New at Reason

Ronald Bailey picks up on a new Nobel laureate's boosterism for more science funding, and asks how much funding is enough.

Comments

Pro Libertate | October 6, 2006, 5:00pm | #

Hey, is this thing on? No mention of Battlestar Galactica coming back from hiatus tonight? Are we not libertarians, and thus sci-fi geeky by definition? I'm saddened.

As for science funding, I'd rather have a different way of handling it, of course, but, as things stand, scientific and technological progress are the best things going. If we're going to waste money on stupid politically driven projects anyway, might as well do it with something that will sometimes prove useful. Now, as far as how much is enough. . .who knows? When I start getting money to build a space elevator out of hundred dollar bills, then I daresay we'll have reached the moment where science funding may have gone too far.

Lowdog | October 6, 2006, 5:07pm | #

At least $100 aren't electrically conducive...there is a small number of folks who think that a space elevator might just act like a rather large mega-lightning rod, which might have some bad results.

(Yes, it's rather fringe science atm, but I'm still keeping an eye on the electrical universe folks.)

JP | October 6, 2006, 5:16pm | #

would likely mean that the agency could fund 40 percent of the studies submitted to it instead of the 20 percent it does now.

depending on the institute, it's more like 8-12%. it was 20% something like 3 or 4 years ago, but the NIH budget has leveled out (or started decreasing, if you take into account inflation)

JP | October 6, 2006, 5:32pm | #

what that means, by the way, is that the science that gets funded is becoming more conservative (in the "less risky" sense of the word), even though the NIH is already notoriously conservative. The revolutions will come, but they'll just come slower. feed the beast and you'll get your advances quicker.

Pro Libertate | October 6, 2006, 5:49pm | #

Lowdog,

Great, it's feasible. Hmmm, let's say 22,300 miles high, six inches to each bill, 1,000 bill thickness. . . about 235,488,000,000 hundred dollar bills should do it. I think the NSF could handle that. Though I must say at the outset that we can expect that anywhere from 20 to 30 million bills will be lost to wastage.

I'm still cautiously hopeful about the space elevator. I believe NASA has just added a bundle of loot to its space elevator competition, too.

thoreau | October 6, 2006, 7:36pm | #

As I understand it, the problems with NIH grant approvals have more to do with the backlog of old grants to fund rather than budget cuts. They banked on continuing growth so they kept expanding their committments while counting on future spending increases to fund new grants in the future. But the increases stopped, so they're tied up with old grants.

Meanwhile, universities kept hiring new faculty, counting on them being able to get new grants.

There's a bit that sounds fishy to me in that explanation when I try to think about how the numbers would actually work, but the gist of it (short-sighted thinking by bureaucrats who counted on a continuing gravy train) doesn't surprise me at all.

Eric | October 6, 2006, 11:50pm | #

Ron, check out this article:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5792/1387b

In 2005, new NIH R01 grants were funded at a 9.1% success rate equalling $351 million, down from 20.1% success in 2000 equalling $503 million. I suspect that's the funding problem that Mello was getting at. R01 renewals have dropped from ~55% to ~32%.

This means that new R01s make up ~1% of the NIH total budget. The problem with this is that getting an R01 is an essential contributor to innovative academic research (i.e. basic science) of the kind that was recognized by the Nobel Mello and Fire received.

kebko | October 7, 2006, 12:06am | #

If science is supposed to stake out new ground & to honestly assess & grow knowledge & the state of technology, it seems like the most asinine way to fund it would be through a democratic bureaucracy. To the extent that the science community begs for & depends on government money, they deserve it when some butt-munch president decides that stem cell research is off-limits. As for we citizens, I think we'd be better off in a world where scientists who can find private funding go off & do whatever crazy stuff they can think of, without worrying about whether the Southern Baptist convention or the Sierra Club is going to lobby their congressman about it.

It's very similar to artists begging for federal money & then complaining when their art is compromised by the political process. Uh....duh.

It seems as though the science & art communities share a disappointing lack of perspective.

I think the increasing embarrassment NASA will be feeling as they flag down private space jets to help patch their jalopies up before descent will serve as a good example of how well those government funds are spent after funding gets entrenched.

kebko | October 7, 2006, 12:09am | #

I'm anxiously awaiting the day when some descendent of the first Virgin Galactic jet buzzes the Space Shuttle & everyone moons it through the windows.

aspendougy | October 7, 2006, 5:57pm | #

The guy who proved the Poincare Conjecture (One of the most important unproved mathematical problems of the last 100 years) lives in an Apt. in Russia with his mom; he refused the Clay Math Institute's million dollar prize and the Field Medal.

Federal Funding corrupts absolutely.

kevrob | October 8, 2006, 2:52am | #

What's with this?

... government paid out $37 billion, and universities, states and philanthropies shelled out $13 billion. - RB

Last I checked, the states are governments, too. As for the universities, a huge whompin' percentage of those are part of government, though the public ones also obtain private grant money, and even the private ones accept government funds. This hairball could be untangled a bit better.

Kevin

dhex | October 8, 2006, 4:21pm | #

"The guy who proved the Poincare Conjecture (One of the most important unproved mathematical problems of the last 100 years) lives in an Apt. in Russia with his mom; he refused the Clay Math Institute's million dollar prize and the Field Medal.

Federal Funding corrupts absolutely. "

this may be true, but federal funding doesn't live with his mom, either.

Buckshot | October 9, 2006, 8:53am | #

kevrob:
You seem to be the only one on this thread who gets the point that it isn't the government's job to fund science, that's the private sectors territory. More great leaps forward seem to come from someone's garage than the Halls of Power. He who takes the King's coin becomes the King's man, then you have to kiss the King's ass for next year's money. There's a line by a defense contractor in the movie Robocop, "Million of dollars in government funding, who cares if the damn thing works".