for those of you who may not know how the budget works here in the us ill try to break it down as simple as i can: > there are 20 government agencies that get funding from the government > the president outlines detailed plans for budget plans when it comes to funding agencies in an appropriations bill > bill goes to both houses' specific committees dealing with appropriations and they will make any changes they see fit > the bill will then be voted on by everyone in congress
so let's talk. Do you agree that these budget cuts could pose terrible threats to the us? I mean think about it, he proposes a massive cut to the NIH, "[his] administration’s proposed 18% cut to the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Many are also worried about plans to reorganize the agency, in part by eliminating its institute dedicated to training scientists in developing countries". this part disturbed me the most, but it's just one of few things he plans to do in cutting science.
what do you think about the spending cuts? what kind of ramifications could this have on the US? if you were president, how would you be allotting money to the sciences?
I would make a fund for sci moderators so they can take these /pol/ threads to where they belong.
Hunter Martinez
dunno im gonna have to disagree with you m8, i think the main purpose of op's thread was to talk about the lack of concern for science when it comes to federal funding
i think it deserves to be on this board
and to answer op, id probably just cut the defense budget close to half of what it is now and funnel the other half into the sciences with an emphasis on biomedical research and environmental science
Hudson Bennett
politics threads belong to
Isaiah Powell
There is a mentality that if the private sector funds the science then the result is tainted. But if government funds the science then it is somehow pure and altruistic. But that's completely false and both methods can easily produce great science or very bad science. Governments are arguably worse because their endgame is always ultimately political.
Gabriel Cooper
federal institutions have to care about everyone but private don't
Mason Fisher
nobody who has been to /pol/ would honestly claim that this thread belongs there
Ethan Ortiz
only secular humanists have faith in science and in the republic to fund it.
Connor Cox
>>federal institutions have to care about everyone is it what you learnt at the university?
David Miller
Is it not true? Enlighten me.
David Anderson
Science has existed for plenty of years without governments needing to fund it, so I don't see why it would be so bad if the US stopped funding it
Evan Smith
>tfw summer research internship at LLNL
JUST
Jace Bell
Hahaha, no. The most definetly don't care about everyone. To that degree, they are no different than private in how they are incentivised and that incentive is based ultimately on decisions that cater to percieved constituents. The private sector is at least dealing with competition and incentivised to try to make everyone happy.
Benjamin Gutierrez
But what's to stop a private institution from just making shit up to boost their own profits/interests? Federal institutions are under public scrutiny because everyone expects the government to do the right thing.
Christopher Nelson
>everyone expects the government to do the right thing. How's that working out?
Nathaniel Morris
kek this
well if they stop funding it then certain areas will have to stop research and will have to be cut altogether. thats not a good thing, if anything i think more money needs to be funneled in there
this user is also very correct
Lincoln Cook
Their competition eats them alive, civil and/or criminality liability, media and consumer watchdogs, not to mention government agencies. Where as federal institutions tend to have large degrees of immunity, bureaucracy and related red tape, and groups running interference just because they think the ends justify the means or just because they might lose power or influence.
Dylan Thompson
We're fucked. The NSF is telling us that they might not be able to fund our research anymore.
Although, at a conference I went to recently a bunch of Chinese universities were really trying to recruit American scientists with promises of funding.
Ian Cooper
>Fed cuts spending >Lowers taxes >Absolutely no one thinks if doing the smart thing and asking the state governments to get involved But why?
The entire reason you're upset is because MUH CLIMATE CHANGE THE POLES WILL MELT ANY DAY NOW. This way the climate changes can be treated more accruately based on a state by state basis instead of hamfisted federal pork and graft.
Joseph Bell
Do you pay any attention at all to what goes on in Federal institutions?
Look at NASA for an example that's really easy to understand. The shuttle was an obvious failure at its ostensible purpose from the beginning: due to the extensive refurbishment required and considerable amount of oversized expendable hardware, the marginal cost of a flight of this "reusable" vehicle was higher than simply buying a new expendable rocket. Yet NASA carried on flying it for three decades. And when they finally had to abandon it, they carried on with another awful, failing project (SLS/Orion) that kept the same staff and contractors. Why? To continue the flow of taxpayer dollars to friends and constituents of politicians in congress.
This isn't some outlier, this is par for the course in big government programs. Things cost twice, ten times, a hundred times what a private organization would spend to achieve the same end, and often still fail or are counterproductive. Very often they're counterproductive, like government healthcare spending that makes healthcare more expensive and lower quality, through increasing the regulatory burden, encouraging service providers to do crazy things to capture government funds, flooding the journals with low-quality research, and even promoting entirely incompetent science directly to the public (especially obvious for nutrition advice).
That's normal for big government programs. Everyone tries to protect themselves and their friends, to keep their incomes high and make them secure. Everyone receiving tax dollars is getting paid to protect that position, while those being taxed are being drained of the free time and resources to fight to reduce the flow. The trend, therefore, is toward inefficiency and incompetence.
Chase Baker
point taken, federal institutions also have incentive to abuse science but what do you say to this:
>Since 2004, the NIH budget has decreased by more than 20 percent. And this is for research that can be easily explained to Congress: anyone can understand cancer, however not everyone can understand what the spin of a subatomic particle means. Therefore, these branches of scientific research have been systemically gutted in the great budget wars of the last few years.
>Crowdfunding campaigns are often won on “personality and likeability” two traits that would never be evaluated in a true scientific proposal.
tl;dr a "brave new world" of science where funds are allocated by popularity rather than merit
Jaxson Thomas
But that's how it is now. The Feds are human too, and they allot funding by what is best for them, which is what is most popular.
I agree that govt > private, but this isn't one of the reasons for it.
John Barnes
>>id probably just cut the defense budget close to half of what it is now and funnel the other half into the sciences with an emphasis on biomedical research and environmental science well we all know that isn't going to happen.
Well not unless scientists all get together deep underground in a remote region on the west coast and start building spidertanks, armies of robots, laser guns, etc to stage a coup and implement a near-perfect technocratic government.
This totally is not happening, and this totally isn't an invitation to join such an effort. Nope, totally not in need of people who really know plasma physics, electrochemistry, or biochemistry.
Nope, the entrance test totally doesn't involve a certain radiative transfer problem the current administration denies the answer to.
Nope, definitely not happening.
Luis Ortiz
what I'm saying is that it's that way because there's too much private funding >current 60% privately funded
Brody Martin
Making science a ward of the government turns it into a political weapon. Society almost certainly receives more benefit overall from paying taxes that fund research but it does have some nasty side effects where politicians get to dictate the direction of science exploration.
Landon Lewis
No it doesn't, politicians have to fund projects that are good for the country or they get voted out whereas private institutions can fund whatever they want for whatever reason.
Samuel Phillips
>like government healthcare spending that makes healthcare more expensive and lower quality, t >this coming from the country with one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the civilized world
Connor Foster
Really don't want to resort to name calling and insults but how can anyone possibly be this naïve? Politicians pick science to fund based on how much money it will bring to their district and how much it will benefit their friends and campaign donors. This is what keeps them in office. Those who decide based on "the good of the country" lose their next election to a better funded opponent who resonates with the common man.
Jayden Cruz
federal defunding of makework for bureaucrats
If the scientists weren't such liberals, then Trump wouldn't be cutting their funding
Of course then they would actually do shit, which means the dems would want to cut the funding
Brayden Campbell
P R I V A T I Z A T I O N. Seriously user the way things are going private companies will likely dominate every sector of science in the next 50 years.
