Science is what made America great (Synopsis)

How would you suggest integrating scientific principals into the government?

Should be a worldwide goal so that we are all on the same page; united humanity.

:sunglasses:

I agreed. Once again, humans have achieved another level of making the impossible possible.

When you bring something 'into' the government, it becomes a politically controlled thing manipulated by politicians for their own ends. Scientific principals are not compatible with the pursuit of power through deception and manipulation.

A scientist who wishes to be a politician is courting a very primal conflict of interest and methodology, and confuses the pursuit of truth and understanding with the pursuit of control over what others think and do.

@1 and @4 - I think you're going over the top here. As someone who occasionally helps the government use scientific principles, its not that big a deal. "Keep a lab book, and don't erase your mistakes" is a scientific principle that a lot of agencies and groups don't follow well. "Have someone independent peer review your decision before you implement it" is another. Given budget constraints, it is not always easy for civil servants to justify good practices to their appointee bosses; having a science Ph.D there to say "yes, you should spend the time and money to [document your process] [test your idea before you implement it] [or whatever]...and here is why" is often a very good thing.

There are half a dozen aspects more influential in our rise to greatness than ‘science’. I’d give the top three as:

1 – A massive industrial base facilitated by the economic system that provided easy access to capital

2 – Big oceans that provided natural defense

3 – An abundance of natural resources

While you seem to focus on the era around World War II, it is worth pointing out that we were a step behind in most scientific schools. Germany had more advanced aircraft, advanced tanks, better guns, more sophisticated communication, and a host other areas. During the war it wasn’t American scientists who cracked Enigma. After the war ended, putting a man on the moon benefited greatly by the inclusion of Wernher von Braun and all the German testing data seized at the war’s conclusion.

The United States won WWII against a scientifically superior foe because of our ability to manufacture in an areas safe from enemy attack and on a scale that could not be matched. Our logistical ability to get those tools of war from factory to front line sealed the deal. I’d argue the Black American Soldiers making up the Red Ball Express played a larger role in winning the war than did the American scientific endeavors of the atomic bomb and penicillin combined.

After the war ended, we plundered every bit of European science we could get our hands on. Europe no longer had the resources to rival us and the Soviets repeatedly shot themselves in the foot with their collectivist economic system. Luckily for us, our Collectivist in Chief died in 1945 and the guy who replaced him didn’t have those proclivities.

The word ‘military’ could easily be swapped with ‘scientific’, and to the same effect, in your line ‘…our military superiority is a result of our becoming the most powerful country in the world, not how we got there’. I understand having pride in one’s profession and there is no denying the crucial role our scientific prowess plays in our world standing, but that wasn’t how we got to be king of the jungle. Even today scientists routinely need to justify themselves to bean counters.

Well, also winning a war that they missed most of, on foreign soil only, and getting a huge slice of cash from lease-lend and most powerfully of all, the worldcurrency, which had been the UK's until then, but was handed over to help pay the USA.

Yes, guys, you were paid mercenaries.

The ones who fought and risked their lives sill deserve the respect of their willing risk, but the USA, especially those who came later, really deserve to know they were just paid mercenaries, and part of that payment was control of the economy of the post-war world.

Nice article. Situation in the late USSR was direct result of stupidity and low education of people, what came to power after revolution in 1917. Lysenko is dead, but his ideas still live here. I mean the new law against organisms with modified genomes. Afraid, that if agriculture in Russia met with much larger success that one in the USSR (an old joke: who are five main enemies of the soviet agriculture? Ronald Reagan and four seasons of a year), situation with science and hi-tech is not good. Too complicated things, savvy? I agree with Ethan- you, boys, should spent more money for science. You are leaders now, but this position is not given you forever. To preserve leadership, one has to make large efforts. You are getting fat, people- currently you depend on Russia's good will- to send USA astronauts up to ISS or do not. For such nation it is humiliation, isn't it? So do not give too much money to jobless- save them for NASA, for example.

"Lysenko is dead, but his ideas still live here. I mean the new law against organisms with modified genomes"

Sorry, there's absolutely nothing connecting those two things. Even though the law against GMOs are correct, in the same vein as laws against building anything you want on "your own land" and disgorging waste on "your own land".

Lysenkoism has nothing to do with it, except you tied them together in your mind. I doubt you care, though.

I'm sorry, but the moon landing was a hoax.

@Andrey Matseevskiy

currently you depend on Russia’s good will- to send USA astronauts up to ISS or do not. For such nation it is humiliation, isn’t it?

There is no humiliation at all. It is a choice. We have many rockets big enough to carry people to space. We could have also kept flying the Space Shuttle if we wanted. We didn't lose the technology, but we were concerned that Russia's space program was short of operating income. It seemed like a win for everyone if we put our efforts into developing new technolgies while

...while also pushing some much needed business towards our Russian colleagues. There is no humiliation in that.

@Denier

>>We have many rockets big enough to carry people to space.

Which one, pls? How many Falcons will explode before Mask is ready to send living people up there? This is just my point- when you are loosing leadership, this process is inaudible and unnoticed by overwhelming majority- just like you do not want to admit, that there is a problem. Good news is that in Russian science problems are much greater, if this fact will make you happier.

The SpaceX Falcon 9 series are interesting in their goal is to significantly reduce the cost of getting payload to orbit, but the Falcon 9 Heavy hasn’t even had a single example built yet and they obviously aren’t ready for people although SpaceX has proven they can berth with ISS. Blue Origin is arguably closer to transporting live humans to orbit with their New Shepard vehicles, an example of which just successfully tested capsule ejector rockets. NASA is very close to having their SLS rockets ready for testing, however along with all of the previously mentioned rockets they are upcoming technologies.

If we had to get people to space today on an American made rocket, it would be relatively easy with ULA’s Delta IV Heavy. It has been flying reliably since 2004, has the greatest payload capacity of any rocket currently in use, and has already been tested with the Orion flight capsule. There are other rockets in our inventory also capable of the task, but if we weren’t just pulling a Space Shuttle out of mothballs my pick would be the Delta IV Heavy.

In the United States, NASA isn’t the only way to get to space. NASA does contract work through foreign space agencies because they are instructed to engage in foreign outreach. It is not a humiliation. In fact Americans think so little of it that most don’t even know we use Russian rockets to get to the ISS, and even fewer know we use Russian built RD-180 rocket motors in some American rockets. It is akin to being humiliated because the taxi driver who took one from the Airport to the Hotel was Russian. To us the issue is hardly worth a thought. We are just glad there was a convenient vehicle to get us to where we wanted to go.

Contrary to your belief, problems with the Russian’s space and science programs do not make me happier. We wouldn’t be using Russian rockets and Russian rocket motors if we wanted to see you crumble. We wouldn’t invite Russia to participate in the ISS if your failure made us happy. We are doing what we can to put you in a position where you can succeed, but don’t let that go to your head.

@Andrey Matseevskiy

May be you in person are not getting happier, watching problems in Russia science and so on. But I won’t be so sure about your government. Conflict of interests obviously exists. Concurrent must be kept on the line- existing and potential one too, savvy? Dear Mr Bzesinsky explained it very well- read The Great Chessboard.

The American government is not monolithic but the motivations you fear largely do not exist. We even have an American Presidential Candidate who has spoken admiringly of Putin. There are dinosaurs such as Zbigniew Brzezinski but even Brzezinski himself has abandoned the ideas set forth in The Great Chessboard. Zbigniew Brzezinski now advocates stronger ties with Russia and China.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/25/the-broken-chessboard-brzezinski…

The rivalry between our countries had its time but now it is a new world.

I meant "cross the border", of course