This one is pretty amazing: Stephen Hawking is confronting his government over disastrous budget cuts.
You need to read this; Hawking is tearing into them pretty well. Take notes. That’s how you treat dumb government decisions.
But keep reading, because it gets better! Evidently, Hawking has turned down knighthood from the Queen. Multiple times. That takes guts.
However, the reason he turned it down has some irony to it:
“Professor Hawking does not like titles. In fact he dislikes the whole concept of them,” said a spokesman.
Hmmm. Professor Hawking doesn’t like titles. Right. Got it.
Anyway, this is pretty cool. I’ve been reading about how England is making devastating cuts to science research, which is slitting their own throats. Science is one of their biggest exports, so their cuts are incredibly ill-advised. Incidentally, you need to read toward the bottom of that article; Brian Cox has one of the best quotations of all time in this regard.
OK, fine, I’ll spoil it here. It’s too good not to reprint anyway:
“The notion that scientists will make a more valuable contribution to the economic and social wellbeing of the world if their research is closely directed by politicians is the most astonishing piece of nonsense I have had the misfortune to come across in a long time,” Cox said.
Heh. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Tip o’ the bowler hat to Fark.
June 14th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Nope, they’re right, research should be directed by politicians.
Now hurry up and finish that debigulator and point it at God. Polls say we need to get to the bottom of this “Bart” thing.
June 14th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Naw we do not need any more science we have cured cancer, answered all the most important questions like are we alone, how did it all start….. Oh wait a moment we haven’t.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Next time you see Brian, thank him for us all.
At least the LHC work isn’t affected!
Now if -WE- can just get us a president who isn’t anti-science we just might be able to get some decent science funding ourselves. Maybe we could keep Arecibo open…
Rich
June 14th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Isn’t that an argument for the funding cuts? If the government is paying for the research, then the government has every right to direct it.
If you cut the tax money going to science, then private donors can directly decide which research to fund with their money, instead of politicians.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Well, I guess since you’re a mere colonial, you can be forgiven for not understanding the big difference between a title earned as a part of your profession and a title “bestowed upon you” by an antiquated and outmoded monarchy that represents many generations of privilege and patronage.
While it’s true that honorary titles aren’t as necessarily bad as inherited ones (it can be a nice way to publicly recognize the lifelong service of people who toil behind the scenes for charitable purposes, for example) there are many in Britain, like Professor Hawking, I would wager, that don’t believe this system of titles belongs in a modern democratic society. He’s not the only one who’s turned down such things.
Funnily enough, although my parents are no longer big fans of the monarchy (and haven’t been for many years) I think they still get a kick out of the fact that one of my Dad’s old friends is “Sir” Ron Dearing, a lifelong civil servant. The old traditions take a long time to die.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Jolly Bloger: “Isn’t that an argument for the funding cuts? If the government is paying for the research, then the government has every right to direct it.
If you cut the tax money going to science, then private donors can directly decide which research to fund with their money, instead of politicians.”
That’s exactly what I thought. Care to explain Phil?
June 14th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I was going to say what tacitus said about earned titles vs. honorary titles, but he beat me to it.
(And I’m a mere colonial myself.)
June 14th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Oh but I miss Carl Sagan. He had it nailed squarely in The Demon-Haunted World, when he cautioned against governments attempting to direct scientific research by threatening to withhold funding–rather than allow “nerd” scientists to conduct basic research, possibly with no immediate practical benefit.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Damn you lurker above! I was just about to use that same quote!
Ultimately, government funding means government taxation, and when the public at large cannot understand the specifics of the work being done, then it becomes unethical to specifically direct the science done when it can’t be effectively examined by the ultimate decision makers: The people.
This is in contrast with a sort of blank check mentality where the people as a larger population simply understand by example and result that science is always in the general public interest and therefore leave it to technocrats to allocate funding, rather than politicians that likely know less than they do.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I would have chosen a saltier word than, “nonsense,” but that’s just me.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Good on you Prof. Hawking. Stick to your principles and tell them to shove their titles up their black holes!
June 15th, 2008 at 12:13 am
it’s called britain or the uk, by the way. england is just one of the nations in that state.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:17 am
“If you cut the tax money going to science, then private donors can directly decide which research to fund with their money, instead of politicians.”
I agree. While I like public science funding (especially since it pays a part of my salary!), in the final analysis it is the public’s money. In a democracy the people should be in charge of how their money is spent.
The best thing to do is make the case to the people and their elected representatives that science funding is a good thing to support with their funds. If they decline to do so, you and I may not be very happy – but it’s not our money. Private funding is therefore better when possible.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:34 am
W(ay)OT: For those of you who’ve watched this week’s Doctor Who, I hope you will agree that scripting a character who is so annoying that you want to wring her neck after 5 minutes of screen time is always a terrible idea. What could have been a classic Who episode just wanted to make me throw things at the telly.
Thank you Russell T Davies for bringing back such a wonderfully faithful version of Doctor Who, but don’t let the door hit you one your way out…
June 15th, 2008 at 12:42 am
I definitely agree with Professor Hawking. It is at the very least disheartening to see government’s deciding that funding science is not worthy of their time or money. What is worse is the drop in interest in the pure science fields. Not to knock any engineers, but they have their jobs because the theoreticians did their jobs. I can’t tell you how many brilliant people I meet who are going into civil engineering because they think it would be easier than Physics, Chemistry, or Mathematics.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:47 am
(P.S. I wasn’t talking about the Skye character)
June 15th, 2008 at 1:05 am
I have signed petitions and written to Ministers (only one of which had the decency to reply) about this budget shortfall. It isn’t that the Government cut the budget they just can’t do basic maths and when they merged PPARC with CCLRC to create the STFC there wasn’t enough money. By all accounts (Chris Lintott and Brian Cox to name two) The STFC isn’t being very straightforward in it’s methods of juggling the books with the result that NOBODY seems to know what is going on or what projects are under threat and that is putting our involvement in lots of international projects in jepardy as we are seen as a bad risk. This from a Government who claims to be supporting science and getting kids engaged with the subject! I happen to be the proud Mother of a true science geek with a bright future. One Scientist at a recent asked if is there was any point in persuing a career in science any more. As the article points out we have already lost Neil Turok a great scientist and humanitarian, Hawking himself is spending less and less time here. Sorry for the rant but this REALLY makes me mad.
Oh and Tacitus…I’m sorry but I couldn’t disagree more about the latest Dr Who. I thought it was claustrophobic, creepy and a great illustration of population dynamics and mob psychology. And using the simple devise of a character that repeats everything everyone says was brilliant it really racked up the tension.
OK I will go and lock myself back in my cupboard now
June 15th, 2008 at 1:06 am
“Hmmm. Professor Hawking doesn’t like titles. Right. Got it.”
Could the difference be that Professor in the UK is more a position than a title, that is, a professor is the highest job in academia. From what I understand of the American use of the word, it is like an alternative label for a teacher?
June 15th, 2008 at 2:34 am
I’m a guy with more money coming in than I care to spend on myself, so I spread it around, a little: the local homeless shelter, the local symphony and opera, the public university I attended, and so forth.
This is a worthless, undependable and unsustainable funding model: do we only fund the research we consider sexy? Only support the victims we find worthy? The market is the world’s worst method of allocating resources for things like education, scientific research or medical care whose paybacks are generally general, synergistic and free.
Why would private parties pay for scientific efforts whose results have to be shared universally? (Privately funded efforts tend, of course, not to share their results, which may or may not be good for their investors, but does nothing for the rest of us.)
Education: why should I pay taxes for schools for someone else’s kid? Because I might have to employ the brat. Health care? Been there. Year after year, more money for worse coverage. Every other country in our league does it better, but most American patriots insist on their right to dieupon dying younger
June 15th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Clearly Hawkins is not a monarchist, that’s why he dislike a royal title.
BA, how would you like it if you were ‘knighted’ as a “George Bush Patriot” for your contribution to the education of the public?
As for cutting funding for science research just look at Zimbabwe, you remove your farmers, you loose your source of food.
June 15th, 2008 at 2:47 am
I’m a guy with more money coming in than I care to spend on myself, so I spread it around, a little: the local homeless shelter, the local symphony and opera, the public university I attended, and so forth.
This is a worthless, undependable and unsustainable funding model: do we only fund the research we consider sexy? Only support the victims we find worthy? The market is the world’s worst method of allocating resources for things like education, scientific research or medical care whose paybacks are generally general, synergistic and free.
Why would private parties pay for scientific efforts whose results have to be shared universally? (Privately funded efforts tend, of course, not to share their results, which may or may not be good for their investors, but does nothing for the rest of us.)
Education: why should I pay taxes for schools for someone else’s kid? Because I might have to employ the brat. Health care? Been there. Year after year, more money for worse coverage. Every other country in our league does it better, but the most strident American patriots defend their right to die younger, because, by God, at least they aren’t spending a cent to care for somebody less worthy.
Most Americans have such lousy lives that the thought that a slice of their taxes might benefit a monkey in Africa or a salmon in Canada would rile them into a rage (though hundreds of billions annually for invasion and occupation used to be hundy-dory).
We need to move the conversation from YOYO (you’re on your own) to WITT (we’re in this together) and that includes education, science and welfare.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:05 am
Just because the public pays for science does not mean it gets to decide the scientific content! It is the job of politicians to decide how much money is spent on science, and then the scientific community itself determines how it is spent (e.g., through peer-reviewed grant proposals).
As for the £80m shortfall: I think this is all smoke and mirrors, because the government needed to balance the budget. There will always be funding cuts when the economy slows down (as is the case in the UK right now), which then has to be remedied again a few years later. So yes, it is a big mistake to cut funding by such a large amount for all the reasons mentioned above, but I doubt it was because of a book-keeping error.
WOT: Last night’s Doctor Who episode was great! No fancy special effects, no big set pieces, nowhere to hide behind but the power of the script and the performance of the actors. And if you like this, I recommend the German film Das Experiment.
June 15th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Professor is a university position. You would expect someone like Hawking to be at the top of the university hierachy, and that is a professorship.
He worked for it, wasn’t just awarded it.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:07 am
Politicians rarely understand the benefits scientists bring to a nation, politicians only think about the short term profit and getting their votes for the next 4 years/
On a side note I’m delighted Hawking has turned down knighthood Mugabe (the African despot who starves his own people)
was KNIGHTED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZftv83nA0c
unlike a degree, phd, doctorate etc the knighthood title is meaningless
June 15th, 2008 at 5:12 am
“I’ve been reading about how England is making devastating cuts to science research”
Not England. Great Britain. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland too.
Consciousness raising, y’see… ;o)
June 15th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Bad Jim has nailed it on public funding of science. The funding shouldn’t be directed by politicians because they don’t have the training to read the grant applications and decide which research will provide fruitfull information and which will lead to the store of knowledge. If they are elected based on which projects they fund, then they are going to “earmark” projects which appeal to their constituents.
The late Senator William Proxmire from Wisconsin made a big deal annually of publishing his “Golden Fleece,” a list of research projects funded by the various US agencies he didn’t think were worthy of public dollars.
The press releases never gave enough information on the details of the research for us to know what the researchers were getting at or what their funding might lead to. His list was a play at anti-elitism, and given the current rhetorical plays against the pointy-headed academics, it is important to realize that general funding should be sent to funding bodies who make independent decisions.
The benefits of pure research aren’t easy to sell, and the benefits of applied research are easier to sell. I’m not qualified to vote on which projects deserve more money.
There’s a hole in Texas where a collider should be, but it was killed by short thinking of politicians.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Well if you want to get REALLY pedantic on this, no it doesn’t include Northern Ireland. Great Britain is the largest island in the British Isles (which includes Ireland, but don’t tell the Irish!) and includes England, Scotland, and Wales but not the Isle of Wight, Isle of Man, the Hebrides etc. The correct term for the whole shebang is The United Kingdom of Greta Britain and Northern Island, or UK for short.
So, unless you’re discussing the soccer or cricket team, just type UK. One, it’s shorter, and two, you won’t annoy everyone in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland
June 15th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Reminds me of a political advert I recently saw online for John McCain– It was a picture of a brown bear along with the legend “They are spending three million dollars to research bear DNA.” The bear has little word balloons saying summat like “I don’t know if this is for a paternety (sic) suit or criminal.”
Then they flash up a sign in caps that says “STOP PORK BARREL SPENDING!”
Makes me sick. :<
June 15th, 2008 at 6:28 am
We want to be alone! Great Britain, not Greta. I should proof read before submitting.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Tacitus (et al) nailed the issue about “titles,” all right, but missed the elephant in the living room. Perhaps it takes a “mere colonial” (or a scientific genius) to see that even though knighthood is not a hereditary title, the person whose job it is to confer knighthood is herself the chief beneficiary of the odious system of hereditary titles which is perhaps the single worst feature of traditional European culture.
Perhaps Hawking the title to which Professor Hawking objects is not “Sir,” but “Your Majesty.”
June 15th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Point taken, bassmanpete. I should have said UK, not Britain. Stupid mistake on my part! It never helps to try get something wrong while trying to correct someone else…
$
June 15th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Hey, at least there’s a good point in being called Prof. It means you studied a whole lot. There’s no point in being called Lord. It just means you impressed the queen somehow. Like… If you sing bad, boring songs…
June 15th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Wait a second. I thought government grants to scientific research were reviewed by public officials before being handed out. I mean someone has to review the grant applications before they are given. Right? Otherwise, anyone could get a grant for whatever “research” they wanted to attempt. Like…if a “researcher” wanted to know what effect vodka has on video-game playing abilities. Without proper funding, you really couldn’t give it the kind of dedication and serious attention it properly deserves. That kind of research could take years of intensive study. On the other hand, I think we have all seen “studies” that were worse than that. But…someone does review these things…I hope.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:35 am
It strikes me that when public money is used to fund scientific research then there should be public involvement in deciding what the aims of such funding should be. Thus is would be acceptable for politicians to say that the funding should be used to improve healthcare. It would not be appropriate for politicians, or the public, to get involved in deciding what particular requests should get funding.
I would argue the same principle should apply when drawing up a curriculum. It is for politicians and the public to decide what the aims of education should be. But when deciding what should be taught for each subject, they should step nback and let those who know what they doing decide.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:47 am
The UK has apparently be experiencing it’s own wave of anti-reality religious fundie-ism. I wonder how much of this is related.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:22 am
See now I was under the impression from the NSF folks giving presentations around here recently that European science was becoming increasingly better funded and organized and that the US was going to fall behind! I’m actually saddened to see that’s not the case, that funding woes are more prevalent than I believed.
Wow, isn’t Gemini in trouble on the US side, too? And Jodrell Bank is in trouble?!
I’ll admit that even though I work in science, I have this weird discomfort with public funding of it thanks to my more libertarian leanings. I understand the benefits of basic research and I’m currently at a loss as to how else it can be funded without government help. But I respect the taxpayers’ questions of “hey, it’s our money, how the heck is it being used?!” Although I find it impossible to allow public officials or the public to direct science research, it is obligatory that we make an extra effort through outreach and education, to explain how the money is being used, and tell the fascinating story of science!
(How did I get on this soapbox? Okay, I’ll get down now…)
Yeah, BTW, Dr. Who was *amazing* this week. I was clutching my blanket the whole time! Scary AND thoughtful, well acted AND well written, who could ask for more?
June 15th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Nicole, UK !=Europe
June 15th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Why should any science be funded by taxation? Galileo wasn’t funded by taxes, nor Da Vinci, nor was Einstein (although he was a civil servant, his science was done on his own time and his own dime). The Wright brothers basically founded the study of aerodynamics on their own dime while taxpayer-funded Langley was crashing aerodromes in the Potomac. Newton developed calculus, optics, and the law of gravitation in private study at home.
This, said by a guy writing on a computer. Bell labs invented the transistor – do you get nothing out of that? How about lasers, fiber optics, UNIX, photovoltaic panels, MOSFETs, CCDs, wireless local area networks? All from Bell Labs.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Bad Jim, this isn’t the “I am Elitist” post.
Bad Jim: “Health care? Been there. Year after year, more money for worse coverage. Every other country in our league does it better, but the most strident American patriots defend their right to die younger, because, by God, at least they aren’t spending a cent to care for somebody less worthy.
Most Americans have such lousy lives that the thought that a slice of their taxes might benefit a monkey in Africa or a salmon in Canada would rile them into a rage (though hundreds of billions annually for invasion and occupation used to be hundy-dory).”
The life expectancy in the US just went up FYI! In case anyone thought elitism was a good thing, just see bad Jim’s post.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Ed Minchau,
Did you forget to turn up when they did history at school ?
If you think the current financial system is comparable to that when Newton or Galileo were doing their science then you clearly missed out on a whole load of history. Arguing from a position of ignorance, as you clearly are, is not wise.
I presume since you object to tax payer funded research you refuse antibiotic drugs, as well as most vaccinations.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Matt Penfold:
The vast majority of science today is done with private funding, so yes it is comparable to the time of Galileo and Newton. I’m sure you’ll agree that Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were giants of science. Perhaps you are arguing for the funding of the pygmies of science?
As far as antibiotics and vaccinations go, what do you think that Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Procter&Gamble are doing?
June 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Ed Minchau,
I note you failure to understand history. I also note you lying about who paid Fleming. Fleming was a researcher at a British teaching hospital. At the time of his discovery, as now, such hospitals were funded out of taxation.
Please do confirm that you refuse antibiotics since they were discovered by a man paid by the taxpayer. I would not like to think you take advantage of the taxpayer when your libertarian views should prevent that. if you are not British then it would be even more hypocritical of you to make use of antibiotics, since it was the British taxpayer who funded Fleming’s research.
I also assume you ensure none of the electricity supplied to you at home or work comes from nuclear, as the research for that was tax payer funded, in both the UK and the US. There are a large number of drugs and treatments that have arisen either directly or indirectly from taxpayer funded research. Please do confirm you do not make use of any such treatments.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Hehe, thanks Halcyon
I was just amused at the “omg everyone is surpassing us!!” mentality of the talk I saw. Considering that UK != US (UK seems to have better tv?) it’s interesting to be reminded that science has a battle to fight everywhere.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
This is deliberately obtuse.
And all of that required Einstein’s (self funded) work as the foundation. Try again.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Private funding of science: the tobacco companies scientific findings that cancer isn’t caused by tobacco; the timber industry and their science of clear-cutting as a benefit to forests; the chemical companies and their science that fertilizers and pesticides are safe; the pharmaceutical companies and their push for deregulation and fast-tracking of marketable drugs, etc. etc. etc.
If it is in the public interest to pay for science (and I think it is), then the public should know in general what is being funded. But there should be some oversight to insure that money isn’t wasted, and a partisan congress shouldn’t be allowed to gut the funding and the staff of the watchdogs, as the neo-cons in the Bush administration have allowed to happen with most of the Congressional oversight committees to the benefit of their corporate cohorts.
Our public colleges and universities, along with our public research institutions, should be publicly funded and publicly monitored, without the monitors being subject to influence from the private sector. When the private sector makes a worthwhile discovery and wants to market that discovery, after the proper vetting by a public watchdog, then let the idea reap the investment dollars.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Nicole,
The UK is unusual, although not unique, in having funding for television that is not reliant on advertising.
The BBC is entirely funded by the levy of an annual licence fee, currently £139.50 on all people who own a TV. There are reductions for the elderly and blind. Out of that they fund two terrestrial channels, regional TV news and programming, four national radio stations, a website that is considered to one the best around, as well as a number of digital TV and radio stations. There is another station, Channel 4 which is partly funded by the taxpayer and partly by advertising.
Both the BBC and Channel 4 can drive me insane at times with the drivel they put on. (Big Brother on Channel 4, several reality “talent” shows on BBC) but I still prefer them to the commercial alternative, which is ITV. ITV’s idea of news is the state of David Beckham’s toe.
It maybe “old fart” syndrome, but TV even in the UK does not seem tp be as good as it was. It is still capable of greatness, as anyone who has seen “The Root of All Evil” with Dawkins, or Jonathan Miller’s “A Brief History of Atheism” can attest.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Ed Minchau,
It is not obtuse to know who paid Fleming’s salary.
I note you do not deny making use of technology that arose from taxpayer funded research. I must therefore conclude that you not mind being called a hypocrite, as that is clearly what you are.
As Will M points out, you would have us believing that tobacco does not cause lung cancer. It was not privately funded scientists who found the link. I can only presume you either deny there is a link or think such a link is not important.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
A few points . . .
First, I agree with many posters here (and the BA) that there is an important place for public funding of research — and that the direction of that funding should be left to those in the know and not the politicians nor the general public.
There is a great quote (I wish I could remember who said it first) that goes, ” . . . if the government had been in charge of finding a cure for polio it would have developed the world’s best iron lung.”
As far as titles go, as someone who has worked in higher education his entire adult life, I find those who use titles — be it Dr., professor, dean, etc . . . — in any setting outside the classroom elitist in the worst possible definition of the word. I have all the respect in the world for Stephen Hawking’s accomplishments in the academic field. For every Hawking, however, I have encountered 10 “professors” who, while technically completing the degree requirements necessary to earn a PhD, still cling to astrology, homeopathy, fundamentalist religious views and the like. So, NOT SPEAKING FOR ANYBODY ELSE, for me, anybody using academic titles outside of the classroom is just being pretentious.
Finally, BA said it took “guts” to turn down being knighted by the Queen. Please define guts. Do you mean that like the young man standing in front of a tank in Tienaman Square or the young women who stands up in court to testify against the gang members who raped her? Maybe you’re comparing him to the fifth grader who gets his ass kicked at recess for refusing to take part in the “voluntary prayer” at the start of the school day.
I’m not knocking just the BA. I believe that hyperbole is an enemy of critical thinking (which of course makes the preceding paragraph slightly ironic).
BA writes my favorite blog. Agree or disagree, it’s always thought provoking and challenging to my point of view, regardless of the topic. But this isn’t your first offense. Maybe cut down on the hyperbole just a little. Please?
(BTW, if you feel like telling me I’m full of fecal matter, you won’t get rid of me that easily. On the other hand, if you’d try being a little less engaging and relevant . . . )
June 15th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Stephen Hawking steals the new Futurama movie, due out this week, in his few minutes of screen time. So awesome.
June 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Tacitus: . . . mere colonial . . .
That’s citizen of a republic, not craven subject of an inbred monarch, to you, sir. It’s to Professor Hawking’s credit that he sees the inherent evil of medieval atavisms such as a monarchy more clearly than his compatriots and that he shares that clarity with them and the world.
June 15th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I regularly find the commentary more educational, thought-provoking, and maddening than Phil’s posts, which is already at a fairly high level. I just wanted to let you all know that your efforts are appreciated.
My contribution to this discussion is merely to add that public funding for science is akin to public funding for the arts; I don’t always appreciate the end result, but on the whole it is beneficial to humanity in the long run. Yes, we have seen wonders and disasters in the privately-funded sector as well. Both work. Both fail.
Yes, I think that society should be publicly supported at all levels of Maslow’s Heirarchy. – g^2
WRT ‘maddening’ – Often there are more posts and comments than I have the time to read; and current discussions of Dr. Who, as I don’t have access.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Matt Penfold,
Are you telling me that Fleming is responsible for all vaccines and antibiotics? And that because that one guy was funded by British taxpayers, I must therefore not use any antiboitics? Rubbish. That is the same as saying that you must only use science and technology that was developed with government funding, so shut off all your AC power and never use a computer again. Stop driving a car. Never fly on an airplane. Take the lightning rod off your house.
Fact is, I don’t expect you to do those things. I expect you, like me, to use whatever is available to make your and your family’s life better, no matter where it came from. This is not the same as arguing in favor of taxpayer funding of science, and you know it. That’s why what you said is deliberately obtuse.
I said nothing about who paid Fleming. If you want to engage in ad hominem attacks, I’m willing to drop the gloves, too.
June 15th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
You know, bassmanpete, a true pedant would know to get his facts right when correcting others
.
The Isle of Wight is actually an English county, and thus is a part of England and Great Britain, and the Hebrides are very much part of Scotland and thus, Great Britain too.
You are correct that the Isle of Man is not part of Great Britain or the UK, nor are the Channel Islands off the coast of France (which I suspect you confused with the Isle of Wight). Legally, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are self-governing “Crown Dependencies.”
When I was a kid, I sometimes for fun used to address birthday cards (not mailed) like this:
Glasgow,
Strathclyde,
Scotland,
Great Britain,
United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
British Isles,
Europe,
Earth,
Western Hemisphere,
Solar System,
The Milky Way.
(well, I was only 10 years old at the time!)
June 15th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Why is Britain worried about science funding? They just
sent a Doritos ad to another star system. The quatloos
should come rolling in in no time!
June 15th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Ed Minchau, you forget that modern “big science” costs a lot more than what Galileo and Newton had to fork out. Which company is going to fund the LHC and Hubble, for example?
June 15th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
With regard to titles… I assume that you are aware that our constitution forbids the United States from granting titles of nobility. So if you can’t see the distinction between being called “professor” and being called “Your Lordship”, why haven’t you complained about the steady stream of baccalaureates, masters’ and doctorates emanating from federally funded institutions? ( To say nothing of the Captains, Colonels and Generals. )
All in all, I find your comment strange and wrongheaded coming from someone calls himself an American, and utterly bizarre coming from someone who claims to be a libertarian.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
“Tacitus: . . . mere colonial . . .”
JakeR:”That’s citizen of a republic, not craven subject of an inbred monarch, to you, sir. It’s to Professor Hawking’s credit that he sees the inherent evil of medieval atavisms such as a monarchy more clearly than his compatriots and that he shares that clarity with them and the world.”
Can we keep the insults off these pages. You may have been replying to Tacitus, Jake – but you’ve insulted me and a lot of my compatrots with your ‘craven subject’ jibe.
The UK has a different form of democracy to a republic, but it is democratic. No system is perfect…
June 15th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Pieter, thank you for getting back to my original question: why should any science be funded by taxation? Hubble and LHC are expensive, yes. Should these projects have been undertaken at all? Did you get to vote on them? Did anybody?
Big science takes place all the time in the world of business. The difference is that business does not undertake a project for which there is no hope of ever turning a profit. And, surprise, they do indeed make a profit while doing fundamental science. One look at Bell Labs (six Nobel prizes) or any of the pharmaceutical companies I mentioned above shows this to be true.
So why spend taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars on fundamental science, when businesses are going to put up their own money to do it anyhow?
June 15th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Ed Minchau: “So why spend taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars on fundamental science, when businesses are going to put up their own money to do it anyhow?”
I would go further and say that spending taxpayers’ money lessens the science done, and prohibits much private spending. If 35% of your money goes to taxes instead of 20% that’s 15% of your money you have less say with.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
The private sector funding is provided with the expectation of ultimately producing a profit, as an investment. Funding will be provided only for lines of basic research which someone in the private sector believes will ultimately result in a profit.
There are lines of basic science research that no one reasonably expects to ever result in a profit. Sometimes this “reasonable expectation” turns out to be correct. The questions of interest, once answered, result in no financial benefit to anyone. Sometimes the expectation turns out to be spectacularly incorrect. What everyone thought would never result in profit turns out to be massively profitable.
These kinds of research questions will never be funded by purely private sources, except perhaps as charity. Charitable sources will always be limited.
The question we must answer is whether or not society derives any benefit from research into these apparently profitless questions. If so, then it is the duty of government to pay for it, and the duty of taxpayers, as citizens, to provide the funds to the government for the government to pay for it, just as things like military defense, law enforcement, infrastructure, etc, are government responsibilities. If not, then the government should not pay a single dime.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
“The question we must answer is whether or not society derives any benefit from research into these apparently profitless questions. If so, then it is the duty of government to pay for it, and the duty of taxpayers, as citizens, to provide the funds to the government for the government to pay for it”
In a free soceity it’s not the duty of the citizens to do anything unless it’s decided by the citizens themselves as part of the democratic process. The citizens *are* the government.
Which is not to say it’s a bad idea for citizens to decide to support basic science. I certainly hope they do, and I try to encourage people to support it themselves. But it’s certainly not their duty to continue to pay my partially basic-science-funded salary unless they want to.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Ed said:
You’ve got to be kidding. Do really believe that? There’s some discussion in Australia at the moment about only funding university programs that will have some kind of business pay-off and that can only be to the detriment of pure research.
This libertarian credo seems to be an US peculiarity that from the outside appears quite bizarre.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Shane: “This libertarian credo seems to be an US peculiarity that from the outside appears quite bizarre.”
Individuals have no business caring about our peculiarities. Nor do we compare ourselves to others as a means to feel good about ourselves. And in my opinion this libertarian credo is what made America what it is and what set it apart. Collectivism is a failure.
Is anyone suggesting that things only be funded that have profitable goals in strictly monetary means? I don’t think so, and it appears that you are attacking a straw man here Shane.
I think amphiox’s question is exactly the correct one, but maybe he doesn’t give enough credit to the private sector.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Amphiox: “These kinds of research questions will never be funded by purely private sources, except perhaps as charity. Charitable sources will always be limited.”
Milton Friedman would be glad to tell you that the 19th century in the US was the greatest period of charitable donation in human history, and that the federal government was almost trivial during that period. I guess the Civil War would be the exception.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
It may have been addressed, but you earn a professorship. A knighthood or whatever is a title of nobility granted at the hand of a monarch. For whatever reason they see fit to grant it.
I see Hawking’s logic in refusing a title.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Shane, I’m Canadian, so libertarianism is obviously not an exclusively American concept. Nowhere in the Canadian or American constitutions is funding for science mentioned as a government responsibility, and I’d wager that the same is true for Australia.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
In case you thought the government pursues the public interest and not its own, watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2735745077019449361&ei=J_ZVSJ6dB4SSrgL597DkDg&hl=en
June 15th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Dragonet2,
“It may have been addressed, but you earn a professorship. A knighthood or whatever is a title of nobility granted at the hand of a monarch. For whatever reason they see fit to grant it.
I see Hawking’s logic in refusing a title.”
The news piece only mentions Professor Hawking’s dislike of titles. You may be reading a bit more into it, as it doen’t mention a dislike of monarchy.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Ed, I don’t think funding for anything mentioned in the US constitution nor the Australian for that matter.
Libertarianism may be better stated as peculiarly North American then. Of course you can find Libertarians everywhere, including Australia, but they’d be considered on the fringe of society.
Robbie, most “isms” have been failures because of their extremism. Libertarianism would be as disastrous as communism given the chance. The middle road, while not perfect, seems to work.
The 19th Century. Yes, that was the time of the robber barons wasn’t it? The 12 hour working day. Poor working conditions. The genocide of native peoples all over the world. Seems to me that some of those big charitable endowments, Carnegie and his ilk, may have been to alleviate some guilt. Any society that relies on the whims of the rich for charity would be in trouble. But of course a good Libertarian wouldn’t be relying on charity would they?
I don’t think I was creating a straw man about funding being only being available for profitable goals. That is exactly the fear when it comes to discussion about university funding in Australia.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:19 am
I’m very proud of Brian Cox. I was at the same school as him in Oldham (although I’m a couple of years younger).
June 16th, 2008 at 3:25 am
Ed, that’s the whole point: Democratic representation means that the public does not have to vote on every single decision. You vote for a party (or representative) that matches your outlook in life most closely, and they will fight your corner in Parliament (well, ideally). Some parties want to spend more on science, and others less. In the merry-go-round of politics the budget for science and education is determined, with some broad allocations to international initiatives (such as ITER), healthcare, the physical sciences, etc.
Let’s say the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Councel (EPSRC) receives a large sum of money to spend on grants. They will call for proposals from the field, which will then be peer-reviewed. This way, they can make an informed decision whether to fund for example either topological or measurement-based quantum computing. The general public has neither the time not the expertise to make a decision on this.
Of course, you know this, and I assume you agree this is fine for the small stuff. The LHC of Hubble (or ITER to some extent) are large machines that will support a huge number of research projects. These projects are also chosen from peer-reviewed proposals (you have to request “time” on Hubble). So these machines are investments for future science. The decision to build them is made by participating countries on a political level, but the choice for Hubble and LHC, as opposed to other “big science” machines must be informed by experts. This ensures the best value for money.
The LHC and Hubble do not make a profit for anyone but the builders, so the private sector would not invest in them. The current buzz in the media about the LHC and the sustained interest in the output of Hubble indicates that the public at large does not find these projects a waste of money.
There is a tension in every democracy between the will of the public and the advice of the experts. I think the current system of ear-marking money in the political arena with expert advice and spending based on peer-review is a very good one (well, as good as one can hope to implement any system). But when faced with big budget cuts we should make a lot of noise. Otherwise they will take away much more.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:22 am
There’s lots of talk and nit-picking on this discussion, but no mention of the root of the problem. Funding of science is being cut because money is being syphoned away to entitlements. It is a pyramid scheme where the beneficiaries are outgrowing the contributors. Most research is privately financed. The govt. contributes to research that may be too large for a private group (i.e. space programs, atomic labs, etc.) or may not be inherently profitable but that would still benefit the public.
I’d like to hear other opinions as to why funding is being cut, rather than whose responsible for the funding.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:24 am
@Phil: “Hmmm. Professor Hawking doesn’t like titles. Right. Got it.”
Having the title of ‘Professor’ is hardly like having the title of ‘Knight’. ‘Professor’ describes his career. He is a teacher.
‘Knight’ is um … a big fat title that really does not mean much except as an award.
I think Stephen Hawking rejecting the Knighthood is a humble act, but rejecting being called a Professor, which is his job, is not really a comparison. There is no irony here.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:30 am
“Milton Friedman would be glad to tell you that the 19th century in the US was the greatest period of charitable donation in human history, and that the federal government was almost trivial during that period.”
As was America’s contribution to basic science compared to, say, the UK’s. America only became dominant in basic science when the government started forking out lots of money for research and for public education. This isn’t to say that all basic research should be government funded, simply to say that you can’t do without public, private and charitable funding together.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Government should fund science as it is for the public good. Political leaders should educate themselves so they understand this and create and pass legislature that prioritizes and funds science.
BTW the United States is NOT a democracy and the people do NOT decide what the nation does and that’s just as well given the results of the people’s choices generally and how easily they are swayed. Socrates called it “mob-rule”.
The United States is a republic where the people elect leaders and the leaders make the decisions. The people need to elect educated, objective, skeptical leaders who recognize the value of science.
I couldn’t agree more with bad Jim. Asking wealthy individuals to fund programs for the common good while the common good can’t be bothered to pitch in is an absurd model. (
As a nation we need to fund science and research and leverage the knowledge gained to make this a better country and a better world. It’s not only the right thing to do; it’s the smart thing to do.
Elect political leaders who understand the value of science and research. Remove those who don’t.
BTE Ed Minchau, Bell Labs received TONS of government grants for its research. The only American companies that don’t accept government money are – surprise, surprise, – the ones who do NOT want to share their research but want to (solely) profit from it instead.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Ginger Yellow: “As was America’s contribution to basic science compared to, say, the UK’s.”
Milton Friedman would also say that you have to have a sense of proportion. Consider the times in each country and which had more relative progress. I don’t necessarily know the answer, but you can’t compare them in absolute terms.
A Third World country may making huge progress because of its new found freedom from some dictator, but you wouldn’t compare it directly to a country like the US or UK because the proportion is way off. Comparing the increases in living standards in the same time period would make more sense.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Face it, privately funded for profit research is probably the wave of the future. However, that isn’t bad in itself, in fact the rate of discovery may be accelerated as those working on the projects are motivated either by making a profit or job security. That may sound a little harsh but it is the same principle that drives the rest of us outside the academic and government funded circles.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
With regards to Hawking’s dislike of titles, what Phil is pointing out is the irony of stating a dislike of titles and then using one. Now several people have pointed out the distinction between titles of nobility (hereditary and awarded) vs professional and earned titles. That is certainly a good point, and perhaps it is a distinction relevant to what Hawking meant, but if so, that distinction is missing from the words given in the article.
Of course, since it was a spokesman speaking for Hawking, it wasn’t actually Hawking calling himself a Professor, was it?
quasidog said:
> Having the title of â??Professorâ?? is hardly like having the title of â??Knightâ??. â??Professorâ?? describes his career. He is a teacher.
And several other similar statements. Not quite. Within academia, “Professor” is not just a statement of being a teacher, it is a position similar to “Department Director” or “Vice President of _____”. “Professor” carries a status as well as a description of being an instructor. Of course, common use equates professor with instructor and doesn’t necessarily acknowledge the finer distinctions. And that does not negate the distinction from titles of nobility.
With regards to science funding decisions, this issue is a bit complex. It appears the primary concerns are that there were funding irregularities when two oversight boards were merged into the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), and there are concerns of mismanagement of the STFC. The Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee (i.e. Parliamentary Committee oversight) is reviewing the situation and voicing concerns about the practices and behaviour* of the STFC, and of the chief executive, Professor Mason.
Because of the budget shortfall (the cause of which is suggested as misestimating costs of running labs and other mishandling of finances) the Commons Committee above has had to evaluate how to prioritize the available funding. Their decisions have closed some research projects, and appears to be emphasizing the truncating of theoretical research vs. applied projects. That is why Hawking and May are addressing their concerns about the loss of theoretical research.
Richard B. Drumm said:
> At least the LHC work isnâ??t affected!
Actually,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3842430.ece
Those two are ALICE and LHCb.
Starviking said:
>> â??Tacitus: . . . mere colonial . . .â??
>> JakeR:â??Thatâ??s citizen of a republic, not craven subject of an inbred monarch, to you, sir. Itâ??s to Professor Hawkingâ??s credit that he sees the inherent evil of medieval atavisms such as a monarchy more clearly than his compatriots and that he shares that clarity with them and the world.â??
> Can we keep the insults off these pages. You may have been replying to Tacitus, Jake – but youâ??ve insulted me and a lot of my compatrots with your â??craven subjectâ?? jibe.
JakeR was just replying in kind. Tacitus may have been addressing the Bad Astronomer, but he was insulting a bunch of us readers in the process.
—–
* This is the UK we are discussing.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
BMcP, erroneous statements.
Privately funded for profit research has some benefit. Researching new lines of medication, for instance, can be aided by that kind of research. However, there are concerns, such as that the science is valid and not distorted in order to turn a profit. This can happen in many ways, whether the overt distortions of the tobacco industry, or less overt “file drawer” problems of cancelling studies that don’t show the results wanted but publishing the ones that do, or directing the research within narrow lines to omit looking at potential problems such as safety risks.
Also, scientists working on academic and government funded projects are every bit concerned about their own job security. The also tend to want to make a personal profit – earn enough of a salary to get by. The difference is the means of appealing to your customers. In those cases, the marketing is in research proposals and grant applications, and the customers are the grant providers.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Hawking and titles: He means by “title” – as every Englishman knows – “Sir”, “Lord”, Baron”, &c. “Professor” isn’t one of those.
Robbie makes an interesting point: should funding for science (or anything else for that matter) come from Government? We in the US believe that government should spend money only on things like defense, infrastructure projects like interstate highways, and the Post Office. Unfortunately, we’re often outvoted by socialist-leaning Congressmen who feel that Government should support Art (which has the unfortunate result that all the Art was taken out of art), that it should spend money collected from California and Vermont to build monuments in West Virginia.
One question is, could private enterprise have finished the Apollo project? American corporations are extremely short-sighted about profit – if it doesn’t show up in next years profit column, we’re just not interested. On the other hand, there are several private companies now working on close-up space travel (Bigelow Aerospace is one of the leaders).
“The BBC is entirely funded by the levy of an annual licence fee, currently £139.50 on all people who own a TV. There are reductions for the … blind.” That is simply incomprehensible to us. It’s about $274/year. For that $274 they apparently get a few good shows, but most of the rest is left-liberal programming (they will never use the word “terrorist” to apply to terrorists. for example). And the fee is strictly enforced, with patrol wagons roaming about looking for emanations from unlicensed TV sets.
Sagan’s point about government money always coming with strings (how many government-funded projects are there designed to show that global warming is not due to human pollution?), but are companies any different? They’re interested in the short-term profit (which is why space companies like Bigelow Aerospace are focussed on space tourism (”personal spaceflight” is their preferred term).
Robbie gets it right again: “Bad Jim: “Health care? Been there. Year after year, more money for worse coverage. Every other country in our league does it better, but the most strident American patriots defend their right to die younger, because, by God, at least they aren’t spending a cent to care for somebody less worthy.”
If you think health care is expensive now, just wait till it’s free. Why do you suppose that people from all over the world – including Canada – come here for serious operations? For one thing, the Canadians can’t afford to wait 6 or 7 months for a serious operation. (I know about “medical tourism”. We go there, they come here.)
We have our problems, certainly, but those problems grew out of a runaway legal system in which doctors were sued whether there’s malpractice or not. That’s how John Edwards made his fortune – suing doctors left and right. As a result, many doctors left Southern states, leaving the people doctorless. I suupose they could always call a lawyer to get a liver transplant.
Finally, the thought of the public voting on science funding is too terrible to contemplate. The average American knows almost nothing about science (that’s why they’re so easily led down the garden path of global warming). That is not the fault of the average American – who’s just as intelligent as anyone else – it is the fault of our deadly embrace with progresive education – starting with Dewey and continuing through the great levellers like the NEA. Before Dewey, about half of all high school graduates could read at least elementary Latin, and somewhat fewer, Greek. Jefferson, somewhat earlier, was fluent in both, as well as French. We have allowed our educational system to disintegrate to the degree that a high-school diploma, which used to mean something to hiring managers, is hardly worth the paper it’s printed on; a college degree has taken its place, and it won’t be long before even that college degree goes in the “oh by the way” section of a resume.
If any company had the failure rate of our schools, they’d be driven out of business.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
This f-er is trying to start congress on believing in monads!
http://georgeshollenberger.blogspot.com/
June 17th, 2008 at 4:04 am
@Irishman
>JakeR was just replying in kind. Tacitus may have been addressing the
>Bad Astronomer, but he was insulting a bunch of us readers in the
>process.
Jake ratcheted it up a notch when he started into the UK’s system of government in a very crude and insulting way…
That said, that’s the way things go on the net…
June 17th, 2008 at 5:37 am
It’s pretty silly to use pre-19th century scientists (Galileo, Newton, etc.) as examples of successful private research. The universities which employed these scientists were funded by the state or the church (and the church was funded indirectly by the state).
Even so-called private research in capitalist USA isn’t really a good example of truly private research because of the extensive patent protections offered by the US government–really, this is just taxpayer support for research at a different level than direct government funding.
It’s hard to see how the kind of extensive epidemiological studies which showed the health hazards of smoking could have been conducted without public funding, or to deny the great public benefit of the information thus provided.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:49 am
OK, so I haven’t yet read all of the comments, and someone else may have said this before, but time presses…
WRT government-funded research, it is emphatically not government that is best-placed to decide what research should or should not be funded. In the UK, that is the function of the research councils.
While it is true that government sets policy, i.e. it provides direction in the broadest sense, the research councils are the ones who are best-placed and best able to decide which projects are or are not funded.
What appears to have happened in the merger of the two research councils into one new one is that, somehow, £80 million that would have gone to fund science is now not going to fund science. Thus, the existing commitments of the research councils have over-stretched the new, smaller budget. If the funding shortfall had been made known sufficiently in advance, the research councils could have planned for it. If our science minister were less of a slimy git (i.e. not a politician), then he would admit that a mistake was made, make up the shortfall* and fire the idiot responsible for the foul-up. Instead, he insists that the merger of the two research councils is a success and that there is no funding shortfall.
BTW, government does not pay for any of it. Government allocates monies provided by the nation’s taxpayers.
*£80 million really is peanuts to the Treasury – this is the kind of sum that gets lost under the cushions of their sofa, so to speak.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Nigel, as I said before, I don’t believe a simple mistake was made. I think this was an intentional cut to balance the books, and the double-speak is designed to confuse everybody.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
ZZMike said:
> Hawking and titles: He means by “title” – as every Englishman knows…
Well there’s your problem. We have a Brit speaking to a Brit reporter for a Brit publication to a Brit audience, and us confangled Americans have to poke our noses into it.
> We in the US believe that government should spend money only on things like defense, infrastructure projects like interstate highways, and the Post Office. Unfortunately, we’re often outvoted by socialist-leaning Congressmen…
Funny how all those “socialist-leaning Congressmen” keep getting elected when “We in the US” are all opposed.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
It is important to realize that libertarians are a tiny fringe minority in the US, even if they are extremely vocal. They have more influence than their numbers would suggest since they invariably appeal to people’s greed by promising to reduce or eliminate taxes.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Buzz Parsec: “They have more influence than their numbers would suggest since they invariably appeal to people’s greed by promising to reduce or eliminate taxes.”
Wanting lower taxes is greed now. Amazing.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Well thanks for pointing that out Irishman. I know what Phil was saying, but I still see a difference and no irony.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Pieter Kok said:
And you may be right. As I mentioned, I had not had the time to read through all the comments. If it is double-speak intended to confuse, it has been profoundly successful.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
quasidog, I did agree there is a distinction. However, my other posts have commented that the distinction may not have been evident to a U.S. person not embedded in a culture of titles of nobility. Ergo, Phil’s confusion.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
OK Irishman ;p