From the Perspective of the "Loony Right" science has gone on for centuries without government intervention or aid. It is not necessary to have government funding to have good science. The are reasons other than direct commercial benefit to have a strong science program. Universities compete for students based on the strength of their programs, which is a direct benefit for example. But commercial enterprises do a great deal of the research for their own benefit as well, this goes on today. Much of the Federal funding goes to universities to develop their programs and in general I do not oppose it. However I am concerned that when government gets involved in anything it takes a political slant and science chases the dollar instead of chasing the best science. An example of this is studies on Global warming, once it gets into the political spot light there is a lot of money that becomes available for it, regardless of whether we need a another study on the effects of CO2 or not. Science is driven by the money, not the science.
Our university system has been compromised to a fairly large degree by the dependence on Federal money. In fact in my experience having been involved in several university science projects I would say that the majority of work being done at our universities has more to do with getting money than good science. You can argue that the end justifies the means and that any science ultimately is beneficial and there may be something to that but we don't seem to be getting a good bang from our buck with the current university system. However I'm not sure I have a better alternative. I do have to say that very large projects like space exploration, colliders and very large telescopes probably need some government involvement because otherwise they are too big for one company or university but maybe not. Universities have built and funded large scopes without government money by conducting joint projects and in conjunction with the private sector, it can be done and has been done. There is also very robust private science sector in medicine, aviation science, robotics, artificial intelligence and computer science to name only a very few. So government involvement and science do not have to go hand in hand and often should not. Science can and is doing just fine without the waste and corrupting effects of the government in a great number of areas. We should not to look the government first for the support of science. It is not needed and often not desired. The "Looney Right" will sign off now. Bob Message: 4 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:36:56 -0800 (PST) From: Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] OT: government and science funding To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Message-ID: <394089.41679.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii It seems pretty clear to me that without government support (National Science Foundation (NSF) grants are funded to a large extent by taxes, are they not?), our hobby would be without ANY of the large observatories, since the Market (aside from amateurs wanting to look and take pretty pictures) doesn't have any commercial incentive to fund astronomical or cosmological research. Am I wrong? Likewise, would colleges even offer degrees in Astronomy if government funding of science education were to go away?