Where W and Kerry stand on Science...

[Lucas]

I found an excellent article about the two candidates' views regarding science. Who do y'all think would be better for the scientific community?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5693/46


As an aspiring scientist, I think Kerry is the man for the job.



-Lucas :mellow:

[s]

No doubt, Kerry.

[crule81]

After a cursory reading:

I think Kerry has it right on stem-cell research. The arguments against it are purely irrational regardless of one's stand on abortion.

However, I think Bush is correct in basically favoring private over governmental research. As we've seen lately, the future of manned space flight, for example, seems to be with private industry. After great government-sponsored leaps in the 1960's, manned space flight, in my opinion, has basically stalled in its progress. Governments have become too risk averse and inefficient. I'm not contending that all research should be diverted to private interests, but only that the money is usually better spent in the private sector.

Either way, this issue won't affect my vote.

[Lucas]

I think Bush is correct in basically favoring private over governmental research. As we've seen lately, the future of manned space flight, for example, seems to be with private industry.


Making two trips to the edge of space and back doesn't constitute a victory over NASA (publicly funded research) by any standards. The future of commercial space travel is in the private sector. But, what gains to science or mankind as a whole could possibly come from ordinary humans going for a 'space vacation'??

The amount and quality of knowledge gained about the universe for every dollar spent is far greater for non-manned space exploration(telescopes, paying NASA scientists of all kinds, academic institutions, SAVING HUBBLE, which by the way, Bush is throwing away because he wants to divert funding to the "manned mars mission", etc.

Huge gains in Astronomy related fields have been made since the 60's. All leaps in knowledge that came from US tax dollars. I personally would be glad to pay more in taxes if the money was going to NASA and science in general. Stalled? I don't see it.

-Lucas :blink: :blink:

[Claverhouse]

But, what gains to science or mankind as a whole could possibly come from ordinary humans going for a 'space vacation'??


If they don't come back ?





Claverhouse :ph34r:

[ Agreeing with your main thesis ]

[jimkopelli]

The thing about private research... is that it has to get results. Results that make the company money.

[Claverhouse]

Or show a body of work that will impress potential stockholders, offer a marvellous return, take their money for investment, pay the management execs excellent packages, ease off on the R & D, claim start-up bribes and tax-breaks from the government, claim bribes from the government to hire the right ethnic & gender mix you were going to chose anyway for cheapness, pay a stunning dividend from the savings, increase the management stock-options and pay to retain only the best, make an inferior product, sell it with awesome advertising, overhaul the company structure, raise more money by diluting the shares, move funds overseas to diversify, claim your free money from the government to ensure the company won't collapse, borrow heavily from bankers, double the salaries of executives, cut the wages of staff, pay a reduced dividend to the mugs, liquidate the company pension plans, change the name of the company, move your personal savings into gold, propose that the company no longer makes things but buys them from China and instead moves into marketing, lobbying and land speculation.... :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[crule81]

I'm not saying that all research should be privatized, but that some areas might be better in private hands. And manned space flight has stalled, although unmanned space flight has continued to progress at a decent pace. That fact that people like an N'Sync member would be willing to pay a hefty sum to go into space is a great motivator for private industry. Lucas asks what scientific gains could be made by blasting vacationers into space? Well, I believe the companies would do what they can, for example, to reduce the cost per pound of launching cargo into orbit. Clearly that would be a scientific benefit.


I do agree that projects such as Hubble or even the Mars Rover should be government-sponsored because they do not produce tangible monetary returns. (Although wouldn't be funny if advertizers could purchase space on one of these for ads like a Nascar? Don't some companies kind of do this already?) I would be happy to have my taxes go to research and education rather than stupid government subsidies for declining industries and companies as well as other stupid programs. However, I believe that if it is something that can be done by either private industry or the government, the former presents the best prospects for efficient use of funds.

Then again, maybe I was brainwashed when I was an econ major since the market solves everything (assuming minimal transaction costs).

[Lucas]

But, what gains to science or mankind as a whole could possibly come from ordinary humans going for a 'space vacation'??


If they don't come back ?


:rofl: :rofl: There has to be a more efficient way... ha.

[Boozer]

Well, I believe the companies would do what they can, for example, to reduce the cost per pound of launching cargo into orbit. Clearly that would be a scientific benefit.


I think you make an excellent point. Both public and private sector interest in space is for the good. And shooting tourists into the cold vastness of space even better. Though I will admit to being interested in going to space if it was cheaper/safer. :ph34r:

[Lucas]

Though I will admit to being interested in going to space if it was cheaper/safer. :ph34r:

I would do anything to go into space. I would take any risk and pay any amount I could.

I'm so hypocritical :(

[Boozer]

It's funny though, as a kid I never wanted to be an astonaut, I wanted to be an astronomer, :)

Also just based on what the records have shown for their actual respect of real science, I'm voting Kerry. I'm just also impressed by the x-prize winners. Plus it makes the possibility of going into space a possibility in our lifetimes :)

[Claverhouse]

Well, I believe the companies would do what they can, for example, to reduce the cost per pound of launching cargo into orbit. Clearly that would be a scientific benefit.


An obvious spin-off would be an efficient diet-plan that halved people's weight.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[crule81]

Just make them pay per pound.

[crule81]

Here's an article regarding Kerry's views on Nasa. After reading the article, it seems both candidates are just posturing.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&e=2&u=/space/20041027/sc_space/kerrypromisesamorebalancednasa

[jimkopelli]

Well, I believe the companies would do what they can, for example, to reduce the cost per pound of launching cargo into orbit. Clearly that would be a scientific benefit.


An obvious spin-off would be an efficient diet-plan that halved people's weight.



Claverhouse :ph34r:
Or... make them pay lots of money and claim (truthfully) that you could make them weigh a fraction of their current weight (temporarily...)

[jimkopelli]

Here's an article regarding Kerry's views on Nasa. After reading the article, it seems both candidates are just posturing.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&e=2&u=/space/20041027/sc_space/kerrypromisesamorebalancednasa
It's politics. Of course they're posturing. Politics has more posturing than ballet... what if they got switched? Crusty old men in tutus... never mind.

[SheepDog]

Then again, maybe I was brainwashed when I was an econ major since the market solves everything (assuming minimal transaction costs).
This is a tangent, but you might find this interesting:
http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/neoclassical.html

Overall, I am not the supporter of free market as I used to be. I think it's terribly corrupt and skewed toward making the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And privatization of science means (mostly) corporations owning the developments, which they can then use to exploit the population.

As a society, I think it is in our best interest to have scientific advances occur for the public good, which necessitates using public funds. Innovations should belong to the people, not to business. Or to use financial terms, society should invest in scientific research with the expectation that it will return more benefit than it costs.

Unfortunately, this is an idealistic view, and since government is mired in bureaucracy, there will not be the efficiency needed to make it worthwhile in these financial terms. But that's another tangent (rant).

[SheepDog]

Regarding posturing, I like to say that GW tells you what he wants you to know, and JK tells you what he thinks you want to hear.



And Claverhouse, you seem a little cynical.

[crule81]

SheepDog, I read the article, and when I have more time, I'll explore the rest of the site. There are some decent points made, but the author lost credibility, in my mind, with the last two sentences. I also believe the environmental/resources argument is somewhat Malthusian.

The problem with economics as taught in Universities, as the author alludes to, is that because it is mathmatically based, it is promoted as basically a "science" rather than a "social science." The "invisible hand" is taught as a force of nature on equal footing with gravity and the forces that bind a nucleus together. But there are too many presumptions in basic economic theory: no transaction costs and the perfectly rational consumer, to name a few.

Even with all of these shortcomings, the economic model is the best we have. Even the Chinese "Communists" have realized this: they've been successful because they've gone away from Maoist "economics" but retained Maoist authoritarianism. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, got this backward under Gorby and Russia has struggled since.

The problems with government control of science and R & D, as you hit on in your last paragraph, are the inefficiencies. I believe that privitized research does contribute to the "common good," but it just might take longer to realize it while the corporation collects its reward, i.e. profits, for its successful endeavor. Overall, however, I believe the efficiences win out.

By the way, going off on tangents usually produces the most interesting discussions.