From a Puzzled Young Scientist
Here at Stanford the other day, I had a cup of coffee with David Strauss, a young man with a couple of questions he very politely asked me to post on Ricochet.
Studying for his doctorate, David is a couple of years into his program in electrical engineering, working hard on a thesis on “sub-surface imaging.” (Don’t ask. Although David is wonderfully articulate, and although he spent a good ten minutes slowly and painstakingly telling me about his work, I was able to grasp virtually nothing. It has something do with using electro-magnetic signals to see hundreds of feet underground. As I listened, my tiny little mind kept going back to the comic book ads for glasses that were supposed to enable teenaged boys to see through clothing.)
Working at a major university, surrounded by scientists, laboratories, and equipment, David finds himself musing quite about the nation’s vast scientific-industrial complex—and the demands in makes on American taxpayers. But here’s David:
With the new Republican majority in the House, many people have been talking about rough times ahead for science funding for the next couple of years. I would like to open up this discussion of scientific policy to the Ricochet community.
The main relationship between scientific research and the government is dictated through funding. Often, scientific funding is drawn into two general categories: basic and applied. Basic research is focused on expanding our body of knowledge (think high-energy particle physics or cosmology) while applied research seeks to answer specific questions (think cancer-drug development). For the most part, in the scientific and academic community, it is difficult to find anyone who denies the importance of “basic research” and the necessity for “basic research” to be funded by the government. However, all too often, researchers assume that the value of their research is obvious, seeing funding for basic research less as a privilege or a means of enriching the American people but as an entitlement. With this in mind, a few questions:
What are the “basic science” research areas that the U.S. government should support? How should the value of basic research be evaluated? With applied science, it is far easier to quantify the success – lives saved, profit earned, etc – but no similar metric seems to exist for the basic sciences. Could similar metrics for basic research be defined? Would such metrics be “too restrictive” and suffocate innovative thinking and creative twists in the scientific process?
Fine minds of the Ricochetoise, over to you.
- Comment (53)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
I'm going to take a bold stance and say that we should completely eliminate the "broader impacts" part of grant proposals. Let peer review for the intellectual merits be the sole criteria for evaluating basic science grants.
Dec '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
As a pure (mostly) mathematician, I should have some trenchant comments on this.
I don't know that I do, but I can relate some experience anyway.
For basic scientists, particularly theoretical sciences like mathematics and physics, the primary motivation for funding comes from administration. Approximately one-third of the total of the grant is what is called "overhead". So, if somebody gets a $150,000 grant, about $50,000 goes to the university.
I suppose that's justifiable for a lab science inasmuch as there is an expensive infrastructure required to make the lab work, even if the grant pays for equipment in the lab. For theoretical scientists, we're teaching. In many cases, a lot, and we usually pay for ourselves that way.
Another motivation, though, is salary. US universities pay professors for 9 months out of the year. Any grant proposal asks for up to 2 months of salary to be paid to the researcher. This system, by the way, does not occur in the UK and in Canada and they can't put salary on their grants. So, researchers there don't spend any time at all applying for grants. They just need time to think.
Dec '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
Broader impact, for those who don't know, is to say how the research is supposed to influence the world. This is also where the diversity garbage goes. It often shows how little the science matters when the focus is so much on "diversity".
And as to the difference between basic science and applied science, this section on broader impact shows that basic research is held in very low esteem. They all want you to cure cancer or solve hunger.
Dec '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
But the grant system feels very much like alchemy of the middle ages. You conducted this "experiment" to turn lead into gold. You'd sprinkle a few specks of gold dust into the fire. When it's over, you show the king the gold and say, "we're getting close, your majesty" and the king would fork over a few more coins to keep the alchemist working.
One more unfortunate purpose that grants serve: They're awards. Fields like mine have very few awards (and those we have go to the same handful of people). So the grants usually serve as recognition more than anything else.
Oct '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
The Libertarian bent in me says eliminate any government involvement in research of any kind. Being more realistic, in applied science, the old "prize" system, for instance that offered for the light bulb or heavier than air flight. Clear metrics makes it possible to keep it honest.
Basic science isn't so easy. As any congressional earmark will show, it is a money funnel to reliable constituencies, and not much related to actual scientific value. Leave the basics to universities and private companies. The March of Dimes funded Dr. Jonas Salk, and most scientific research prior to WWII was not funded by government. Given the cost to liberty that is being paid because of the growth of government power in all areas of life, I'd rather forgo the rapid advance of scientific knowledge so we can regain our former liberty.
Jul '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
I'm torn. While I recognize the enormous contributions of research into basic science, I am inclined, as always, to consult the Constitution. Does the Constitution give the Federal government authority to expend taxpayers' dollars for this purpose? If not, then I would say some other means must be found.
Perhaps individual states could fund such studies. Perhaps universities could fund them through their endowments and tuitions. Perhaps wealthy private benefactors could chip in - after all, there are many uber-rich liberals who claim they care more about science than Republicans.
By the way, didn't Bell Labs do a lot of basic research? And who funded Newton or Michael Faraday?
Edited on Dec 22, 2010 at 1:48pmNov '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
It seems to me that, at one time, scientists got along just fine without grants and government funding. As I see it, government funding is necessary only when the science involves the development of a major weapons system. The Manhattan Project and the Stuxnet Virus come to mind. And I think the whole system of grants is inherently corrupting. That, finally, the goal is not to find a cure for cancer, but merely to maintain the hope of a cure in order to get funding. The Climategate Scandal made clear what we all suspected: that unscrupulous scientists are whipping up climate change hysteria in order to keep the money coming in.
Aug '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
The money saved eliminating government grants could be used to create massive tax breaks for private funding of "basic science".
Nov '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
Kenneth: I'm torn. While I recognize the enormous contributions of research into basic science, I am inclined, as always, to consult the Constitution. Does the Constitution give the Federal government authority to expend taxpayers' dollars for this purpose? If not, then I would say some other means must be found.
Perhaps individual states could fund such studies. Perhaps universities could fund them through their endowments and tuitions. Perhaps wealthy private benefactors could chip in - after all, there are many uber-rich liberals who claim they care more about science than Republicans.
By the way, didn't Bell Labs do a lot of basic research? And who funded Newton or Michael Faraday?
Once again, you and I are in the same groove, Kenneth. We are such meanies.
Aug '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
AmishDude
Broader impact, for those who don't know, is to say how the research is supposed to influence the world. This is also where the diversity garbage goes.
Those of you who aren't academics can't appreciate how stupid the broader impacts sections are. The guidelines for writing a broader impacts make it sound like you're supposed to find a bunch of kids from juvenile hall and get them to work in your lab on work release, during the course of which they'll all learn to read and aspire to go to grad school in a STEM field.
On the plus side I've been on peer review panels and people mostly ignore the "broader impacts." It's almost pure theater for the benefit of Congress.
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
First I'm not sure why there would be a fear that Republicans would cut science funding. Didn't Obama and the Dems cut the space program?
I too would want to see the Constitutional license for any expenditure by taxpayers.
That aside, I might employ a balancing test, with the opportuntity to profit from the resulting experiments weighing against the funding (let the private companies invest in it), but benefits that might be hard to profit from I would say the government should look at.
For instance, space exploration. By the way - is anyone looking for killer asteroids anymore?
Obviously science that makes our military stronger would be something I'd like the government to consider funding too.
May '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
However did we manage to reach the 20th century without public grants?
I hope you can detect the sarcasm, because I'm laying it on pretty thick.
Aug '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
Kenneth: And who funded Newton ... ? · Dec 22 at 1:46pm
Edited on Dec 22 at 01:48 pm
That would be the crown. Newton was a fellow at Cambridge, a member of the Royal Society, and a master of the mint. He benefitted both directly and indirectly from royal (that is to say, government) patronage.
Dec '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
It's a bogeyman for a lot of reasons. Because of evolution and controversial issues like embryonic stem cells, the left likes to portray the right as anti-science. Generally, Democrats spend without regard to consequences anyway, so that's viewed as a positive, but you are are right in that the evidence is quite the contrary.
But facts sound too much like the scientific method and there's precious little of that in science these days.
Jul '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
I, too, want to see where in The Constitution there is such expenditures.
Did Franklin get federal money for a kite, string, and a key?
Dec '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
To those suspicious of any public involvement in basic research, I would point out we are a fair distance away from the days of the tinker's workshop. The complexity of research has increased enormously over the last sixty years. The dangers of this to the public fisc was in large part what Eisenhower's famous farewell address was all about.
But from pharmaceuticals to the internet, the foundations of basic research in modern society are largely not taken up by private industry. It is far too risky an investment. There are easier ways to make money. Public investment has got to be part of the game.
So, given this, we have to decide how to allocate such funds, which is the point of the young scientist's question. I like the notion of taking out of legislative hands, instead residing in a peer committee of some sort. Perhaps administrated by a statutorily bipartisan agglomeration of public servants to set top-line goals consistent with national policy.
(Regarding the Constitutionality of it, outside of military applications it does seem sketchy. I would prefer an amendment fix this.)
Oct '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
Jimmy Carter: I, too, want to see where in The Constitution there is such expenditures.
Did Franklin get federal money for a kite, string, and a key? · Dec 22 at 2:51pm
Jimmy... is that really you??? Can't believe you are even aware that there is a Constitution, let alone care what it says. Did you ever?? This is THE Jimmy Carter... right?
May '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
AmishDude, the British are in the middle of changing that system- their universities' research funding will soon operate like ours here.
If you don't like the "broad application" elements of proposals, blame the Right in Congress, where we insist on practical applications rather than undirected "blue sky".
First- I have two conflicts of interest- 1) I work in academic research contracting, and 2) my older daughter's lab is supported largely by government (a foreign gov't mentioned here).
I tend to stand with George Will, who does believe that basic science, as with Newton, is one of the worthwhile expenditures by government. Technology is so complex these days, there is no way that venture capital, with their one year (if that) time horizons, will support the wild ideas needed for revolutionary breakthroughs. that.
All those brilliant kids in Shanghai who outperform our 8th graders come here for grad school- because ours are the best. Many of them stay, because our system is the best. And the discoveries are transferred to private industry as early as possible, as soon as any company is interested.
You would be amazed at how capitalistically entrepreneurial the socialist university can be.
May '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
Private patronage is as old as human history.
Centuries ago, composers, playwrites and other artists were supported by wealthy aristocrats, yet their works became accessible to the entire world.
Museums and libraries were once supported by neither government nor companies investing for the sake of imminent financial returns, but instead by wealthy individuals and groups making voluntary donations. To this day, the support that private patrons provide to these institutions remains invaluable.
Why can researchers not petition private donors for financial aid as they do government?
Also, money is necessary to scientific research but in no way guarantees results. They're called "breakthroughs" for a reason... and a breakthrough doesn't always come. How would one define the limits of taxpayer obligations to "basic" science?
Oct '10
Re: From a Puzzled Young Scientist
And even at that, contrary to popular belief, the Manhattan Project's goal wasn't to figure out how to make an atomic bomb. As a matter of physics, the required materials, critical mass of Uranium or Plutonium, etc. were already understood plenty well enough. The major outstanding questions were: what would the yield actually be (leading to Enrico Fermi's concern that the first Trinity experiment would ignite the earth's atmosphere--somebody call the EPA!) and how do you build an atomic bomb light enough for, say, the Enola Gay to carry it?
Which leads to my own meanie answer to Peter's question: to a first approximation, there's no such thing as "basic research."
No, seriously. If you can't even articulate what the expected outcome of your research is, and write at least a page or two justifying your prior probability of success, you shouldn't get funded. Not by the government, not by private benefactors, not by anyone. Sorry.