While I’m asking questions, here’s another one: what’s the purpose of federal funding of scientific research? Is it to
- Advance scientific knowledge
- Signal the Congress’s and White House’s recognition that scientific knowledge is good
- Provide a conduit for channeling money to scientists and organization of whom the Congress and White House approves
- Find a way of spending money in the belief that any time the federal government spends money it stimulates the economy
If you believe it’s the first, you might find this article at Reason.com by Terence Kealey interesting. The TL;DR version is that federal funding is not an effective way of accomplishing that goal. Here’s its opening which pretty much says it all:
A bipartisan group led by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants to counter China with legislation to dramatically increase government funding of pure science (science that is mainly concerned with theory rather than practical applications). They call their bill the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. But if they really want to spur innovation and competition, they should be trying to slash science subsidies, not increase them.
The most potent criticisms of the government funding of science have come from government agencies themselves. The first came in 1969 when the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering analyzed 700 research “events” that had led to the development of 20 weapons systems—finding that only two of those events were in pure science.
Then the Congressional Budget Office (in both 1991 and 1998) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007) reviewed the entire academic literature, finding that study after study showed that the research projects that governments funded had failed, on average, to generate profits: in contrast, the research projects that the private sector funded were, overall, highly profitable.
There is an example of funding scientific research that was “highly profitable” in the sense that it produced enormous, beneficial results as a byproduct: the Mercury-Apollo programs. It isn’t too much of an exaggeration to say that the modern world would have been impossible without the innovations it funded.
That’s the sort of thing I mean when I say that what I support is “mass engineering programs”, i.e. large scale programs with specific, achievable objectives and firm dates. Spoiler alert: you get a lot more results from such programs than from open-ended, possibly unachievable goals.
“That’s the sort of thing I mean when I say that what I support is “mass engineering programsâ€, i.e. large scale programs with specific, achievable objectives and firm dates.”
I think that’s right. But as a card carrying process engineer I would. I’ve written about this before. Its one thing to establish the equilibrium thermodynamics of the iron sulfur system using the Gibbs-Duhem equation and selected laboratory measurements. And to establish the diffusion rates of sulfur in iron in a lab. But quite another to commercialize the theoretically promising results in a production setting.
It most assuredly won’t work the first time but every time you fail you will learn something. By time you get it functional you will have created quite a body of work, understanding and additional lines of inquiry. Most of which you never even anticipated.
Now, about the cooling spray practices of weldable, 80KSI min YS HSLA steels on a hot strip mill and not in an autoclave…………..
“Then the Congressional Budget Office (in both 1991 and 1998) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007) reviewed the entire academic literature, finding that study after study showed that the research projects that governments funded had failed, on average, to generate profits: in contrast, the research projects that the private sector funded were, overall, highly profitable.”
Duh. Basic science just doesnt generate money. It is the applied science, or engineering, that does that. But, without the basic science the engineers dont have the tools. The materials scientists find the materials and then others figure out to use them. Since the private sector isn’t going to fund basic research that anyone can use it just wont happen if we rely upon private funding. No private firm was going to investigate why jellyfish glow. Or look at how lasers started. Maiman was working for Hughes but it is pretty pretty clear that the input from Townes and Schawlow was important.
it was basic research that let us understand the immune system, DNA and RNA well enough to allow for the production of vaccines in record time. That will save us trillions of dollars.
Steve
The basic science on DNA and RNA was done 150 years ago. What enabled the rapid production of vaccines was mostly automation and information technology which in turn is an outcome of the space program.
There have been very few basic scientific discoveries since the 1930s. The low-hanging fruit has been picked. In all likelihood making the next scientific breakthrough will not just cost what the last one did—it will cost an order of magnitude more.
To use DNA sequencing as an example, DNA was discovered in 1869 but the discovery languished until 1944 when the relationship between DNA and proteins was discovered. In 1955 Friedrich Sanger introduced his method for sequencing proteins. Pretty much all progress in the area since then has been computational in nature, i.e. it uses computers.
That’s a glorified view of science, Steve. At least in my experience. True fundamental research breakthroughs are rare. Applied research and everyday engineering dwarf in volume.
As fate would have it we are looking at a company right now where the underlying science goes back to Michael Faraday but has progressed to lab application only in the aughts and is commercializing into industrial application right now.
Isaac Newton didn’t work at NASA.
And the underlying question is how good is the federal government at managing basic research? I think the track record is terrible. Steve doesn’t like the CBO’s or the BLS’s method of reckoning effectiveness but he fails to produce an alternative that shows how good the federal government is at managing basic scientific research.
I think the federal government has a much better track record in managing engineering, at least it used to.
The first task is defining “science”. The second is defining “basic”, and the third is defining “basic science”. When a substantial number of college graduates cannot distinguish science from magic, this is not a simple task. Magic is a violation of the laws of physics.
So, a cloth mask stopping a particle smaller than the weave can only be accomplished through magic. (Yes, I understand static electricity is a factor.)
The space program needed to develop solutions to problems that had never existed and would never have existed otherwise. A Mars mission would be even more difficult.
@Dave Schuler
… It isn’t too much of an exaggeration to say that the modern world would have been impossible without the innovations [the Mercury-Apollo programs] funded.
This goes beyond IT and electronics. Here is a link: Benefits from Apollo: Giant Leaps in Technology – NASA.
My point was that the Mercury-Apollo program wasn’t basic scientific research as I would define it.
“The basic science on DNA and RNA was done 150 years ago. ”
So we knew enough about DNA, RNA and how they worked in cells and about the immune system for biomedical engineers to come in and just start creating products, once we had the tech. Bizarre.
How the N 95 works, for the physics impaired.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAdanPfQdCA
@steve
Again, you have changed the subject. I did not reference N95 masks, but since you brought it up, N95 paper masks were not approved by OSHA prior to 2020. An N95 filter in a respirator is not equivalent to an N95 paper mask.
Also, the droplets that increase the size of virus particles degrade the efficiency of the filtering ability.
I think we must mean different things by “basic science”. The basic science for going to the moon had been done by 1800. We didn’t have the technology to do it. You may think it’s bizarre but that’s how things work.
Since you’ve brought up the N95 mask AFAICT there are two basic differences between it and the “mouth bandages” used in the 19th century. One is standardization through mass production and the other is materials. Those are both engineering not “basic science”.
Engineering is the solution of real-life problems using scientific principles and, frequently, a lot of trial and error. I’m not opposed to federal funding of basic scientific research but I think you’re overestimating the utility of incremental discovery and underestimating the time and cost of those increments. IMO trillions could disappear into the maw of basic scientific research and deliver very little in the way of results and that’s what the CBO and BLS reports document.
Most of the difference between life today and life in 1950 is engineering. Little is the result of basic science that was unknown in 1950. Making it work was the hard part.
One last point: what the Chinese have that we don’t is not basic science. They have production engineers. They’re getting all the science and most of the technology they want on the cheap through industrial espionage and compulsory technology transfer.
One point that hasn’t been mentioned, the bill (Innovation and Competition Act) isn’t really “fund basic science” or a “do expansive engineering” bill, its an “industrial policy” bill.
Here is a helpful primer –https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/USICA%20Summary%205.18.21.pdf
$50 billion of the $200-250 billion are for subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing (in particular, to TSMC and Samsung to build US factories).
$2 billion to figure out alternatives to telecom equipment providers Huawei and ZTE
Then there is the money billion for “research” itself.
$40 billion for the existing National Laboratories, NASA,
$15 billion for STEM education
$30 billion for a new NSF technology directorate
The rest of the bill isn’t spending but regulating
– Buy America
– Drones
– Cyber-security
– AI
– China tariffs
– PPE production
I think the argument over basic science is part of the marketing. If people understood the bill as the bill as a subsidy for some of the biggest companies in the world to build factories in the US; I don’t think it would sell.
That’s not to say the bill is bad — the situation with semiconductors is volatile due to geopolitics so having Congress at least express an interest is a start.
I define science as an explanation of how some phenomenon works and a model that can predict the future & past. This mostly excludes dataset creation and statistical analysis, and it does not matter that the analysis is done by a computer.
I define basic as science that can be validated. This necessarily excludes String Theory, at this time. The development of linear accelerators and instruments to measure them has made much of Quantum Mechanics basic.
Basic science is mostly geared toward developing instruments to validate the scientific theories that have been developed. Without a telescope, much of astronomy cannot be validated. Some of today’s astronomy was proposed by the Greeks and Romans, but without the instruments and mathematics to measure and validate these ideas, they remained more philosophical than scientific.
(To validate his theories, Newton had to develop and formalize calculus.)
With new instruments and/or mathematics, science is able to make large discoveries. Furthermore, some of the new will invalidate the old, and some of the research will seem trivial. Science is as much or more about rejecting old theories as it is about discovering new ones.
So, basic science research does not play well with project schedules, and a lot of it seems wasteful. Thus, it is left to academia, mostly. Additionally, large leaps in scientific discovery are often begun by a single individual.
Regarding masks, N95 or otherwise, they are mostly useful phycologically. To be an effective breathing apparatus, an airtight seal, negative intake pressure, and positive output pressures are required. Obviously, any leakage is not filtered, and outflow through the intake will degrade the filter’s effectiveness.
An N95 filter is not rated for oil, and therefore, the effectiveness of the classic surgical mask design will cause the filter to quickly degrade. For short periods of time, using a face covering to catch droplets is effective because it inhibits gravitational effects on the particle.
The fibers adhesive and attractive effectiveness degrades as the fibers become coated, and since the static electrical charge is small, it cannot be transmitted through the attached particles. Also, oil will breakdown the adhesive quality. It might be possible to increase or prolong the static electricity charge by the material rubbing against the face, but I doubt the increased effectiveness could overcome the degradation.
Wearing any mask, N85 or better, outdoors is ludicrous, bordering on insane. Between airflow and UV radiation, the chances of catching COVID outdoors with sunshine and the slightest air movement is astronomical. Actually, most biological agents are ineffective on the battlefield for anything other than slowing movement.
Regarding the NASA link, many people do not know the ways their lives have been improved, and it was to help the naysayers understand why a Mars project would be beneficial. I do not count you among this group, but there are readers who are.
As to the Chinese, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Innovation requires freedom of thought and freedom of failure. These are usually not acceptable by an autocratic government.
As I noted the Chinese don’t need to innovate. They can obtain innovative technology by demanding it as the price for selling in China. That’s been working for 40 years.
CuriousOnlooker:
I’m more concerned about bringing entire supply chains back to the U. S. than about R&D. Regulation is a major impediment to onshoring whole supply chains.