Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

"Directed" vs "Basic" research

I have to disagree with Bernard's implicit conclusion that "directed"
research is necessarily a more efficient use of the taxpayers' money.

It is estimated that about 25% of the world's economy depends on the quantum
mechanics of silicon. Product oriented research has given us a number of
interesting inventions, but none of these have had the positive impact on
our standard of living that the development of quantum mechanics has.

No one set out to develop QM because it might have practical applications.
Instead, the driving force was the one behind all basic science; namely, the
desire to UNDERSTAND the world around us.

Pardon my irascibility.... it's been a long week!

Mark Shapiro

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard G. Cleyet & Nancy Ann Seese
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: Moon landing Hoax (spinoffs)

The implication, as I read the Yeends, is the tax paid by Corning will
the cost of the moon program. Surely, it would have been cheaper if the
govt. had set out to create a superior cooking utensil material instead of
getting it by accident from the space program.

Justifying the space program by claiming spin-offs is, as Gate Keeper (NAS)
says, s*** talk. Again, I was and now am against the moon project -- if I
weren't so non-anti-soviet, I'd have suggested letting them waste their
on doing it. They did waste a lot in their attempt, but I understand they
stopped when "we" won. That suggests the effort was largely a propaganda
exercise. I have one slight reservation in my condemnation of the project,
e. if success led to sufficiently increased productivity, morale, etc., then
one could justify it. However, I doubt if it made more than a few %
difference. The Viet Nam invasion soon overshadowed any effect.

Also, I'm not against some big science when there is no alternative, and the
expected scientific result is great. How to quantify? At the same time I'm
saddened to read recently that "we" have dropped even further as measured by
our health. Cuba is reported to have the finest pediatric hospital in the
Western Hemisphere -- They export Doctors; "we" export munitions and
assassins. (They did "export" the solders that were instrumental in winning
the battle of Cuito Cunavale, for which Mandela in a speech at Matanzas
thanked the people of Cuba.)


P.s. Please don't confuse the purchase price with the cost to society.

Bob & Kathie Yeend wrote:

The correl that I've purchased has been pretty inexpensive. I don't see
it would be cheaper if Corning were paying royalties to the government for
each piece produced. They do pay tax on any profit they make from sales.
Bob and Kathie Yeend <>

From: "Bernard G. Cleyet & Nancy Ann Seese" <georgeann@REDSHIFT.COM>
Subject: Re: Moon landing Hoax (spinoffs)
Date: Fri, Feb 23, 2001, 7:19 PM

How many billion $ for how many dishes Their actual cost $100 each?


P.s. I've never heard of it. We use Pyrex -- probably not a govt.

P.p.s. This is another example of socialism for the corporations and
capitalism for the poor. The corps. get the patents free from tax
supported research, and we pay at inflated prices to buy the results.

Tim O'Donnell wrote:

Surely the cost, spin off ratio is very high. Would not a
direct "attack" on the "spin-offs" have yielded results less
expensively and more rapidly?

But the spin-offs may not have been researched.
Corning came up with "correl ware" as a possible heat
sheilding. It did not work out for that, but I have alot of
correl plate and bowls. I don't think Corning would have
activiely searched for a new material to make dishware.

Tim O'Donnell
Instructor of Physics and Chemistry
Celina High School
715 East Wayne Street
Celina, Ohio 45822
(419) 586-8300 Ext 1200 or 1201

"Chance only favors the prepared mind." - Louis Pasteur