well then, quality over quantity. no problem there. will the next Tesla please stand up and save us some time?

this is why everyone needs the 'net

*talks *geek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCz1NuzfFnM (part 9 out of 11 series).

Adding video to channels (Geek, Talks) - requested by ant.

Geez, where did Canada go??

why put money into science when corporations need to advertise during the superbowl?

We have 10% the population of the US, so no big surprise on the first map. The second map probably has something to do with Harper.>> ^notarobot:

Geez, where did Canada go??

australia...keep doin your thing, man.

Perhaps more informative would have been to show published science articles per capita or per GDP. Or at least have the first map as a representation of population or GDP so that we could see where we really expect there to be pockets of science research. Per capita would make Japan, Germany, and France that much more impressive. Per GDP would explain Africa and South America (except Brazil). Either way, the point would be enhanced not detracted from.

The point is, is that the United States is slowly outsourceing or altogether canceling science related projects. There're just too expensive and to be blunt the average citizen isn't smart enough to realize the benefits we can gain just from a land based telescope. People are lucky if they know what a molecule is.

A good example is research being done into fusion. If the U.S. dropped a lot of money into the already functioning program in Europe we could get the next prototype plant up by 2016-2020. Right now we are providing just an extremely small amount of money on this project, while Europe continues to do it alone. But, it will take much longer without our help. We won't see functioning reactors (which is the solution to our energy demands) until 2060 or thereabouts at this pace.

If the U.S. took a lead role you could see that number go down to 2030, maybe sooner depending on what resources we make available to help. BTW, this is a guaranteed solution, it will work, they know this already. Obama asked for a project that would help America and it's citizens as well as something that would eventually bring work here--this was a huge blunder to me, not to automatically support FUSION especially when all the necessary science has been done. All that is left is building the prototype to fine tune the energy distribution and then designing the first core design for a modern Fusion station.

Things like that let me know that we really don't care about science that much anymore. There are a lot of great people out there, but there simply just could be more. It has everything to do with what scholarship programs we make available, the way we teach and what we teach with, tuition continues to hike up, science is demonized by those that don't understand it--and they in turn affect their children's schooling, the government continues to decrease money to scientific programs across the board--like NASA, and the most damning part is that our politicians decrease education funding as well.

Quality over quantity is a ridiculous argument, it's a political talking point--nothing else. We are losing our focus. I've yet to hear a scientist (and not some Creationist linked bunk crap) ever use that statement, they know we are going down hill.

/A little long, but damnit, I'm passionate about science. It's been the one thing that has constantly picked us up out of the rut.

>> ^aaronfr:

Perhaps more informative would have been to show published science articles per capita or per GDP. Or at least have the first map as a representation of population or GDP so that we could see where we really expect there to be pockets of science research. Per capita would make Japan, Germany, and France that much more impressive. Per GDP would explain Africa and South America (except Brazil). Either way, the point would be enhanced not detracted from.


I think it'd harm japan if done per capita. It'd help britain and france a lot. It'd murder china.

Per GDP is tough. I think it favours small and stable landmasses again. Britain is slipping in GDP but scientifically fairly strong. Places like saudi arabia aren't necessarily known for their science but they're definitely known for wealth. A good few places might have skewed GDP because of corrupt bonus culture balancing people living in poverty.

I have always wanted to make a plot of federal funding for science plotted as a function of year for the last 50 years.

My suspicion is that Bush was one of the worst supporters of scientific research.

On a separate but related point, I also suspect that major contractions at government research institutions (like NIST, Argonne, Los Alamos, Lincoln labs, etc) occurred during this time, making the places older on average and thereby less apt to do cutting-edge research.

I firmly believe that funding science is correlated with economic prosperity. And that academic and government research can lead to innovation in the private sector. I think this is the primary reason I could never support a candidate that advocated the dismantling or castration of government science.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 9:57am PST - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

@kceaton1
We're not goimg to see government investment in technologies like fusion while the fossil fuel industries hold so much control over the government. The status quo will be maintained for as long as the big money industries can buy the government and wage their public campaigns to convince people to defy their own interests in the name of small government and anti-liberalism. Didn't you know? Science, education and investment in new energy technology is a conspiracy of the liberal elite to make us all slaves to big government.

As long as the mammoth energy industries are calling the shots and writing the news items for Fox news we'll see no advancement in science that threatens the cash flow.

Edited for spelling. Stupid mobile keyboard.

>> ^TheFreak:

@kceaton1
We're not goimg to see government investment in technologies like fusion windustriesing industries like coal and fossil fuel hold so much control over the government. The status quo will be maintained for as long as the big money industries can buy the government and wage their public campaigns to convince people to defy theor own interests in the name of small government and anti-liberalism. Didn't you know? Science, education and investment in new energy technology is a conspiracy of the liberal elite to make us all slaves to big government.
As long as the mammoth energy industries are calling the shots and writing the news items for fox news we will see no advancement in science that threatens the cash flow.


It's nice to hope though, isn't it. Like I said, when Obama said, "I want America to think of a BIG project for us to work on, what is it?", I thought right off the bat, fusion, duh. I certainly knew there would be impediments towards that road, but it seemed as likely as sending someone to the moon.

If we screw over our own future, whether that be the world or just America, it won't be that surprising at all. We are all too willing to let the unrepentant psychopaths, sociopaths, and straight up bad human beings into power.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

I have always wanted to make a plot of federal funding for science plotted as a function of year for the last 50 years.
My suspicion is that Bush was one of the worst supporters of scientific research.
On a separate but related point, I also suspect that major contractions at government research institutions (like NIST, Argonne, Los Alamos, Lincoln labs, etc) occurred during this time, making the places older on average and thereby less apt to do cutting-edge research.
I firmly believe that funding science is correlated with economic prosperity. And that academic and government research can lead to innovation in the private sector. I think this is the primary reason I could never support a candidate that advocated the dismantling or castration of government science.

http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-Who-s-More-Pro-Science-Repubs-or-Dems

Makes me cringe