Private Donor Saves Fermilab 560
sciencehabit writes "In what has to be an embarrasment for the U.S. Department of Energy, an anonymous donor has ponied up $5 million to keep the country's only remaining particle physics laboratory operating efficiently."
Umm. It's NOT the only remaining particle lab (Score:4, Interesting)
very humbled (Score:5, Interesting)
I work at Fermilab, and everyone i know (and that's a lot of people) is
Thanks a million (x5!) mysterious friend!
now back to the antimatter and neutrinos...
Small government, private philanthropy (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this just a reflection of the style of government in the US? There seems to be a strong emphasis on small government, and then relying on private philanthropy to keep other things running.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you, but I think the timing of the US's scientific stagnation is also uncanny. It's been several generations since the last influx of extremely bright and educated scientists (and philosophers) from conquered lands. Iraq, I have to say, hasn't netted anything of the sort (with all due respect to Iraqis).
Is there a problem with the handing on of scientific knowledge in the US? Or is this a reflection of American cultural shortcomings? It seems to me that US culture is too shallow to recognize the importance of free & fair education 'for all'. If you don't provide equal opportunity to every child to excel and prove themselves in academia, then the chances of plucking the brightest from the far reaches of the bell curve diminish.
I say this knowing full well I'm going to be modded a troll or flaimbait or something.
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Interesting)
Democracy? Since when is America a democracy?
The problem is that America is not a democracy, and is nothing close. It is virtually guaranteed that:
So, because of this "republic" two-party system, we're screwed. We have no real voice.
Re:Small government, private philanthropy (Score:5, Interesting)
Some other slashdotter posted a good idea awhile back: That taxpayers should be able to directly allocate their taxes to the issues(and possibly the charities) that they care about, rather then just sending lump sums to the government(who will do what the government, and not necessarily the taxpayer, wants).
Re:No, this is what's great about the US (Score:2, Interesting)
The government shouldn't fund it because the government isn't a charity. The money the congress spends is not theirs to give to causes, no matter how good the cause or how altruistic the motive.
If the American people don't value basic research enough to donate to it voluntarily, then they should have that choice. Basic research may be valuable to all as you say, but it is not essential (unless it's specifically for national defense). Money shouldn't be taken from people by force to fund luxuries.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite amusing, really!
Shortage of Scientists and Engineers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The sad thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
and the geek class:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/opinion/23brooks.html [nytimes.com]
and it will just get worse. There's not really too much to fear if you have a Science degree and a bit of business sense, but if you don't, watch out.
No amount of whining on slashdot, or politician concern will change it. It's a culture that has to change.
Re:Small government, private philanthropy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Small government, private philanthropy (Score:1, Interesting)
Also, lets not forget that the notion of a democracy doing what the majority wants is trumped by the notion of what the minority is entitled to. In the proposed method of resource allocation, the minority would no doubt be ignored in many respects.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, I know they *complain* a lot about their pay, but here is some pay scales here in maine: http://www.teacher-world.com/teacher-salary/maine.html [teacher-world.com]
not huge, but be aware of the median values in the state: http://www.state.me.us/spo/economics/economic/householdincome.htm [state.me.us]
I'll save you the math, statewide the average income is 34.5k/year for an entire family.
So, a teacher with NO experience can walk into a teaching job and start earning almost as much as most households in maine.
and they get 3 months off a year plus vacations.
Really, my heart bleeds.
The teacher's union cares nothing for education. Standing in the way of vouchers proves it. any place in north america that has experimented with parent choice as a motivator for schools and assignment of funding has seen dramatic success, yet, the teacher's union won't hear of it. really, read up. harlem is looking to switch wholesale..
I love teachers and have several as close friends. and the union is a horrible monstrosity that shows that wild un-unionized labor is horribly exploitable, so is a system with a heavily entrenched union, just by different people.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
But making it free would make libertarians and wannabe economists cry out: "Socialism ! Bad ! Why should my tax money support anything, you communist swine ? Free market ! Free market ! Free market !"
It's politically better to have a wasteful payment system than to give the appearance of being anything but ultra-rightwing free market fundamentalist.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The sad thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
The US education system has a lot wrong with it, but those things have a WHOLE lot less to do with the amount of money spent or the cultural importance, than say, the state of union agreements or the burden of proof in situations where the school tries to do something someone somewhere finds objectionable.
Denmark for instance has a spectacular school system, and they use something very close to school vouchers, which get all the touchy-feely my-heart-will-go-on I-love-the-children people in this country on the verge of a heart attack. For some reason, amking schools *earn* the ability to retain students is *really* bad for students, even though history proves otherwise.
Re:(D) Congress... funding executive/(R) policies. (Score:1, Interesting)
I understand that not many here caught that... not everyone has their salaries paid through this process.
Re:Small government, private philanthropy (Score:5, Interesting)
Not quite "pure" democracy, but getting pretty close to the ideal is Switzerland. And they seem to do alright for themselves.
Also, despite being a part of the British Commonwealth, New Zealand is also much closer to the ideal than most other English speaking nations at least, and doesn't do too poorly either.
For the first time in my life, I'm living in a Democratic Republic at the moment (Germany), and while I do love it here and they have yet to do anything that I am strongly against, it does worry me from time to time how much control the government potentially has.
(on the plus side, I'm only a few hundred km away from a country that would take me in (due to my heritage) in the unlikely event that something really bad was decided and I needed to get out of here FAST)
In the US, parent choice boils down to (Score:2, Interesting)
The best choice is not to have kids at all, but parents don't want their children to even hear that it's possible. Yeah, we're fscked.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
America, on the other hand, has never had kings and has always had their misgivings about that very thing; so by association intellectuals have always been seen as suspicious, not least because they also tend to be irreligious or atheists. And now that the big stars of science, Einstein, Bohr etc, have all died, people are much more willing to let their schools turn into Christian madrasas. Of course it doesn't really help that things are taking a turn for the worse in the West, especially in America, I suppose - in the 50es and 60es our lives got constantly better "because of science", so people loved it, but now people feel disappointed that "science" doesn't seem to come up with more improvements to solve the problems, never mind that actual science still is our only hope for warding off the climate and energy crisis we've landed ourselves in. So it is only natural that they turn away from science, perhaps, and try religion.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The sad thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
The counter argument to this was that it would increase the power of the beurocracy and all non elected governmental positions and any lobbiing would shift focus to them.
Science! (Score:3, Interesting)
In all fairness, maybe people would care about science more people would stop using "science" to make poor public policy decisions (such as the RDA on sodium, or the endangered species act). Science can be useful, but it's often used by politicians to push a separate agenda. That is to the detriment of science. It doesn't help that you have liberal nut-job groups like the "Union of Concerned Scientists" who put the word in their fucking name, even though they have nothing to do with science.
You would not believe how hard it is to convince fellow Christians to pursue scientific endeavors. They all fear the discrimination and ostracism they will face in the field. Honestly, I can only stand it because I'm really arrogant and I like to argue.
Re:Small government, private philanthropy (Score:3, Interesting)
In a nation the size of the US, it's only even been remotely conceivable in the last twenty years or so. (i.e. since the world wide web)
Without instant and dynamic information like the web provides, it would be impossible for a couple hundred million people to even consider being informed enough to vote on the nearly equally numerous referenda. And that's assuming that the proposal vetters are completely unbiased and fair.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Small government, private philanthropy (Score:5, Interesting)
The result is that they meet each other socially and work together in a way that lets them bond together should make Americans really think about what corporate leadership can do. It's a form of networking we've never really tried.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Being poorly paid, commensurate to the qualifications, experience, and quality/scale of work. If I did what I did for a company, I would have been a senior executive on a large bonus. As it was, we got no performance pay to increase motivation, no bonuses whatsoever, few holidays, and we were packed into a cramped office fighting over crumbling PCs). Did I mention that HR considered it a good days work to start us off on the bottom of the pay scale regardless of experience, talent or qualifications.
2) Spending half of my research time applying for grants and maybe 10-15% of what was left to complete mystifying administration work (hint: perhaps the admin staff could help us out by doing something useful rather than just giving leaflets out or showing presentations).
3) Ethics committees being too PC and panicking any time we approached the public. I had to submit a 52 page questionnaire before I could issue a paper-based survey to people even if I just asked them anonymously what their favourite colour was.
4) Low status - "rock star" professors are all well and good, but plain researchers get relegated to the bottom of the heap beneath administration in terms of resources if you can believe it. I once requisitioned a pair of headphones for an experiment. 18 months later, I had finished my thesis and still had no headphones. You guessed it - I had bought my own because it was easier).
5) Little chance of advancement regardless of talent or accomplishments.
6) Bad security - researchers live on temporary contracts and a permanent one is extremely rare. The problem is that with a family, I need a place to live etc and at least some idea that I might be able to stay in the same place for a few years rather than just 6 months.
7) Having senior staff with inferior knowledge of methods tell you to change your design to one that is compromised. Admittedly this is rare, but annoying nonetheless.
The points about lack of advancement, lack of pay, poor conditions etc, all seem to stem from management cocking it up. Because we didn't produce anything with a price tag on it, we couldn't demonstrate our worth in terms that they can understand. Instead, I left academia with my ideas and training and I am going to make them work for me. I tried the university's business start-up service, but they wanted a large percentage, control over how everything was run (if it's anything like the university then be prepared for another SCO), but they weren't interested because I was just a research fellow and therefore unimportant. Once they realised what my position was, they didn't even ask me what the idea was.
The business isn't properly started yet, but we're getting there; and it's a very big market. We're just hoping to scrape by until the product begins to get momentum.
In case you're interested, this was a UK university.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know, maybe this just highlights how screwed up the congressional seniority system really is.
Re:fundamentalists (Score:3, Interesting)
Looking from Europe, your laws on public appearance of boobs already has something ridiculous, and DOES prevent the spread of some cultural items. Your practice of death penalty also looks like an anachronism.
But with Sarkozy as a president, I am taunting you while I can, I fear that in 4 years we will be on the declining slope while hopefully, USA will be rising again as a cultural and ethical power.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:fundamentalists (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, the way words like "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" are used as if they were synonyms, which they are not. Also, some of the ideas of Pentecostalism are associated with Fundamentalism, and indeed many individuals these days practice a mix of both, but they are really different (and somewhat antithetical) things.
Usually, when we hear "fundamentalist", it is used to refer to somebody who is a conservative, evangelical Christian who believes in Biblical literalism and practices an ecstatic form of worship in a large, media driven community.
In fact, this is something of a recent mish-mash of distinctive and sometimes opposing American religious groups. For example, up until the mid twentieth century, Christian fundamentalists were antagonistic to the kind of mystical worship practiced by Pentecostalism. That is because the Christian Fundamentalist movement is essentially pseudo-rational in nature.
"Creation Science" is quintessential Christian Fundamentalism in its historic form. Fundamentalists of this sort don't see themselves as anti-science. They see themselves as pro-science, but against an intellectually corrupt scientific establishment. It is therefore quite practical for a "fundamentalist" to pursue a scientific career, provided it is in a field that either has a well established fundamentalist counter-movement, like biology, or one in which Biblical issues don't arise very often, for example solid state physics. You won't find many "Fundamentalists" in scholarly fields like Near Eastern languages or Biblical Archeology -- not for long at any rate.
There is a lot more diversity in religious belief than our labels allow for. The right wing Christian movement has laid claim to a number of American religious traditions, sometimes conflicting traditions. They're even flirting with Catholicism, which was long seen by native Protestants of all stripes as alien and wicked. Bringing these traditions under a single terminological roof is about institutional and political power. We sometimes call that roof "Evangelicalism" and sometimes "Fundamentalism", even though these are again two different historical phenomenon. The two words serve complementary political purposes: to unite those under the roof, and to stand them against those outside.
Re:This is an apolitical issue (Score:1, Interesting)
The data in the survey only gives information on evolution acceptance in the US relative to Europe, and that's a misleading statistic, is it not?
Note that I am a strong skeptic and scientist-in-training
Re:The sad thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Begging supplies or offering them out of their own pocket has always been fairly standard for teachers, but it's more noticeable now because it's more organized. Parent "teacher assistants" used to bring in supplies more often to supplement what teachers provided themselves, now schools just send home a list of "classroom" supplies with each student the first day of school.
You're right, the good teachers are still spending more time, but I have friends who complain that they have to actually teach 3 or 4 classes a day and they "don't have enough time" to grade the papers in the other 3-4 hours they have a day to do planning and grading. Then they also complain that they don't make enough money. I understand they have to deal with helicopter parents and absent parents and parents who expect them to be teaching the children discipline, but don't complain to me about a 7 hour day of which you only do your actual job (teaching) half of it.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
It is very common in the US for people to vote against their own interests, because it is a two-party system. As you point out, The use of wedge issues (gay marriage, abortion rights, etc) by the party of the wealthy has led to tens of millions of people voting against their own interests because they place their vote based upon issues unrelated to their interests.
I agree with you that this has not come about from a purely organic evolution of culture -- it is documented that this is a planned strategy employed by the Republican party in the 80s and 90s -- and I'm pretty sure the Democratic party has operated the same way.
The deeper issue, of course, is that the American public does not have the ability to, or is not motivated to, see through the BS and analyze the issues critically. We are happy to be spoonfed soundbites and trite promises of little import.
I know I'm rehashing some of what you posted... but critical thinking has always been a skill not practiced by most people. So why has the lack of critical thinking become such a problem wrt the American electorate?
I would pose the following:
1. Mass media -- it has become very easy for those with money to brand themselves and issue marketing material
2. The scope and power of the US government is greater than ever before, meaning that the powers that be can wield more influence than ever before
3. The collusion between business and government is greater than ever before (with the possible exception of the period from 1900-1920). As Eisenhower said, beware the military-industrial complex -- except now, we have the military-industrial complex and the legislative-commercial complex.
This post is getting way too long, I'm sure there are other reasons why the American public is so susceptible to PR/BS from politicos. Offhand, I'd also mention that politics is a taboo subject in the US, which leads to even weaker understanding of the issues.
At any rate, I think you'd really enjoy the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank -- while it focuses on the Republicans' ability to manipulate the populace, I think the same theories apply to Democrats.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:3, Interesting)