I think one needs to put in perspective the amounts of money spent on
research. When I worked for the National Science Foundation, I found that
the entire budget of this agency registered somewhere in the fifth decimal
position of the entire federal budget.
The percentage of GDP spent on basic and applied research has been flat at
around 4% for several years and the percentage being spent outside research
on health-related problems actually has been dropping for the past few
years.
The basic and applied research budget pales in comparison to the
"entitlements" portion of the federal budget (Social Security, Medicare and
the like). One can always argue that there are unmet social needs, but it
is a fallacy to assume that these needs are not being met because we spend
too much on research. Generally they are not being met because political
decisions have been made not to meet them.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert B Zannelli [mailto:Spinoza321@AOL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 1:42 PM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: Moon landing Hoax (spinoffs)
In a message dated 2/22/01 3:59:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
JMGreen@SISNA.COM writes:
<< BUT to assert that the nation should take on projects the size of the
SSC,
or a Moon trip, or the Hubble based on the idea that some scientific
knowledge will eventually spin off into a data reservoir and thereby
technology might eventually be enhanced this seems to me to be over
reaching -- projects of this size should be debated publicly and weighed
against other expensive projects and my favorite, pay down the damn federal
debt.
>>
What you are really arguing for is the end of public support for basic
research. I can't help but wonder how someone who would choose to make a
career of science could hold such an opinion. What percentage of the general
public do you think has the slightest clue about what the SSC would have
been
and what it would have been used for? Now that it hasn't been built what
would you say the impact has been on our national debt? The only real impact
been the lost opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the most
fundamental laws of nature.
Are you making the same argument for the Hubble. I find this even more
shocking considering the scientific payoff from that project. In my
opinion,
these types of pure research projects involve such a small percentage of the
federal budget their benefits far outweigh their cost. There is plenty of
wasteful federal spending, mostly in defense, money that could be much
better
spent on more publicly supported research.