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."
The sad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Congress and Senate slashed the budget, not the DOE.
Maybe you can say "well they didn't lobby hard enough to maintain or grow their funding...
but it's pretty obvious that science has not been a USA priority for quite some time now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even worse? The DoE is almost entirely devoted to missions having nothing to do with energy research.
Too depressing...
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite amusing, really!
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It's a biological imperative... (Score:5, Insightful)
Though, there is variation in any population, so I suppose you do have the choice to turn your back on about 2 million years of human evolutionary success and just be a selfish git. ;p
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Said federal budget is $2.7 trillion in 2008, while Phoenix and MRO combined barely break a billion, and both are invaluable in terms of knowledge we get from them (have already gotten and are still getting from the MRO mission, and expect to get from Phoenix).
And a final bit of perspective: the $5 million Fermilab gets from this private donor is less than what half an hour of Iraq is costing the US.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
(disclaimer: I play with NASA images for a stipend.)
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: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:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The sad thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (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 wou
Re:The sad thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Consequently, it makes sense that they think a "do nothing congress" is a bad thing, and they rate the success of a congress by how much legislatin' they got done.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. However, I'd let someone else design the user interface for the machine.
They have a vested interest not in good machines, but in more machines.
Engineers usually want to build the perfect machine. Unfortunately, it will then require another engineer to operate it.
If engineers designed machines like lawyers made laws, you'd need to hire an engineer to operate even the most trivial machine (car, elevator, TV). We don't let the engineers get away with that. Why do we let lawyers ?
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.
fundamentalists (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and yes. The USA has been largely taken over by religious fundamentalists. To the extent that they don't rule outright, their influence is still pervasive, and moves the entire country in that cultural direction. Science and scientists are openly held in amused contempt by about half of Americans, if not more.
They respect engineers and people who can make stuff, but science for science's sake seems pointless. As Ronald Reagan, the official saint of the Right Wing, said, "Why should we fund intellectual curiosity?" That's not a gaffe--that's a normal right-wing attitude towards intellectual curiosity, i.e. basic science.
You can make an argument that Christianity itself isn't inimical to science. I won't agree with you, but I acknowledge that you can make a case for that. You can't, however, make a case that religious fundamentalism isn't harmful to science. The hostile relationship between fundamentalism and science is glaringly obvious, and there just isn't much to talk about here. As long as fundamentalists are running our culture, our downward spiral regarding science education will continue.
We'll still be on top for a while, but only because our initial lead was so great and we still have so much more money. I don't think they'll turn us into Afghanistan anytime soon, but they're going to keep trying.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We'll still be on top for a while, but only because our initial lead was so great and we still have so much more money. I don't think they'll turn us into Afghanistan anytime soon, but they're going to keep trying.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't, however, make a case that religious fundamentalism isn't harmful to science. The hostile relationship between fundamentalism and science is glaringly obvious, and there just isn't much to talk about here.
I think you're making two false assumptions here. The first is that the fundamentalists whom you see in your media are representative of all US fundamentalists. I don't know how true that is. The second is that they are representative of all fundamentalists. That certainly isn't true. To take an "extreme" example, which may cause cognitive dissonance in some readers, I know a Christian fundamentalist who's doing post-doctoral research in evolution in a respected UK university.
Re:fundamentalists (Score:4, Informative)
16% of American biology teachers believe the earth was created within the last 10,000 years, as compared to 48% of the US population. That 16% is, of course, is not evenly allocated across the US. Entire generations within certain states are growing up scientifically illiterate.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/creationists_in_the_american_c.php [scienceblogs.com]
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 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: (Score:3, Informative)
You should also probably not generalize about what teachers unions do, and how they have an effect on the education that the children receive.
Teachers unions negotiate to retain the salaries, contracts, and benefits for teachers primarily. In many states people have the same misguided assumptions and opinions abo
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
No sir, it is clearly you who is peddling "a load of twat"--- whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean, you illiterate tard.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the real world, you don't pay people for the education they have, you pay them for the education you need. So if someone with a master's degree flips burgers, he's not going to be a freakin' six figure burger-flipper.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd argue yes.
Early education is much more important that high school education. This is not only because it serves to instill the fundamentals needed to build higher levels of education on, or the fact that high school serves mainly to socialize. Primary education is where the LOVE of learning is instilled, which leads children to the desire to learn more.
Children (the smart ones) are inquisitive beasts, as anyone who has eve
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Once they get tenure, they are nearly impossible to fire for even the most egregious misconduct. Tenure generally requires 3-5 years of teaching in the same district and little else, it's not like in higher ed where you have to jump through a million hoops to prove yourself worthy.
b) Pay raises are based entirely on seniority, and in most places CANNOT be based on actual achievement, evaluations, good work, etc. The only exception is raises for getting an advanced degree.
Yes, teachers get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways, but the union is not really helping things - it's hell-bent on securing the jobs of the worst teachers out there to the detriment of the average teachers, the decent teachers, the great teachers, and the students. There's no other job where you could do shitty work and not only not get fired for it, but continue to get the same raises as your colleagues who are doing far better work. Even if your boss wants to fire you and doesn't want to give you raises.
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't really a tin-foil-hat flavored conspiracy though, since no one actually sat down and though about this, or implemented this. Its more like a form of social evolution, accidental, and based on survival values. Plus, why the hell would I go against my own interests for YOUR benefit? Its just like how it isn't in the criminal justice systems interests to eliminate crime (loss of profit, employees), or the lawyer based legal system to make sensible laws (loss of profit, employees), or the pharma industry to cure ANYTHING (loss of profit, employees). Again this has nothing to do with the conscious will of individuals, but the very structures involved.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Joking aside, it's damn depressing seeing how little the public cares about science.
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 w
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know, maybe this just highlights how screwed up the congressional seniority system really is.
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: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:Small government, private philanthropy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
at what point in history has a pure democracy ever been tried?
As far as I can tell, the reason we're a republic is that people who have power tend to believe they deserve it, and to believe that people who don't have power, shouldn't.. at least, not too much.
Do you have examples to the contrary, beyond the theoretical?
Re:Small government, private philanthropy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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:Small government, private philanthropy (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, that is somewhat a joke, but not really.
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)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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
Psh. When has that ever happened in Germany?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Small government, private philanthropy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In unrelated news, Evil Corp CEO Doctor Evil announced that no changes would be made to Fermilab's existing projects following Evil Corp's philanthropic donation. However a new project, Project Deathray was announced.
Just kidding. It doesn't really seem bad to me. There are probably enough billionaire nerds in silicon valley to fund a decent percentage of basic research. And actually good US universities are staggeringly rich by academic s
Re:The sad thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait!
Re:The sad thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad wars weren't funded this way. It'd be a much more peaceful planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company#Military_expansion [wikipedia.org]
Taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the Republican party's low appraisal of science probably has a lot to do with it- after all, what good is science that might change peoples' minds about something (FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP) when there's Muslims to kill?
Umm, both houses are (D) - cuts are from congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Umm, both houses are (D) - cuts are from congre (Score:5, Insightful)
(D) Congress... funding executive/(R) policies. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not exactly. More precisely, both houses have a slim Democratic majority, and they're more or less pressured to continue budgeting for policy recently created and executed by the R's.
Without the momentum of those policies -- especially without certain high-profile foreign military adventures -- it's pretty clear the budget picture would look pretty different. Heck, just by introducing competitive bidding on Iraqi reconstruction contracts, it's plausible to suggest the budget picture
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't have that...
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Informative)
The administration asked for increased funding for the DOE Office of Science. Congress instead slashed its budget --- all while fully funding Bush's multi-trillion dollar war in Iraq.
When Congress cuts the budget, there's nothing the administration can do.
If the Democrats in Congress really wanted to end the war in Iraq, they could do it tomorrow by revoking its funding. But why would they end it, when it's their best polling issue?
Sometimes, Democracy just plain sucks.
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:Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
democracy is 2 foxes and 1 chicken voting on what's for dinner.
Re:Taxes (Score:4, Funny)
...while in the Republic of the US the chickens vote on which of the 2 foxes gets to eat them.
Parent is correct (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people hoped that they'd use this opportunity to put a limit
Parent has the right idea but not the facts (Score:5, Insightful)
When Congress cuts the budget, there's nothing the administration can do.
1) Congress decided to increase funding to natural sciences. Republicans and Democrats agreed on it. The Bush administration (which does have heavy, heavy influence in the Republican-sponsored budgets in congress) agreed with Congress. Things looked good.
2) Democrats in Congress and the Republican Congress/Presidential administration started fighting about funding for veteran-benefits (D's wanted more, R's wanted less), the war (D's wanted a timeline for withdrawal, R's didn't), and several other issues. They needed to compromise, as usual.
3) The compromise they reached ended up cutting the funding increase that they ALL had supported, and which was already being spent. Instead, funding for natural sciences was cut. This is why the DOE, NSF, etc. are in their current situations.
Why did the politicians cut something they all agreed was worthwhile? I'm going to speculate that it was because they didn't really care about it much one way or another, and also because research funding is such a tiny part of the budget with virtually no lobbyist support that our esteemed leaders essentially forgot about it.
Re:Taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
You're welcome to your partisan opinions (it is Slashdot after all) but at least apportion blame fully where it is due.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SCIENCE? Who needs that shit? (Score:5, Funny)
RS
Re:SCIENCE? Who needs that shit? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SCIENCE? Who needs that shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm. It's NOT the only remaining particle lab (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Umm. It's NOT the only remaining particle lab (Score:4, Informative)
SLAC will no longer be doing high energy experimental physics, and is being turned into a enormous synchrotron source. Whilst this will result in good science, I think it is somewhat sad that the once world leader of high energy physics is no more.
The US government decided not to support the international linear collider. That marked the end of high energy science in this country. Discovering the workings of the universe is just too expensive compared to spending our money fighting for part-ownership in some hydrocarbons buried under a far-off desert.
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...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
p.s. Love the bison you've got there.
Re:very humbled (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not the first time this has happened. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not the first time this has happened. (Score:4, Informative)
ugh, what spin. (Score:5, Insightful)
They might have had to lay off 200 employees. Out of TWO THOUSAND. Because their budget was "slashed" by just 22M (less than 10% of the budget.) Christ. It's not embarrassing, and the lab was in no danger of being "lost."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you really think losing 10% of your staff isn't catastrophic? Do you appreciate that the Tevatron runs 24/7, 365 days a year? That they don't just turn it off over the weekends, and start it up again on Monday morning by turning the key and giving it some gas?
And, do you really understand how research projects are funded? It's not like Fermi is just thrown huge buckets of money that they can just dole out any which way they please. Each project has its own funding, generally with competitive renewals
How do the DOE and Congress not get this? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can also, given their ideology, understand why they want to de-fund climate research. That sort of thing leads to uncomfortable implications about John and Jane Doe's lifestyle in the exurbs.
But de-fund particle physics? Really? The successors to the folks who brought you the wonders of the atom bomb and who do all kinds of cool death-ray and weapons-applicable research (roughly)? To put it in terms even Bush and Congress should understand, "You like the boom-boom? They make the boom-boom."
How is it they cannot grasp that de-funding these facilities leads directly and quickly to the loss of our technological and military edge?
It's bad enough that they killed the supercollider. But killing the last of our first-rate physics labs is just plain nuts.
More than basic research is done at Fermilab (Score:3, Insightful)
I can think of three techniques off the top of my head that one can only do at a lab like Fermilab:
ARPES [wikipedia.org], Muon spin spectroscopy [wikipedia.org] and neutron scattering [wikipedia.org]. Materials scientists live and die by these techniques - and they investigate things like improved materials for hard drive read heads, new steel alloys, materials for solar cells, everything.
The sad thing is that if this money hadn't come along, it could have completely destroyed Fermilab. People think research produces papers which anyone can read and become an expert. How many people became great Java programmers after reading one book or a few papers? None - it takes practice, and many years at that. If you have to fire any of these guys and gals, they will never come back, and that knowledge is very expensive to lose. You can hire someone and train them, but it takes time, and many of the little secrets never make it into the published literature.
This is an apolitical issue (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue, it is a societal one. Year after year, administration after administration, we as a society have been saying "we don't really consider science/education/research all that important."
Just look at the trends: companies are increasingly seeking out technical professionals overseas because they're churning out greater and greater number of graduates with science/engineering degrees with China pushing out 600,000 such graduates compared to the US' 70,000 per year [businessweek.com]; and how can we compete in biotech when the majority of our citizens can't grasp genetics nor do they even believe in evolution [livescience.com] (we beat Turkey though!)?
With the way we've been funding education and paying our teachers, we collectively give educators the big middle finger tipped with stinky poo every year. We're making these choices as individuals so we all have a hand in this appalling state of affairs.
Fermilab died a long time ago (Score:5, Informative)
Shortage of Scientists and Engineers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why Is That Embarassing??!! (Score:5, Informative)
Next time you or someone you care for gets radiological treatment, think: accelerators make lots of things which are used to diagnose and treat cancers.
Re:Why Is That Embarassing??!! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Research (even esoteric) can have completely unexpected practical applications. Remember the steam engine? For hundreds of years it was nothing but a novelty, and then whammo! Industrial revolution. Just because something has no clear immediate practical applications now, doesn't mean squat for the future.
2. Compared to how big a proportion of your 'tax dollars' goes to funding despotic regimes, terrorist cells we use against 'other' terror cells, and kickbacks to the arms industry, I think you can wear the tiny percentage that goes to 'esoteric' research.
I'm sorry, but I wish people had a bit more perspective on these things
Re:Why Is That Embarassing??!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, this is what's great about the US (Score:5, Insightful)
And before someone says it, corporations have no incentive to do basic research, there is no profit motivation for them to do it. Try telling GE 100 years ago to do basic atomic research, at that time there were no known applications for that research. However, after government funded nuclear research, GE now has a nuclear energy division, making a developing better nuclear reactors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that US taxpayers are so ignorant they can't see the value of research in particle physics when it apparently costs less than a sixtieth of a penny per person to keep it up is what's so great about the US?
Or is it just people desperately
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can't see the value in the sort of thing that's raised the average life expectancy of Americans to 78 years (up from about 40 years at the beginning of the 20th century), or the economic benefits of side-effects of general research (rather than targeted research) like, say, the Internet, I'm not going to hold your hand and e
Re:No, this is what's great about the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Take that, people who are trying to learn English. You'll never learn it all!
Congress, Budgets, Continuing Resolutions. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The REPUBLICANS also share blame here (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The Democrats have a very, very slim majority. This is usually not enough to get anything done because the party is full of people who wear a (D) but are truly (R) in spirit.
2) Many of the Democrats opposed the science budget cuts. Many Republicans supported it. Both parties share blame here. You should actually investigate this for yourself. Do some research before you open your mouth next time.
3) The funding cut was a purely political move. Both sides wanted