Last week, President Obama announced that he plans on funding scientific research at a level which hasn't been seen since the 1960s, during the space race. He plans to devote 3% of our GDP to funding of the sciences (natural and physical sciences). The White House - Press Office - Remarks by the President at the National Academy of Sciences Annual Meeting

In this forum, I have seen varying views about federal funding of the sciences. Some want the private sector to handle it, some want more funding from the federal government. And some want some funding, but only in specific areas.

I'm curious how folks view the importance, or lack of importance, of federal science policy in the USA.

It's highly possible that my poll choices are very biased, so if you have some other ideas, please discuss them.

It is vital for this country to fund the sciences, as it is for every other countries to do likewise. It's important to also work in cooperation with private industry, but not to just let them do it all and leave it all up to the profit motive, as not every scientific endeavor will return a profit at first, or at all.

And not all scientific successes are completely private-industry related anyway, although many may think so. NASA, for example, bankrolled a number of things that we think were solely commercial products.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

If there is a military application and the Pentagon has the money, let them have at it.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

I support federal funding of science, but believe it should be limited to the basic sciences.

The private sector is very adept at making practical scientific advances. What they fail to do, however, is engage in the high-risk basic research that enables the more practical research. This is logical, as there is no stable business model that can be centered on performing basic research.

You're going to have a hard time going to a venture Capitalist and asking "Can you give me several million dollars for my research? I'm researching the cell walls of Mycobacteria species, but won't likely discover any patentable knowledge for next several decades..."

Or, if your Einstein, "Hey, I need several hundred thousand dollars to prove that light acts as both particles and waves, in units I like to call photons!" Investors will laugh at you. Until they're hit by a nuclear bomb, that is...

As this was not a choice on your poll (with so many choices!) I picked #1. To my knowledge, the majority of federal funding is already direced towards unprofitable basic science, so I suppose I don't have too many problems with our current system.

Not to mention, federal research grants pay my stipend!

__________________
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."
- Milton Friedman

"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
- George Orwell

The country *will* still support science, even if the politicians aren't the ones choosing who gets the money.

If it's for defense, or some other legitimate governmental use, then fine. But just to let the politicians decide who they hand out money to -- it'll be any science fad they see as a vote winner.

Not my idea of "smart". But ymmv, of course.

I chose the third option. Mostly, this was because while reading the op, I thought to myself, "So how much of our GDP are we devoting to not having a deficit so high we'll soon need to develop a new system of math to calculate it?"

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

advancements in science benefit everyone today and tomorrow during times of both economic growth and hardship.

i don't see why the distinction is made for the military by some.

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

Well because the question is, "What should politicians be trusted to spend our money on?"

If you are one of the folks who still lives in the past and *trusts* the politicians, then you want them to be able to give money to whomever they want.

Or, if you are more of a mind that all the evidence proves that *none* of them can be trusted to so much as run a Popsicle stand . . . then you would be against them using "science" as an excuse for pork and corruption.

In my opinion, it's all about how you see politicians.

here is one example of what the kind of support you're referring to leads to:

let's say that a privately owned company discovers a potential cure for aids. they patent the drug they've created so that no one else is allowed to produce it. when developing the drug for the market, they find they could either create a straight-up cure that will allow for instant recovery for the patient or they can create a drug that must be taken once a week for the rest of the patient's life. which one of these choices would be best for humanity and which choice would be best for the company?

the company is going to create the drug that allows for the greatest amount of profit (i.e. the drug that must be taken weekly) which is not what would lead to the greatest societal benefit (which is fine if you're libertarian i guess).

one thing though: what is a "science fad?"

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

Absolutely, there are potential problems with all systems. Now do you honestly think that the above scenario is *more* likely than the one in which politicians regularly spend billions and billions of our money on things like research grants to study the sex life of Moose? In every single budget every single year, they hand out millions and millions in this way.

It's all about the "old" voting style -- "we trust our politicians and parties", vs. a new paradigm that see politicians as organized crime. If you trust politicians more than you trust private companies, then that's your choice. I personally can observe that there is a ton of evidence it's not a good idea to trust them, but that's just me -- everyone has to make up their own mind what kind of a govt they want.

P.S. -- science 'fads' are very common, from the DDT ban that actually ended up killing millions to the current 'global warming' theory that uses computer models as "evidence".

I voted other. While I am in favor of prudent public funding of science, science education, and scientific research, I have deep concerns about government mismanagement and politicization. I would hate to see more branches of science and research become little more than agenda driven PR machines like the psuedo-science of "Global Warming".

__________________
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

So I assume you would be against funding of climatology since the results might not fit your ideology?

Science has a great potential to meander without without an engineering goal behind it.

NASA has done great things for science in search of nationalistic and engineering goals.

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

In a free market, the cure would be more profitable. Why?

Because the firm can charge an exoribtant price for it ($millions per dose). They could then take that money and immediately re-invest it in profitable operations. It is far better to have a lump sum now, then have the income distributed over time.

So why don't companies do this? Because our government has a habit of price-controlling cures. If you develop a cure to a epidemic infection, the government will likely hijack your cure, cancel your patent, and distribute it as far and as widely as possible...thus putting you out of business.

If you want to see companies developing more cures, you need to make their patents inpenetrable by any government action. Of course, this also means you would have to wait 10-20 years from when a cure is first invented before the poor could be cured.

In this country, however, the poor would simply vote for the government to cancel the patent...and so the cycle repeats. And we see few cures...

__________________
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."
- Milton Friedman

"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
- George Orwell

this is exactly wrong. just completely wrong. the logic you used to justify it is iffy and easily refuted.

before i was in my current job i spent two summers working at an actuarial firm that specialized in health care. one of the first things i learned about the pharmaceutical industry is that it is far far far far more profitable for a company to have a customer hooked on their product for their entire life rather than to be cured right off the bat.

think about it, if your life depends on you taking a drug, then presumably you're going to be willing to pay any price asked for it in order to get it. pharmaceutical companies in a perfectly free market are able to choose whether to charge that price once or many times for the rest of the patient's life. this is a common practice in the pharmaceutical industry today. some people in this country pay for drugs every single week that are not designed to cure them, but only to make them better for a little while until they need more of the drug.

why would a company only want you to pay it off once when you could be paying them the same amount every week for the rest of your life? that just doesn't make any sense.

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine