To keep the conversation about the Science Debate 2008 going, I decided to post, one per day, my ideas for potential questions to be asked at such a debate. The questions are far too long, though, consisting more of my musings than real questions that can be asked on TV (or radio or online, wherever this may end up happening). I want you to:
- correct my factual errors
- call me on my BS
- tell me why the particular question is counterproductive or just a bad idea to ask
- if you think the question is good, help me reduce the question from ~500 to ~20 words or so.
Here is the second one, so comment away!
There is always a balance - and tension - between basic science and applied science. Some Presidents favor a greater emphasis on goal-directed research, e.g., earmarks for cancer-research at the expense of basic science ( e.g., cell biology) although both can ultimately result in findings needed for better treatments for cancer, while other Presidents are reverse, favoring basic science. There is also an ideological dimension present in funding decisions. For instance, conservatives are in favor of diminishing funding for behavioral research - both basic and applied - although it is potentially important research for the fight against terrorism: studying psychology of terrorists, religion, other cultures, i.e., this is not a post-modern promotion of "immoral sexual behavior" or being "anti-American".
What are your thoughts on the ideal balance between basic and applied research? Is there a place, for instance, for a next-generation high-energy particle accelerator in the USA? On the other hand, do we really need so much funding of the research on defensive biological warfare, (something that potentially, and in the wrong hands, can be used offensively)?
What is the role of the opinion of the American public in guiding the research priorities?
Non-military research funding has historically been around 11% of GDP, yet it has been decreasing lately. Even worse than a steady decline is the "roller-coaster" pattern of science funding: big increases in funding resulting in an increase of the numbers of young researchers (freshly minted PhDs, postdocs and recently hired junior faculty) are followed by sharp decreases of funding leaving all those young scientists stranded mid-career (or "pre-career") with no money for research and no possibilities for professional advancement. How do you propose to stabilize long-term steady growth in funding for science and what are the priorities when asking Congress to appropriate the funding?
There is also a tension - and a need for balance - between our wish for the USA to remain the scientific superpower and the intrinsic need of science to disregard borders - knowledge is universal and should be free for all of humanity (including for the American public, something that the Bayh-Dole bill has inadvertently restricted).
In recent years, there has been a lagging interest among young Americans in pursuing careers in science. In the past, there have always been scientists from other countries eager to come here to study and do research, thus filling the gap left by the lack of interest by Americans. However, due to the new immigration policies, it is increasingly difficult for scientists from many other countries to obtain visas to come here. They are also uncertain about the quality of research they can do in a country that is increasingly perceived as being 'anti-science' and lacking funding security.
At the same time, a number of other countries have recently developed strong research infrastructure of their own and are now capable of attracting and retaining their students and researchers. Furthermore, in some areas of research, most notably stem-cell research, we see the first signs of brain-drain - American researchers leaving the country in order to do research elsewhere.
How would you address the current problems of scientific research in the USA - stopping the brain-drain, attracting foreign students, energizing young Americans to consider careers in science, and encouraging development of science in other countries (with free flow of information between nations as well as between scientists and the public in the USA) while still retaining the US dominance?
Previously: Science Debate 2008 - my Question #1: Scientific Advice to the President
- Log in to post comments
Well, based on my take on your first question, you can probably predict what I'm going to say about this one. It's pointless. I don't expect a presidential candidate to have specific explicit positions at this level of detail.
I want to be confident that the next president is going to have a science-related policy-making process that involves non-insane methods of deciding on these matters. But I do not care whether he or she has any current opinion on these specific matters. Frankly, I think a question at this level of detail represents severe naviete. The president doesn't have time to engage directly with issues at this level of detail. This is why process is so important, and why the current administration invariably gets every single thing under the sun completely utterly wrong: it has no non-insane process for making *any* decisions.
This all presumes that it is the duty of the government to fund scientific research.
I believe that MORE and BETTER scientific research would be funded if the government was completely out of the process. What the government funds, the government controls, and do you really want these bureaucrats in DC deciding the future of scientific research? I do not. Universities should fund it, companies should fund it, etc.
One of the winners of the Nobel Prize this year said that the NIH rejected his application for funding multiple times because his work wasn't on AIDS or other "trendy" subjects. Do we really want the future of science to be held in the hands of Congressional lobbyists?
Perhaps these are the reasons we see this "brain drain" and decrease in scientific dominance -- the most promising scientists don't want to spend years and millions of pages of paperwork trying to get funding for their brilliant ideas.
What is the role of the opinion of the American public in guiding the research priorities?
keep us posted on this.
One of the problems is that the scientific community is loosing the trust of the American people. Instead of advocating for the well-being and safety of the general public, science seems to have become a money-driven enterprise with unprecedented conflicts of interest between academia, private and governmental institutions. In addition, scientists have become blinded by their fervor for discovery. Many cannot see in their periphery regarding the safety and cultural ramifications that those discoveries may realistically impose upon our society.
In fact, many scientists have promoted technologies with hyped promises just in order to obtain funding. They also have promoted technologies for commercial purposes or monetary interests while ignoring public health and safety issues or even worker rights. One recent gene therapy clinical trial in fact has been deemed unethical by the public by many standards, despite what medical experts say did or did not cause the death of a patient. The overall impression is that we no longer have an academic community who works and advocates for the well-being of the general public.
The answer doesnt lie at the government level. It lies at the scientific levelwe need more scientists who are more broadly aware of the societal implications of scientific advancement and who work for the health and safety of the general public instead of special interest groups to promote their own research budgets or commercial interests. The general public most definitely needs to financially support academia. But, unfortunately, we are reluctant today to advocate this position, seeing that the scientific community is not truly advocating our health, safety and well being. That is the bottom line.