Science in the US (split from Donald Trump)

[Ten oz]

. These sorts of institutions are vital to progress, and I cannot fathom a convincing argument in support of gagging them and / or defunding them entirely.

The Trump admin has their own agenda and facts get in the way. They are interested is the progress of oil pipelines and deregulation of industry to increase profits. The Trump admin doesn't appear interested in running govt based on what is best for people and progress of humanity overall but rather have a list of things they want for themselves and friendly businesses.

[Phi for All]

Scientific research maintained by the government and untouched by politics should be as important to us as untainted news sources, or honesty from our leaders, or equity in the workforce.

[Ten oz]

Scientific research maintained by the government and untouched by politics should be as important to us as untainted news sources, or honesty from our leaders, or equity in the workforce.

Maintained by the govt yet untouched by politics, that is a tough one. It many ways it is an ethical reflection of a government. I wish I knew of a way research and science could be protected during our current political climate. Perhaps appointments to key scientific agencies like EPA, NASA, NOAA should not be made by the White House but rather by a committee of agencies peers?

[Phi for All]

Maintained by the govt yet untouched by politics, that is a tough one. It many ways it is an ethical reflection of a government.

 

I think it's been turned into that. I think it's highly questionable ethically to deny a science budget because it negatively impacts the regulations on business. Why else would this administration try to cover up research?

[StringJunky]

I can't speak much for government funded organisations in the US, but in Australia, we have CSIRO. CSIRO is a government funded organisation, responsible for inventing things like WiFi, the world's first effective influenza vaccine, the first ever Hendra vaccine, etc. These sorts of institutions are vital to progress, and I cannot fathom a convincing argument in support of gagging them and / or defunding them entirely.

Ultimately, most novel things, I would guess, derive from academic research into fundamental phenomena which are then exploited by commercial entities. People, like Trump, are killing the roots that supply higher up the innovation food chain.

[swansont]

Ultimately, most novel things, I would guess, derive from academic research into fundamental phenomena which are then exploited by commercial entities. People, like Trump, are killing the roots that supply higher up the innovation food chain.

 

 

Right. Without the funding, in 10-20 years the US will notice a lot of the patents are held by foreign countries, who may or may not permit the export of the resulting technology to us. As we currently do (ITAR/EAR).

[StringJunky]

 

 

Right. Without the funding, in 10-20 years the US will notice a lot of the patents are held by foreign countries, who may or may not permit the export of the resulting technology to us. As we currently do (ITAR/EAR).

The arrogance of ignorance can be just as harmful as malice.

[Phi for All]

The arrogance of ignorance can be just as harmful as malice.

 

It's frustrating to see humans thinking it's smart to shun intelligence.

[EdEarl]

The arrogance of ignorance can be just as harmful as malice.

I think there is more to it than ignorance.

[StringJunky]

I think there is more to it than ignorance.

Interpret that as wilfull ignorance in order to pursue a conflicting agenda.

Edited January 26, 2017 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

Interpret that as wilfull ignorance in order to pursue a conflicting agenda.

 

We see that here in many of our more conservative members. They suddenly don't understand what you're talking about when you use too much reason and critical thinking that negatively impacts their ideology. Out come the strawmen, the misleading vividness, the moving goalposts, the red herrings, anything but talk positively about something that may cause more taxes or regulation (even if it could eventually reduce both in the long run).

[StringJunky]

 

We see that here in many of our more conservative members. They suddenly don't understand what you're talking about when you use too much reason and critical thinking that negatively impacts their ideology. Out come the strawmen, the misleading vividness, the moving goalposts, the red herrings, anything but talk positively about something that may cause more taxes or regulation (even if it could eventually reduce both in the long run).

Exactly. They pursue their agendas ignoring the evidence and hope, vainly, that they'll get what they want and, somehow, the problems caused by their choices will go away.

[EdEarl]

Politics US style is much about money, and agendas are often straw dogs.

[StringJunky]

Politics US style is much about money, and agendas are often straw dogs.

You mean the presented agendas are just distractions from the true agendas? I'm not familiar with the 'straw dog'.

[MonDie]

Allegedly they're telling these organizations not to post to twitter, and it began (or was escalated) when the National Park Service posted photos of Obama's and Trump's inauguration audiences side by side to show the small audience.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/25/national-park-service-resistance-team-launches-ant/

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/federal-agencies-trump-information-lockdown-234122

 

Unless I see somebody from these organizations saying that this is not happening, I would presume that it is.

[EdEarl]

A straw dog looks dangerous if you don't look too closely.

 

Claiming the US military needs to be improved because it is too weak is a straw dog. In fact the the US defense department is overwhelmingly powerful in many ways, and they are continually improving their technology with a large budget.

[Ten oz]

A straw dog looks dangerous if you don't look too closely.

 

Claiming the US military needs to be improved because it is too weak is a straw dog. In fact the the US defense department is overwhelmingly powerful in many ways, and they are continually improving their technology with a large budget.

Military spending is one of the easiest ways for politicians to award large contracts to the corporations of their (politician) choosing. Not giving the Military everything a politician implies the military may need or want is treated as anti patriotic.

 

Kennedy was successful in making going to the moon a matter of national pride which in turn improved attitudes about NASA spending. Not sure what today's equivalent would be but it seems that millions simply don't care about science anymore.

[ecoli]

Military spending is one of the easiest ways for politicians to award large contracts to the corporations of their (politician) choosing. Not giving the Military everything a politician implies the military may need or want is treated as anti patriotic.

 

Ironically, the military funds plenty of basic research and some of that has no direct military applications.

[Ten oz]

Ironically, the military funds plenty of basic research and some of that has no direct military applications.

Trickle down sciencetific research money isn't enough.

[swansont]

 

Ironically, the military funds plenty of basic research and some of that has no direct military applications.

 

 

True. Includes my field of laser cooling and trapping, funded by the navy.

 

The money also trains scientists. Cut it off and you not only lose out on the fundamental research that it generates, but you eventually won't have scientists around to do any research anyway.

[paragaster]

As long as Americans do not abuse power got by being at the edge of Technology Innovation it is OK.

[louis wu]

Well the EPA is to be terminated according to a bill presented to congress.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+861%22%5D%7D&r=1

 

US uncut link.

http://usuncut.com/climate/epa-terminate/

 

This cannot be a good idea.

It is not how I envisioned draining the swamp.

[rangerx]

It is not how I envisioned draining the swamp.

 

It's more like polluting the swamp.

[Phi for All]

Science in the US seems to be caught in a nasty trap. Laypeople usually want looser definitions and more intuitive, popular explanations that end up causing a lot of misconceptions, which can only be cleared up by the precision and rigor the professionals want. I think, as public school funding continues to be diverted to finance extremist capitalism, the public is becoming incapable of comprehending complex situations. The blue collar sector won't listen to professionals anymore, including professionals in reality.

[MonDie]

I am not sure why Phi posted, but Phi spurred me to get myself caught up again. On March 28th, Trump signed an executive order to roll back the Clean Power Plan. The EPA is holding hearings with the supposed intent of hearing out the public on what they want rolled back, but apparently the hearings are being announced with short notice, held at awkward times, and having more stakeholders and lobbyists than ordinary citizens.

According to Ars Technica's John Timmer, it will be quite the lengthy task to reverse the "greenhouse gas Endangerment Finding". Unless they can reverse it, they cannot repeal a plan unless they replace it with something else, and the replacement plans will probably involve reduced regulations on the grounds that the regulations are economically costly.