Obama Says 3% of GDP Should Fund Science Research And Development 753
tritonman writes "Obama wants to set a goal that the US spend 3% of its GDP on scientific research and development. 'I believe it is not in our character, American character, to follow — but to lead. And it is time for us to lead once again. I am here today to set this goal: we will devote more than 3 percent of our GDP to research and development,' Obama said in a speech at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences."
Administration (Score:5, Interesting)
sincerely hope.. (Score:5, Interesting)
In recent years, he said, "scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas." He then drew chuckles, commenting: "I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions, not the other way around," Obama said.
hope none of the 420$ billion makes it's way towards the discovery institute.
Re:But wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
I do know. However there is a clear implication here that this R&D won't happen unless the government funds it. There is also no evidence (especially without a list of exactly what the money is going to be spent on) that the things the government would fund research into wouldn't get funding without government involvement.
Apparently, according to the moderators, pointing that out is trolling.
Re:Do want (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you stopped to consider how many of the innovations America has given the world came from.. dare I say this... researching "war toys"?
Computers as we know them today? The Atomic Age?
The need to find newer, faster, and more efficient ways to kill people has always been a phenomenal "mother of invention"
Easiest way to get the country developing alternate energy technology? Declare that starting 2-4 years from now the US government won't buy any ground vehicles for the government or military that don't run on renewable fuels.
And that we won't build any new bases or government facilities that aren't solar or powered by renewable energy sources.
Sez who? (Score:3, Interesting)
How about we let individuals and businesses decide where they're going to put their R&D money, not some ivory-tower bureaucrats who are firmly removed from reality?
Really: when it comes to deciding what to do with 3% of your income, don't you want YOU making that decision, instead of total strangers you don't know and who know you less and who are operating on non-sequitor ulterior motives?
Why pctg of GDP rather than federal budget? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rand Simberg asks why express it in terms of percentage of GDP rather than in terms of percentage of federal budget? [transterrestrial.com]. The budget is something that the president has some control over...
What a way to flush 3% of GDP ... (Score:5, Interesting)
While this sounds like a good idea, I worked for a while at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. It was the poster child of government waste. Most of the funding we received was from the DOE and the DOD. Back in its hay-day the INEL was a front runner in nuclear research. Now its a money-pit. 2/3rds of all grant money is skimmed off the top for "overhead" (pays for buildings, security, office space, etc). To make matters worse, each engineer/scientist has a billable rate. This billable rate is again 2/3rds overhead. Half of your time goes to writing grants to get more money. Very few people there were doing actual science. It was very sad for me to experience directly after getting my degree.
The INEL is not alone in its current state. People I worked with from other labs have similar or worse horror stories.
I understand the desire, I just don't have enough confidence in our government to not botch it up.
Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
How about we apply stuff we already know... (Score:2, Interesting)
And use the 60's space tech to build us a massive orbital solar power station?
Solve all our power production pollution issues and start down the road of true weather control?
We could employ a LOT of people to crank out Saturn V rockets on a ginormous assembly line.
A LOT more people to design and build the damn orbital solar power stations and even more building the ground receiving stations.
Once done we could launch a few more satellites and start SELLING power to the rest of the world.
We could be energy sellers like a Saudis, only we won't treat our women like cattle. And we can tell the Saudis to go stuff it.
3% if GDP for 480,000 people? (Score:2, Interesting)
What a complete and utter crock. 3% of GDP dedicated to 480,000 scientists.
Does the public get any payback if research develops the Next Big Thing? Nope, the scientist goes off, gets a patent and gets wildly personally wealthy.
Foreclosures are still rising. Unemployment is still increasing. Wages are still falling. This money would be better spent on the people.
Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the single biggest threat to America is for us to try to be something we're not. We are NOT the USSR. We are not Israel. We are not China. We are not France.
Those countries have many things that define them from the source of culture to the method of content selection, to the sorts of business partnerships and types and quantity of advertising, each has a sort of place, and we aren't exactly any of those things.
The future success of America depends on us understanding what we stood for the last 10 years and how to continue to be that in the future. The names change, but the fundamental underlying joy of technology shouldn't.
We need to know who you guys are, and what you want, and try to give you what you want in a website, but without selling out what we have been. We have a three hundred years of legacy now our single biggest threat is to ignore our past and try to be whatever is popular today, but that's not to say we can't change.
We need to incorporate many of these popular ajax/web2.0 technologies and ideas our people deserve the improved browsing experience. But it's a careful balance between taking what is good about what is available today, and blending it with what has worked throughout our history.
It's a mistake for us to want to be France or China or to spend our days chasing after Israel, or Japan, or Timbuktoo, or whatever. We strike our own path. We'll never be the #1 country on the net, but we're still great, and I'm proud to continue to be part of America.
=Smidge=
If he wants to do some good for research (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd really get along with John Galt [wikipedia.org], I think.
In all seriousness though, part of this is over compensation on the part of Joe Six Pack. Smart people are threatening because they are smart; therefore, make them seem less so by over emphasizing parts of them that aren't as attractive as others.
It's not as if the 'nerdy' qualities of most of us are actually qualities unique to anyone. We may as a group normally indulges in different flavors of these things, but they aren't that different from anyone else.
Our obsessions are just as rational (or irrational) as the next person, our quirks just as endearing (or annoying) as those of anyone else. It's simply that we have someone pointing at them and going "Oh! Look at him, isn't he goofy because of that."
Think Trekkies are scary? Try people who run fantasy sport leagues.
Think LARPers are dorks? Take a look at the more extreme sports fans out there and their attire (or lack of it).
Think computer geeks are weird for wasting weekends playing with Linux or building their own computers? Who would spend a perfectly good weekend fiddling with a car that already works for performance you'll never realistically use?
Anime freaks got you shaking your head? Next time American Idol has tryouts in your area take a look at who shows up.
Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana? (Score:4, Interesting)
If a man with free healthcare breaks his leg in the forest and there's no doctor to treat it, does he still have free healthcare?
The New York Times [nytimes.com] recently reported:
The experience of Massachusetts is instructive. Under a far-reaching 2006 law, the state succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured. But many who gained coverage have been struggling to find primary care doctors, and the average waiting time for routine office visits has increased.
Some of the newly insured patients still rely on hospital emergency rooms for nonemergency care,. said Erica L. Drazen, a health policy analyst at Computer Sciences Corporation.
Also, Taxation isn't the only way to pay. There is also inflation.
Re:Administration (Score:2, Interesting)
Much welcome change (Score:1, Interesting)
I believe this is a much welcome change. Instead of focusing on killing people like DARPA does, it can also finance science with a focus on improving lives and quality of living. Instead of destruction of lives and value, with a focus on construction and building of value for our lives. I'm certain that just like DARPA has found many civilian uses for war technologies, this funding will produce many civilian technologies that will be useful for military purposes.
USA has been too military centric for the past 60+ years of war induced paranoia that has driven the government. If Pentagon is famous for something, it is losing track of 2.3 Trillion USD. I think open and public research can keep better track of how and where the money is spent too.
Re:Administration (Score:5, Interesting)
Oddly enough, the National Debt increased every year of Clinton's terms of office.
Strange that he could manage a "balanced budget" while the National Debt increased, isn't it?
Note, for the record, that the National Debt increased by over 28% during Clinton's terms. And by about $150 billion during the two years he supposedly had a "balanced budget".
Note further that Obama's planned 2010 budget has a deficit larger than the increase in national debt during Clinton's two terms. And that this doesn't include the stimulus spending, which is a whole 'nuther pile of money.
Re:Clarification (Score:3, Interesting)
I would think that the poor probably wouldn't want to fund such an effort. The police and courts have, historically, not been all that kind to them, and in many cases they view the police and courts as an aggressor rather than a defender. The poor don't exactly have a lot of property worth protecting, and from their point of view probably wouldn't be any worse off under many other countries' rule.
The value of police, courts, and military protection are heavily skewed towards the rich.
No more small businesses? Don't think so. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Administration (Score:5, Interesting)
US R&D only seems to make money for China these days
Re:Administration (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tax Nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
So allow me to turn the question around on you:
Why are you not complaining now that the current administration is putting us further and faster in debt than the last administration?
I recognize that our current economic situation requires actions against my - and Obama's - long term goals. Sometimes spending money is necessary, even when the overall goal is to reduce spending. And Obama has pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. That's further in debt, yeah, but it's certainly not faster in debt as you claim.
Or to put it another way:
Which tea party were you at?
Personally I think my taxes are reasonable given the benefits I receive from my government. If anything, they could probably be raised a bit so the government wasn't needing to borrow to support me.
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
So many great discoveries happen by accident, like Penicillin for example (what if Fleming did not leave his windows open and those petri dishes out). 3% of the GDP towards R&D will not guarantee the next big thing but it sure as hell helps the chance of stumbling upon it.
If our academic scientists didn't have to spend 80% of their time writing hundreds of abstracts in the hope for one grant and could instead DO science and be in the lab, new discoveries may start to unfold left and right.
Re:Administration (Score:3, Interesting)
Great references, thanks!
I guess the Wikipedia article is taking the difference between the ratio of debt to GDP from one year to the ratio of debt to GDP for the next year. That's just confusing.
I would much rather see the two figures: the % increase/decrease in debt and the % increase/decrease of GDP. Mixing the two together, and especially taking the difference between the ratios of two different years seems more suited to obfuscation than illumination.
Of course, this still means that either the country has done better on increasing GDP, or better in managing debt, or some combination of the two, under democrats rather than republicans. At least according to the debt & GDP figures Wikipedia is using, and assuming that they aren't lying in the chart. I haven't checked any of their figures myself.
Re:Administration (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I mean private investment in the same areas that increased taxes would siphon from.
I'm going to tell you that in combination of public and private sources of Science R&D in the US alone is more then twice that of any other nation in the world and that taking from private investments will be taking from the exact same thing it is working for. Currently the combined public and private spending in the US is around 377 billion (projected fro 2009) [battelle.org] Girls gone wild really has nothing to do with investments as it is the profit that will be taxed which is in turn invested and yes, some of those profits will be funding Science R&D by nature of investing.
I think your missing the forest for all the trees. Other investments have the exact same if not more benefit over profit and I wasn't limiting my statement to the singular. Other things that can benefit humanity is greater agriculture production, more nutritious foods, disease and drought resistant crops, computer programing that makes complicated tasks easier, devices that conserve energy or recycle waste into usable and productive materials or energy, medical improvements, people keeping their jobs or being secure in knowing they have a place to live, ability to feed their families and bunches of more in which is all in some way is privately funded through investments.
Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object (Score:2, Interesting)
Libertarian's believe that the FEDERAL government should be responsible for armed forces, as that is explicitly laid out in the constitution.
Many Libertarians also believe that due to the interstate commerce clauses and a geographical monopoly situation, the government has the authority to regulate and run interstate highways, as competition in that industry really isn't realistic.
As far as your other examples, eg sewer systems, public schools, police, fire departments, how many of these does the FEDERAL government fund and run. Libertarians have 100% no qualms with state and local governments running these things, but the federal government should not get involved in any area unless authorized by the constitution. Afterall how much do people b***h and moan about the one area in that list that the federal government is involved in, public education?
So yes, enough with the damned FEDERAL SOCIALISM. Once the federal government has backed off, and freed up all the money and resources being wasted, Libertarians have no problem w/ the states can stepping in with their own health programs, social services, welfare, and other services the federal government currently "provides".
Some states would have higher taxes and provide state-run health programs, while other states would have lower taxes, but your on your own when it comes to healthcare. Just like the free market the best and most efficient and cost effective solution for everyone would prevail, and in the meantime American citizens are given a choice of which system to live under, while at the same time not having to give up essential liberties and freedoms as laid out in the bill of rights.
And don't say the free market doesn't work, as since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was founded, we have not had a free market system, and a great deal of the man-made problems that we're in today are a result of the market manipulations by the fed
Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana? (Score:1, Interesting)
The system right now is corrupt and political, and must be removed. My solution (and I realize it is not a perfect system, but then again no system of taxation is perfect) is a repeal of the income tax, and the institution of a 15% sales tax on everything physical except for food, basic housing supplies (toilet paper, soap, ect) and clothing items under $100.00. This tax would not effect the destitute, who would only afford the non-taxed items, and would for the most part be born by the same people who bear the tax burden now.
However, it would remove the black hole that is the tax preparation industry. It would also put more money into industry, as there would be a lower tax burden (as an example, in combined state and federal taxes, the company I work for pays over 50% of revenue in taxes.)
Anyways, that's my idea.
Re:No more small businesses? Don't think so. (Score:5, Interesting)
Which makes sense.
If you're free from your employer supplied healthcare plan capitalism can flourish. Suddenly everybody becomes a free agent able to start their own competitive business.
The risk of creating your own business and going it alone is dramatically reduced. You don't have to literally wory about dieing and or going completely bankrupt for life because you quit your job.
Large projects still need large groups of people. But many tasks can be accomplished by smaller businesses which aren't able to compete with the insurance pool of a larger company. Universal healthcare is a boon for capitalism. Calling it socialist is incredibly short sighted by unimaginative people looking for political gain.
Re:No more small businesses? Don't think so. (Score:3, Interesting)
Agree 100%.
I'd like to add that this whole "socialist vs. capitalist" nonsense is a non sequitur. You can, and almost always do, have both at once.
Socialism simply means that the tax dollars the government collects go into social programs. Capitalism has less to do with the government, and more to do with the economy (insofar as the two can be separated). You can have capitalism with no government at all (anarchy), though I doubt anyone with an ounce of sense would want to live in such a society. You could also have a government that funds no social programs whatsoever, but I can't think of a single such entity in the free world.
Even the USA has social programs, they just receive far less of the overall tax income. So to an extent, every modern capitalist state is also socialist; it's just a question of how much.
The reverse does not apply incidentally; there are plenty of historical examples of non-capitalist socialist states, but they've been dying off, or adapting, since the end of the cold war. Surprise surprise, top down management of national economies (such as in communist systems) doesn't work. Doesn't have a thing to do with socialism however.
Private Industry Research- Bell Labs (Score:4, Interesting)
I am a scientist who believes strongly that government funding of R&D needs to be increased. Often times, I hear the argument that it is not the government's role to do this. Most of our basic R&D now occurs in the universities and the national labs. But it wasn't always so.
Several years ago, I was an intern at Bell Labs, in Murray Hil, NJ, the main research engine of AT&T before the 1984 breakup. Some of the greatest inventions of the 20th century were created there, including the transistor and the laser. The cosmic microwave background was discovered at Murray Hill as well, an example of a pure scientific discovery, serendipitous but yet made more likely by the concentration and dynamic of the brilliant minds working there. As time went on, the research became more and more applied, less basic, less fundamental.
By the time I got there, Bell Labs was part of Lucent, which was a slave to its stock price. All kinds of financial shenanigans were going on in the background, and the business had become focused almost solely on fiber optics and other communications media/equipment. Some of the leftovers from the glory days of basic R&D were retiring, but there were still quite a few more recent hires. These people were let go during my summer. It was sad. It was the death of Bell Labs. All that were left were the old fogies and the people doing work related to the core business. Lucent's stock tanked, and the whole company became a shell of what it once was, and Bell Labs became special only in the history books.
Bell Labs was the greatest death of the old industrial research powerhouses. Few are left, most notably IBM. But even these are more application-oriented than in the past. They depend on the government to fund basic R&D in its labs and universities to keep the technology engine revving. Should that process stop, perhaps industry will revert to its old way, but that will not be a quick process. For almost a generation, we would be left with our pants down while our global competitors assert the lead in the technology race. This will put us at not just an economic disadvantage, but in poor strategic positioning politically. It is paramount that we fund basic R&D via government funds now. If we desire a different system where private industry does the brunt of basic R&D, then we must redesign the system via proper incentives to allow for a smooth transition to such a paradigm. Maintaining science funding at the levels they are at right now is not sustainable in the short term- the quicker we enhance funding, the better off we will be.