American science swirling down the drain

The rest of the world appears to be embracing new technologies and the sciences.

Is intelligent design having an effect on America's legislators?

With more funding in other places, perhaps more US researchers could do postdocs in other countries? Most other researchers do, after all. It may be just anecdotal (and its relation to data is well known, of course), but in every place I've been so far the number of US researchers have always seemed rather lower than their totals would suggest; here in Japan I'm not only much more likely to run into Chinese researchers (which is completely natural given the proximity) but other european researchers completely dwarfs US members.

Janne: Yes, that will start happening. It isn't uncommon now and will become even more so in the future. Of more concern here is that the situation is producing a permanent underclass of career post docs in the US. I'm guessing that in ten years we will be talking abut a "brain drain" to Europe. Makes me want to laugh just thinking about it. As a scientist I don't really care where good science is done and the attraction of a developed country other than the US will have a major advantage for Americans: they'll have universal health care finally.

The same thing happened in Europe between 1300 and 1940. One country would get a particularly ugly case of religion or malignant politics, and the local scientific community would head for the nearest border.

Now, the United States has a bad dose of both. So the lights are going out. And the people who kept them lit will start leaving.

Don't expect to see them back anytime soon.

Am I the only one confused by this sentence?

"American science is headed downhill and the rest of the world is catching up or has caught up and passed us."

Do you mean that the rest of the world is heading downhill even faster than the USA?

csrster: everybody is allowed one mixed metaphor per blog post; if he makes a second one, feel free to pile on him though ^_^

Revere: actually, I believe the "career post-doc", while a bad thing (I might qualify myself), is an unrelated phenomenon. A major factor is certainly the very large step to a permanent faculty position (the _Really_ permanent positions in the US probably makes it worse) in combination with the "up or out" kind of career structure we have in science and the perceived lack of non-academic work as a viable non-failure career option. Budget changes only speed up or slow down the effect of these structural problems; it doesn't cause them, and can't solve them.

I would suggest focusing on the election seeing as it will impact science funding for the next 4 - 8 years.

What y'all need is a viable symbol that will stick in citizens' minds. I would humbly suggest the following:

"Vote for Huckabee, put Red China on the Moon!"

(Yes, you want to say "Red" China to make the point.)

Lets back up for a minute. When the Democrats gain control of the federal government? Thats an assumption for starts. The federal government is already in control of the Democrats. They have control of the House and Senate and I guess this would mean that they have control of the purse strings. Our system would ensure funding if there was more of I give you this, I give you that.

Even if they do gain control of two houses and the White House they wont have control of the Supreme Court but thats not what this is about. Its about assumptions.Its about the money. The money being voted for research and the money being voted for pork. Its about the limitation of the rights of people in American Samoa to placate Nancy Pelosi, its about the difference between pork and actual research. Its about cancelled bridge projects. Its about whether we want to experiment yet again with security and response to the threats against the sovereignty of the US. It WILL come down to social programs and defense in the next Congress.

But we also have some serious ethical issues that are tied up in the social programs. Its not about any of the above. Its about whether they want to tank the economy with UHC, further increases in S. Security and Medicare. These are three socialist programs that will suck every dollar out of the economy and require huge tax increases to fund. Obama says he will get our troops out of Iraq, Hillary says the same. We are financing the war with bonds which have to be paid back. Taxes though once in become the endless well that they dip into to fund pork, some real projects and maybe a little science. With all due respect think about the cuts that were made to the divisions of government. It has indeed produced a limited government for better or worse. Now we threaten ourselves with the implosion of adding more people to the government rolls of work rather than the private sector. Some think that this is a good idea. I wonder if the Democrats "earmarks" would pay for the research that Revere so desperately wants. Well if its less than 441 billion, then it would. Yep, thats the number of direct earmarks and the "questionables". I wont diss them, there were quite a few Republican ones too and they were in the near 6 digit billions. But that money has to come from somewhere. Isnt it very strange that suddenly we get all of these earmarks and the economy starts to tank? Might it be that the bills for those particular games are coming to bear at just the time they should? That is about four -six months after the date the budget is approved, the money begins to be spent? I have watched this for almost 40 years and damned if it doesnt happen just about now if its going to happen.

Here is my problem. The Democrats propose huge tax increases. We get into a taxation mode in the middle of a recession, we will see a depression or very severe recession. Hell they want 40 -50 cents a gallon just for bridge repairs for bridges that wont be used during a recession. Its a tax and spend program and its only one. Carter took it on the chin with a recession in the 70's that wasnt of his making. But instead of doing things to make it better, they made it worse. It wasnt just of his deal but when you are told flat out that more taxes would tank us then you get what we pay for. I have said it before, WTF does the Energy Dept do except create regulations? There's a group that would be dear to my heart to see dissapear. Revere can have 1/2 of their budget for research, 1/4th for improving health care and I'll take 1/4th to be sure that he is safe in his labs via the military and police forces. But it will never happen.

My sense is that they will increase taxes and they will indeed tank the economy. We will leave Iraq. We will see high inflation. We will get hit again as a result as the lightning rod we have there moves back here. That will set the stage for a full blown nuclear exchange because the only way that the Democrats will be able to fund research, UHC, S.Security, Medicare will be to cut the balls out of the military, just as Carter did. Without conventional forces we will have to move back under the nuclear umbrella and watch as yet another Afghanistan get taken. G5 mentions the Red Chinese. Good point. Watch how fast Taiwan declares its independence if we do start to pull back. The time would not be better as they know the fight would be long, strong and hard. But it would be a lot harder if the US isnt there in force, and that force would be shrinking. But dont worry the researchers will get their money, right up until the next thing happens.

crster: LOL. No, you're probably not the only one. But as Janne will tell you, I can mix my metaphors with both eyeballs tied behind my back.

Janne: Actually I once pre-doc'ed in Sweden (it was a long time ago and before the hard times in research here). I can easily see a flow of talent back to Europe. Why not? It's a much pleasanter life. For those who want to know why I haven't moved there, I've thought of it often, but our family is here and I'm not a citizen elsewhere. But life in Europe is a real attraction and their science and medicine is as good or better than ours.l

But it signals that the hopes many of my scientific colleagues have that once the Democrats gain control of the federal government things will be better is probably misplaced.

When I started reading this post I was one of these people you are mentioning above. I hope you don't mind if I hope that you are wrong. We have go to have something to hope for as a solution. :~)
Dave Briggs :~)

Should America be embracing Intelligent Design?

From The Times
January 19, 2008

Why science must become integral to government policy
MARK HENDERSON
The contribution of science to medicine should be plain to anybody who has ever taken an antibiotic or painkiller, but its value is not limited to the fruits of research. It is also essential to government decisions about health challenges, as John Denham, the Innovation Secretary, acknowledged this week.

It will not be possible to contain a flu pandemic, for example, without expert advice on which vaccines and antiviral drugs are a good investment. Strategies for fighting obesity must also be informed by research into which approaches work best.

Regulations applied to controversial medical technologies such as stem cells and gene therapy will directly affect how quickly they bring benefits for patients. And advances in genetics will require tough choices about how the NHS pays for tailor-made medicines such as Herceptin, which are effective but expensive.

The Governments record of using science, however, has not always been proud. It came close to approving safety regulations that would have denied us many medical benefits of MRI scanning, though there was no evidence of any risk. It has also revised the drug classification system without relation to harm, creating the mistaken impression that cannabis is safe. Both issues might have been avoided had ministers placed more weight on scientific advice.

In a speech on Wednesday, Mr Denham accepted that there is a problem. Ministers and civil servants, he said, have not always sought out the expertise they need. But he highlighted a second issue too: it can be hard to persuade the best specialists to give up their time.

The problem stems from the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), by which university departments are graded according to the published work of their members. A poor performance can mean funding cuts, even an end to a facultys research programme. Mr Denham thinks this puts off scientists who might otherwise provide Whitehall with advice. They worry that if they sit on expert panels they will have less time to publish the research on which their departments finances depend.

The RAE is up for review this year and Mr Denhams willingness to reform it is welcome. It is absurd that scientists funded by the taxpayer should risk being penalised by providing a public-spirited service. The Government, however, needs to make sure it actually uses the expert advisers that the new system frees up.

As Sir David King pointed out before retiring as chief scientist last month, Whitehall is often suspicious of his kind. Ministers and mandarins worry that scientific advice will close off politically palatable options. Yet science, as Mr Denham accepts, doesnt usually work that way. The Government should listen to experts not to be told what to do but so it is properly aware of a policys consequences. Science will rarely supply a yes-or-no answer.

Drug classification is a case in point. The evidence that cannabis can trigger mental illness is strong, but that does not necessarily mean the drug should be illegal. The small risk to some users needs to be balanced against the costs of policing a ban and individual liberty.

That is a political choice, which should be taken by elected representatives. Science should inform the decision, not make it.

What is needed here is a shift in Whitehall culture, so that scientific input becomes integral to every aspect of policy-making. Ministers would not think of making critical decisions without consulting legal or economic advisers, yet neither do they allow these experts to run the show. They take soundings about the implications of options and decide accordingly. Science needs the same status if the Government is properly to handle issues such as obesity and flu. Mr Denham knows this. His challenge is to convince his colleagues of the case for change.

Mark Henderson is Science Editor

When I look back on the last 45 years and see what we have become and how we got there, I must say that the powers that be could not have destroyed this country in a more efficient manner if they tried, which leaves me to believe the wreck we are was intended to be.

As for this statement: "American science is headed downhill and the rest of the world is catching up or has caught up and passed us"

It also applies to so many other areas, not just science.
So many of our leaders since the 70's have warned us this must happen, for their vision of the New World Order required a redistribution of the wealth and knowledge to bring us down to those we will be merged with. Of course, some may prefer to believe it is due to accidents and incompetence, so choose your reality.