[ RadSafe ] political funding of science/ was:Radon: POWERFULLY associated with LESS lung cancer by B.Cohen
sjd at swcp.com
Fri Jun 17 18:46:26 CDT 2011
I don't want to start this up again, I merely wish to
clarify two things. First, I did not say "Real science doesn't
create wealth it only consumes it, . . ." Clayton Bradt said that.
Second, it is possible to devise some way of rationalizing
virtually anything the Federal government does. In the end, we are
burdened with a large, powerful, and heavy-handed Federal
government. The Feds can't even fulfill their legitimate duties such
as running wars and securing the borders.
At 12:10 PM 6/17/2011, you wrote:
>I don't actually agree with, " Real science doesn't create wealth it
>only consumes it,..." I believe science creates vast amounts of wealth,
>but does so in indirect ways that often cannot be predicted before the
>science is done.
>Basic research has found things that created entire new fields of wealth
>creation. Often this has happened while looking into some mystery that
>had no obvious payoff for solving. Because the payoff isn't obvious,
>getting financial backing can be hard. Government funding for basic
>research has paid off in creating whole new industries, with wealth
>creation that is hard to wrap you mind around (imagine, for example,
>what GPS is worth. Not just the units that you hold, but the value of
>being able to locate things and people almost instantly, almost
>anywhere. If the US Government hadn't paid for the research on how to
>make it work, and then paid for the system to be deployed, it wouldn't
>have happened, because no company could predict what the pay off would
>Also, most money spent on research actually goes to people, with a fair
>portion of that going to grants that let people get advanced degrees.
>Those people then go out to industry, bringing new knowledge and
>understanding. Very, very few businesses are willing to take the risk
>of investing in an individual's education, even if they know that at
>some time they will want someone with that expertise.
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Clayton J
>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:39 AM
>To: sjd at swcp.com; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] political funding of science/ was:Radon: POWERFULLY
>associated with LESS lung cancer by B.Cohen
>Steve Dapra writes:
>"The problem is that politics funds science, thus transmuting
>science into a political football. Real science can raise its own
>funding. It does not need to leech off the taxpayer."
> >From whence does "real science" raise its own funding? Whoever pays for
>research is going to expect
>a return on his investment. And that in turn will determine which
>researchers/projects will attract the
>the funding. What's the difference between being a political football
>being an economic football?
>Real science doesn't create wealth it only consumes it, and will always
>dependent upon some outside source of
>funding. Whether public or private, the money always comes with strings
>I mean, come on! Didn't you see Spiderman-2 ?
>Clayton J. Bradt
>NYS Dept. of Health
>Biggs Laboratory, Room D486A
>Empire State Plaza
>Albany, NY 12201-0509
More information about the RadSafe