have to rely on my friends and family to do so?

[ahhhhhz]

Eric Cantor and his ilk ought to allow the healing of those cuts beneath their noses, especially as regards issues they know little about.

[swansont]

I'm looking for etiquette guidance here. There's another lab up the road that does research that overlaps with mine. Am I allowed to vote to cut their funding, or do I have to rely on my friends and family to do so?

It's politics, man! Etiquette? Etiquette? We don't got no etiquette. We don't need no steeenking etiquette!

[John Cuthber]

So I vote to cut their funding and hope my friends do too.

Meanwhile, I guess I just hope my "competitors" don't get wise.

[ccdan]

the average individual is far too dumb to have any saying on this matter... just look at the number of people who believe in some supernatural entity like god...

[swansont]

So I vote to cut their funding and hope my friends do too.

Meanwhile, I guess I just hope my "competitors" don't get wise.

 

It's how Bristol Palin stayed on "Dancing With the Stars" as long as she did. This is just a new reality show. We'll call it "Science Survivor: Can or Cantor"

[CharonY]

So we have to dance to the tune of the funding agencies as well as to the public? Darn.

[Genecks]

So we have to dance to the tune of the funding agencies as well as to the public? Darn.

 

Well, I've actually been thinking about this issue the past few days. I'm surprised to surf SFN and find a thread about it.

Well, I'd generally have to say that the common public is not really aware of what their tax dollars are being used for.

They elect individuals into offices to decide that for them. But then these people who come into office are not that efficient either.

 

I really think that we could get a lot of people supporting transhumanism, and that grants might start using terms like "bioenhancement" or stuff like that, in an attempt to bring society to a more cyberpunk/biohacker future.

 

Surely, many people rather see stuff like that than trivial research that attempts to turn an ant into a model species to better understand social behavior.

 

So, I would think you would start seeing the general public support generally any kind of research that would have to do with vertebrate systems. An intelligent republic would start to learn more about evolution, animal homology, and vertebrate systems if they were interested in moving toward a transhumanist future.

 

And what society really funds really depends on the goals of society.

 

In a lot of ways, people want better health care. So, if there are scientific goals that will help attempt to achieve better health care, people will support that. As you can currently see, society is moving more toward a transhumanist future.

 

I think another serious issue was brought up by John: There will be a tug-o-war in attempting to get grant money. If it's the number of people who matter, then small private, elite colleges/universities will not be able to get the grant money that they want. However, large, public and prestigious universities will be able to get the money they want due to the large student body.

 

Many members of society simply may not be easily persuaded to vote. As such, it may be left to the scientific bodies to vote on who gets the research. And of course, if the majority of the vote is left to scientific bodies rather than the general public, I can see a lot more public universities obtaining the money. Otherwise, a more enlightening idea, is that private universities will start letting in a lot more students.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Genecks