Considering the profound implication for our understanding of the universe offered by the LHC, the fact that carbon-capture technology isn't in abundance, that there are plenty of diseases that are yet to be cured, and that there still people in the world who simply don't have food. I wanted to ask some general questions about scientific research.

 

Where should funding for scientific research go to? (if you had to chose between funding research into agriculture, energy or medicine, which would you chose?)

 

Where should it come from? (locally? nationally? internationally? from corporations?)

 

How much of it should there be? (in the context of a recession)

Where should funding for scientific research go to? (if you had to chose between funding research into agriculture, energy or medicine, which would you chose?)

 

Where should it come from? (locally? nationally? internationally? from corporations?)

 

How much of it should there be? (in the context of a recession)

 

1) Energy - its the engine that makes everything else possible, but is also creating a great environmental impact. This should be done on an international and national level.

 

2) Medicine - international

 

3) Agriculture - I could be wrong, but I think most of the problem is political

Personally, I think all of the money should go into functional morphology, but I'm biased.

 

To answer honestly, I think the current method of funding works fine, but just needs more money. Currently, the NSF gets only $6 billion, and the NIH gets only $28 billion. For less than the cost of bailing out some useless stock firm, we can triple the funds for both (I'd actually stop there, because after that point there's just not that much research worth funding).

 

As for the amount, I think it should be increased for one simple reason: it's trickle-down economics that actually *works*. You're giving money to scientists who *will* spend *all* of it in the given time frame, in the process funneling money to grad students, equipment makers, air travel personnel, etc, all of whom will then use that money to pay rent etc and help dig us out of this hole.

 

Basically, funding science *is* a stimulus package.

Personally, I think all of the money should go into functional morphology, but I'm biased.

Funny thing, bias. I had a very similar thought, but with the obvious recipient being space exploration.

 

Basically, funding science *is* a stimulus package.

Moreover it is a stimulus package with significant out-year benefits.

As for the amount, I think it should be increased for one simple reason: it's trickle-down economics that actually *works*.

 

I like that point of view.

Though of course as good scientists we should all now be fighting about which area should be funded .

ATM the funding success rate at the NIH is way below 10%, in some areas 2%. Quite a number get rejected due to fund limitations without actually being read (but at least with an attached note to resubmit it next year or so... if you still got the job that is).

Stimulus would be good . Alas, if I take a look at the layoffs at universities it is not likely to happen (and I have to submit another grant proposal, though chances are high that it won't make it)...

Those scientists will just waste the money on pie in the sky research, we need to invest all of that money in engineering projects (particularly automating the highways and powering them with renewable sources).