I just heard that Dr. John Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, is taking questions on last night’s State of the Union Address delivered by our new Science President. You can submit your questions at this web site. But hurry – he is answering the questions at 4 PM Eastern time today (great advance notice, eh?). CV readers, this is your challenge – let’s mob the White House with questions about funding for basice science!
Update: The complete transcript for the session can be found here. There are two questions and answers which may be of special interest to CV readers, at least they are of special interest to me. Here they are:
Collin, from Chicago writes:
What is the White House definition of ‘Basic Science’ the funding of which the president proposed to double in 10 years? For example, does the definition (and proposed doubling) include particle physics? What about nano technology? And a mission to Mars? Thanks.John Marburger
The American Competitiveness Initiative identifies three priority agencies that are critical to basic research in the physical sciences that provides the foundation for future economic competitiveness. Areas like nanotechnology, information technology, materials science, and quantum coherence will be an important part of the initiative. Particle physics and space exploration are important, but not necessarily a focus of the Initiative.
and
Norman, from Stanford, California writes:
Dear Dr. Marburger, I applaud your efforts to raise the priority of funding for basic research and appreciate the fact that the American Competitiveness Initiative seeks to double the funding for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology over the next ten years.Are there any major new projects (such as the International Linear Collider) being considered as part of this initiative, or do you expect to better support existing projects (such as ITER) and basic infrastructure?
John Marburger
Each of the priority agencies in the American Competitiveness Initiative has detailed plans and programs that are developed in consultation with the science community. Projects like ILC and ITER are included in their plans, which are usually detailed on the agency websites.
Thanks to Collin and Norman for getting Marburger’s attention, even it the answers are not particularly encouraging.
February 1st, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Done. Here’s what I wrote
“I am a researcher working on basic science – that which aims to uncover those physical laws, from the tiniest subatomic sizes up to the largest, which govern the working and evolution of the universe. Does the President’s proposed commitment to basic science, outlined in the State of the Union speech, include such efforts? In particular, I am interested in experimental and theoretical work in elementary particle physics and cosmology.
If these areas are not included in this commitment, might we see cuts in these areas to support the new commitment?
Thank you.”
February 1st, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Here’s what I wrote:
“The DOE Office of Science is the principle funding agency for basic research in the physical sciences in the US. The continual decline in funding for the Office of Science is literally wreaking havoc with our programs in the physical sciences. For example, two fairly recent and very productive research facilities (RHIC and Jefferson Lab) in Nuclear Physics face being shut down. The situation in High Energy Particle Physics is just as dire – we are being asked to consider the early termination of our facilities. In FY 2009 there will be only ONE particle physics experiment of any type or size in operation in the US – in FY 2010 there will be none. This comes at a time when other countries and regions are pumping money into their basic science programs and we are falling drastically behind. The situation is so dire that it will take sustained increased funding to the DOE Office of Science to once again have viable US programs in these areas. Does the Federal commitment, announced by the President last night, to double funding for basic research include the DOE Office of Science and true basic research programs such as Particle Physics? And, if so, how can this actually materialize and be sustained over 10 years, which has not happened with the budget doubling promise for the National Science Foundation. ”
Rather lengthy, but the point is to bombard them with questions of this ilk.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Great! In a discussion about science policy, in limited time, in which all questions can’t be answered, he chooses to spend time answering one on the constitution and why the State of the Union address is required.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Now he chooses to take another one about when they release the speech. Aaagh! these are not questions one needs to ask in this kind of discussion.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Agreed, Mark. The questions being chosen are getting a bit frustrating…I’m waiting for someone to ask what it’s like to meet the President.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pm
OK, now it’s getting worse. He’s answering homework questions. Would I be cynical to suggest that he doesn’t want to answer the contentful questions?
I knew I should have written “If you were a science-advising tree; what kind of science-advising tree would you be?”
February 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pm
This is an administration that got caught a couple of times trying to manipulate media coverage, and this is their own website…it may just be that I am inherently too cynical for my own good…
February 1st, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Thank you, Colin from Chicago! Now we have our answer. And it’s what we could have expected. No, the Science President’s new iniative does not include things like particle physics.
February 1st, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Yes, the answer is predictable and depresing. Any chance Collin from Chicago is one of our readers?
February 1st, 2006 at 5:02 pm
You’re welcome.
February 1st, 2006 at 5:03 pm
This last one has got to be Norman Graf, no?
February 1st, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Thanks Collin!!
February 1st, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Alright, I take it back, it is apparently not staged, incredible…
(Answers are not too encouraging though).
February 1st, 2006 at 5:17 pm
You’d just as well have asked questions at http://www.whitehouse.org instead…
February 1st, 2006 at 5:27 pm
This thread too cryptic to be useful …. and the Whitehouse archive of this session is unavailable (presumably it is being vetted and re-written by Prime Minister Cheney’s office …). Please would you summarize the responses to contentful questions. What was said about particle physics?
February 1st, 2006 at 5:40 pm
The Struggle of Self” Becomes the Struggle of the Nation?
I was just wondering.
February 1st, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Well, glad (in a resigned sort of way) to see, two hours too late, that I didn’t really miss anything…
February 1st, 2006 at 6:08 pm
The way I understood it, there would be more funding for “quantum coherence” (I guess this means quantum computing), nanotechnology, information technology and material science.
There would be no increased funding for particle physics or astrophysics.
February 1st, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Here is the discussion Nick.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20060201.html
Hope this helps.
February 1st, 2006 at 6:29 pm
The transcript is now available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20060201.html
but I find it more depressing (the usual content-free cheerleading) than helpful.
The big questions are
(1) is this a real program to enhance math/science or just another slogan based, funding-free publicity campaign
(2) if there is funding directed towards basic research and science/math education efforts is this new funding (and where will these $ come from) or a reshuffling of already tight research and education funds (will particle physics $ decrease so that money can be redirected to an area earmarked as basic research by the president). And how will the decisions re which areas gain/lose be made?
February 1st, 2006 at 6:46 pm
JoAnne, Mark: – You guys *rock*! Excellent, excellent thread, if depressing.
-cvj
February 1st, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Mark and Joanne,
I’m very much in agreement with you about the problems caused by US budget cuts in HEP and related fields, and strongly support better funding for such research (at least on the experimental end, the problems of HEP theorists are due less to budget cuts than to self-inflicted wounds). But reading what you sent to Marburger, I don’t think that’s the kind of thing that is going to help. Frankly it looks way too self-serving, and carries an all too obvious air of contempt for the current administration (which I loathe every bit as much as you do).
If you want someone to give you money, I think you have to try and see things their way, and, no matter what you think about them, do your best to make nice. For instance, you might at least start off by saying how pleased you were to hear Bush commit to expanding support for basic physics research in the SOTU, even though you for very good reasons have a hard time putting “pleased” and “hearing Bush” in the same sentence.
Presumably the administration budget request to Congress is already set, and at least the starting point is more money allocated to the agencies funding physics research, so the fight will be to get Congress to agree to this higher spending level and allocate some of it to HEP research. I’m glad I’m not someone like Joanne who has to be on the front lines of that fight, but despite this, do want to just point out that it would be a good idea to try and see things from the point of view of the right-wing powers-that-be (at least this year). An attitude of “Gee, we’re so glad that you recognize the importance of fundamental physics research, here’s what we as professional physicists think would be the best way to advance goals we share” might work much better than “we don’t much like you and think you have shafted us, now give us more money.”
February 1st, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Hi Peter. I appreciate the advice but think it is misplaced here. JoAnne and I spend reasonable portions of our time writing to various branches of government and even, on occasion, speaking to committees that advise them. When we do such things I think we present a nuanced opinion, something along the lines of part of your comment.
However, this was a question and answer session (and a sort-of anonymous one at that). I wanted to present who I am and to get a clarification on a specific point in the speech that affects me and my research. I see no reason to ask the question in any other way than I did in this specific context.
February 1st, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Mark,
Sorry if that came off as in any way unsympathetic, it’s not. I greatly appreciate the fact that you two are doing this kind of work, and can see how difficult it is. Good luck with the battles ahead.
February 1st, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Ethics and ethical people
February 1st, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Apparently I turned off my internet at the wrong time and missed all the excitement. Good job. We certainly do need more money for quantum coherence, otherwise all those superpositions will just keep collapsing.
February 1st, 2006 at 7:55 pm
I must agree with Mark and Joanne. The Q&A format is designed to elicit questions of any sort — including the questions submitted. I actually thought that their questions were quite restrained. I’m not sure if I could keep the bile from my words.
Here in DC, Bush’s SOTU science lip service, in conjunction with the unanimous damning of Bush’s position on climate change and science by every former EPA chief (except the last one who is the HHS chief and…. uhmmm… the dead one) at an EPA press event two weeks ago, has sparked a firestorm of sorts in the federal scientific community. Staff conversations on the slow but steady erosion of science under this administration crops up in hallways, in whisper-corners in CubicleSpace, and surprisingly, even erupted into the open at an all-hands staff meeting with senior management that I attended today at my agency.
People are generally dismayed at the situation, and now given the open hypocrisy of the W’s SOTU pleading for the need for science and math in the US — people are now flat out pissed.
Marburger’s Q&A farce just adds insult on top of injury. I can just imagine the comments at work tomorrow.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:01 pm
we are all entangled?
I see bits of ourselves spread all over the internet, as to the perfect combination…hmmmm
evolution has done wonders then, or has it made it more complicated in earth based matter distinctions?
February 1st, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Perhaps one should try to get the Pentagon interested in funding some physics experiments. They swim in money and don’t know what country to invade next.
E.g., if axions exist then you can think of using the Primakoff effect to comunicate with submarines. Laser light can be converted to axions in a strong magnetic field and the axions can be converted back to photons.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:17 pm
I am assuming the quantum coherence business has to do with maintaining it long enough to build those quantum computers, that is not too unreasonable-sounding actually.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Thanks Peter. You didn’t sound unsympathetic – we’re all in this together. Cheers.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:23 pm
> Perhaps one should try to get the Pentagon interested
Somebody told me that in the 1980s and 1990s people tried to make the case that magnetic monopoles could revolutionize weapons design and thus the Pentagon should contribute more to high energy physics.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:55 pm
[...] As noted by JoAnne at Cosmic Varience, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy took emailed questions about last night’s comments concerning science funding made by U.S. President George Bush in his state of the union speech. Not since Al Gore explicitly mentioned quantum computers have quantum computers made it so close to the spotlight! In particular we read: Collin, from Chicago writes: What is the White House definition of ‘Basic Science’ the funding of which the president proposed to double in 10 years? For example, does the definition (and proposed doubling) include particle physics? What about nano technology? And a mission to Mars? Thanks. [...]
February 1st, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Also of interest along these lines, a press conference.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Marburger was the keynote speaker at DAMOP this past year, and enjoyed as hostile an audience as you could imagine. I feel sorry for the dude- it seems like he doesn’t have much influence, and has to continually deliver bad news to people who are just waiting to lay into him…
One wonders if the coherence line was just a shoutout to his AMO peeps- he was quite an optical stud before moving into administration.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:01 pm
it seems like he doesn’t have much influence, and has to continually deliver bad news to people who are just waiting to lay into him…
Anyone with a functioning brainstem ought to know acting as a liason between the evidence-based community and BushCo has got to be one of the most thankless jobs in the Multiverse. I have to think he knew what he was in for. This is an administration that made even Christine Todd Whitman (a.k.a. “James Watt in a Skirt”) feel unwanted, after all.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:09 pm
The new funding for science will come from yet another tax cut.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Arun,
So if we project this equation out if we eliminate all taxes we should have infinite funding for science right
Elliot
February 1st, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Hey, I’m famous! At least among the very small (but finite!) number of passionate readers of this blog.
Peter (and others)– I don’t think HEP’s funding problem is due to a lack of sucking up to the current administration or appearing standoff-ish. From where I sit, as a rather interested observer, the problem seems to be much more difficult than that. First, the rules seem to have changed. At one point, it was enough for HEP to justify it’s budget in terms of the auxiliary technological gains made by the field. These are not small and can include, for example, the World Wide Web. Now, HEP is supposed to justify it’s budget in terms of the science itself. While this is very reasonable, it’s a harder sell, because it opens the door to questions such as, “How will measuring the top quark mass to better than 1% help make industry a better widget?” Though that question misses the point entirely, when Jack Marburger or a congressman asks that question, explaining why it misses the point entirely doesn’t help one’s case in the slightest. This rule change, from what I understand, also took several people by surprise. Accustomed to advertising their field in a particular fashion, they were not necessarily so adept that they could change their tactics quickly enough. This problem will likely always plague HEP, and becoming more adept at advertising the field seems like a necesssary hurdle in order to get funding up to where many think it should be.
The second problem I see is much more difficult to overcome. It’s the tyranny of the Standard Model. It affects all of us in the field in our day to day work, but it also gives people with money the ability to ask extraordinarily difficult questions. Much harder than, “How will measuring the top quark mass to better than 1% help make industry a better widget?” The ridiculous success of the Standard Model means that any intelligent person in charge of a lot of money will ask, “If I give you the money to build the latest and greatest accelerator or experiment, what is the risk you won’t discover something new?” If put to me, I’d say the risk is very high. Measuring the top quark mass to 1%, while an impressive intellectual feat and quite important in it’s own right, doesn’t give JoAnne any more information in understanding, e.g., the Electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism than she already had. This is the promise of the Tevatron and the risk of the LHC and the ILC. Believe me, I know all the answers as to why we fully expect new and interesting physics at the LHC and why we’ll need the ILC to fully understand everything. But, I also know that there’s the chance, which I’d likely put at much higher than anybody else here, that the LHC sees a 160 GeV Higgs and nothing else. Then the field will be left scratching its collective head asking, “Now what?” And the government will (quite rightfully) say, “It was a good run while it lasted. Let us know if you have any more great ideas.”
From where I sit, it’s a rather depressing state for the field to be in. The health of the field depends on one project turning out like everybody expects. In the meantime, the government will continue to reduce its funding. Even if the LHC does turn out to be everything everyone hopes for, it’s always harder to get money back once it’s been taken away than it is to keep it in the first place.
Finally, I’d say the most important thing for the health of the field is developing novel accelerator technologies. Because, if the LHC does discover just a 160 GeV Higgs, then just about the only thing I see reviving the field is the argument, “With this plasma wakefield accelerator, we can increase the accessible energies by an order of magnitude for a reasonable amount of money. And it’ll be a trophy on the US’s mantle. And wouldn’t that be cool?” Chances are, the government will say, “Yes.” Or, perhaps, “For half the cost of the ILC, we can build a muon collider and Higgs factory. Everybody’s interested. Are you?” Again, the answer will probably be, “Yes.” But that doesn’t have the same appeal as searching for the Higgs or measuring the top quark mass or measuring the CKM angles to better and better accuracy.
Anyway, there are my long winded thoughts on the state of the field. Those on the front lines, feel free to correct any misconceptions I may have.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:21 am
Or was that Norton? Gosh, I can’t keep them straight…
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:16 am
“But that doesn’t have the same appeal as searching for the Higgs or measuring the top quark mass or measuring the CKM angles to better and better accuracy.”
Why does measuring the CKM angles to better and better accuracy have so much appeal? Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see the point…. If B factories find evidence for new physics effects, they’re probably due to things we’ll be seeing directly at the LHC anyway. If not, then we don’t really learn all that much. CKM elements, like neutrino oscillations, might hint at interesting high-scale flavor physics, but they don’t seem likely to give us enough information to actually conclude anything. Maybe I’m just too pessimistic….
February 2nd, 2006 at 2:14 am
Collin, thanks much for bursting through to Marburger today. Several of us here at SLAC tried (and Norman did get through), but you asked the relevant question in a succinct manner. I would like to think that Marburger was forced to tackle it just because so many of us wrote in and asked about funding for true basic research. And, regarding your comment here – I couldn’t agree more about the need to fund advanced accelerator research, In fact, I think it should be one of our top priorities. But alas, it is not. In fact, it is in danger of disappearing all together.
Peter, thanks for your thoughtful comments as well. As you know, I presently serve on (too) many panels and committees of this sort. We try our best. Today, I was representing myself, and no one else, in posing my question to Marburger. I wrote what I felt (and indeed had to restrain myself) and think he needs to hear hard punching questions from individuals (committess are a different thing). He needs to know that individuals are seriously engaged and concerned.
All, I’m afraid that I cannot comment on Marburger’s replies – it’s so depressing that there is really nothing one can say.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:59 am
Anon. There is a long story of the worth of measuring CP violation carefully. Let me just give one example. If electroweak baryogenesis is the correct model for how the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe was generated, then one of the crucial tests will come from precision measurements of new CP viiolation. The B-factories play an important role in this.
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:34 am
“And a mission to Mars”
The answer to this one is simple. In no what whatsoever does this count as “basic science”. It does qualify as “random bullshit to generate vast profits for the aerospace industry” meaning it may actually happen, but let’s not pretend it’s science, just like the ISS is not science.
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:50 am
Collin,
I agree with everything you wrote, and was not trying to say that insufficient sucking up to the current administration has anything to do with HEP’s current problems. It just struck me that the day the worst president in our history decides to make funding basic physics research and education one of his most prominent public initiatives is a good day to let up a bit on bashing him about his science funding policies, try to be at least cautiously optimistic, and start thinking about how to hold him and his administration to the promise it has just made. Maybe such optimisim is completely misplaced, but we’ll find out soon when the proposed budget comes out in a few days.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Peter,
This guy gets no slack. The “No Child Left Behind Act” purportedly was to improve education. As a former school board member, I can tell you it was about eviscerating the teachers union.
Everything he does is designed to line the pockets of his supporters in the energy industry, anti-labor business leaders, and insurance companies. He can’t be held accountable because he is above accountabilty. This is the man who just killed over 2000 Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis, and so far has spent over 100 billion dollars on an illegal war designed to benefit his supporters.
He said what he thought would get GOP votes in the mid-term elections. Thats it.
Elliot
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Maynard — my question about a mission to mars was not intended to imply that this was, in fact, basic science. Rather, this has been something of a priority for this administration, so I wanted to know if they were going to use this new initiative to fund such a mission or fund real science. The three specific examples were meant to be what I’d call basic science; important, potentially commercially viable though not necessarily basic, science; and pseudo-science. The answer I got was that they are going to fund potentially commercially viable science over the most basic sciences.
Anon — I think the answer is really more basic than what Mark gave. In HEP, there are two important types of research. 1. you can measure numbers to better accuracy and chase down systematic errors. or 2, you can search for new things. Accelerator research is seen as engineering and does not fit into one of these neat categories. So measuring the CKM angles by definition has more appeal than accelerator research. And if the B factories did manage to find something new, it would give us the strongest case to date for why we should fund the ILC or your favorite new project. The field could finally stand up and say, “There’s something new and specific we don’t understand, that doesn’t fit in the Standard Model. We need a new project to figure this out.” The tyranny of the Standard Model would finally be lifted. But Mark is right, measuring these parameters is important in its own right. Even if they don’t find anything unexpected, there are still angles which are very poorly measured and need better measurements. And these will shed light on subjects such as baryogenesis. It’s one of the few areas where we’re still somewhat in the dark.
I should say, that given all my ranting about how we need more accelerator research, you’d think that’s what I do. But it’s not. I don’t want to give the impression that I think I’m better than everybody else in the field ’cause I think my work is more important or misunderstood or overlooked. I do think that the very small number of people I know who have left HEP proper to go work on accelerator physics have the right idea…
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:53 pm
….of course we meet walls in resistance to thinking, but if you don’t use “models for thinking” then how could you have ever advanced symmetry breaking idealization, but to consider the “axion” from a equilibrium point?
That’s question.
Thank god, that such ideas as lagrange points, are only one of a couple of ideas that were initiated. What would we do with such experimental progressions sought to support such documenation, as ID related?
If this openness was not shared, how would we had ever known?
February 2nd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Anon: The main purpose of the B-Factories and LHCB is to discover signals for new physics beyond the Standard Model. They do that in two main ways: (i) measuring a rate for a process, e.g., a CP violating mode or a rare loop-induced decay, that does not agree with predictions from the Standard Model, and (ii) measuring CP angles in different modes and getting inconsistent results. At present, there is a hint (~2.5 sigma) for new physics via the second method. This is the biggest experimental hint for the existence of new physics that we have today, and the situation should be clarified by the time the LHC turns on as new B-physics data pours in. That is, of course, unless DOE decides the terminate the SLAC B-Factory early.
The real fun begins when the B-Factories see a deviation and discover new physics. It turns out that precise data from the B-Factories is invaluable in determining the properties of the new physics discovered at the LHC. The LHC measures the mass scale of the new physics, but determines nothing about its flavor structure. Whereas, once you input the new physics mass scale into predictions for B meson decay and CP rates, then the B-Factory data can determine the flavor properties of the new physics. For example, take Supersymmetry. The LHC measures the sparticle masses and SUSY scale, but doesn’t get much information on what SUSY model it is (i.e., how SUSY is broken). The SUSY breaking information is contained in the off-diagonal elements of the squark mass matrices and the B-Factories can measure that! Provided there is enough luminosity and the SUSY is not too high, of course.
Sorry for getting a bit technical here (I’m sure Anon can handle it), but there is more to it than just measuring CKM angles.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Suggest you look at the link below for the latest on the DOE Office of Science FY07 budget. HEP is not forgotten. Full details will be released Monday.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:00 pm
oops, here’s the link
http://www.energy.gov/news/3148.htm
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Elliot,
I agree with you, I quite seriously believe the guy is the worst president this country has ever seen.
But, still, no matter how cynical the politics of this are, I suspect that it will lead to a slightly better budget situation for basic physics research, at least for FY2007. We’ll see soon. Much of the supposed added funds for research will undoubtedly be tax breaks for people who don’t need them, but some may be real money going to worthwhile projects.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Peter,
I hope you are more right about this than I am
Elliot
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Just followed the link mentioned above. It seems to indicate that the proposal will be for a 7% increase for HEP, and full-funding for RHIC. If there’s nothing funny going on with the numbers, and this gets through Congress, it will not be a bad year for HEP, unlike the last few.
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Must have been all the positive things said about it:)
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:56 pm
[...] It’s been a roller-coaster ride the past couple of days regarding funding for the basic physical sciences. First, on Tuesday night our new self-proclaimed Science President announced a doubling of funds for research in the physical sciences. It was a very welcome announcement, but a tough sell in convincing us all given the Science President’s track record. Then the Science President’s science advisor, Dr. Marburger, held a web-based Q&A session on Wednesday afternoon. Our friends broke through and got answers to our very basic question: `does this new science iniative encompass basic science such a particle physics?’ Alas, the answer was no. [...]
February 3rd, 2006 at 7:29 am
[...] However: what is the clear plan for “victory” in Iraq? Does victory even seem possible? Within ten or twenty years? Is it a sign of victory that car-bombs are exploding almost on a daily basis? That thousands of American soldiers (and an unknown number – orders of magnitude higher – of civiliens and soldiers) have died in Iraq since then invasion? Are the Iraqis really happy about the presence of the Coalition? What is the relation – if any – between Iraq (Saddam Hussein) and bin Laden? Didn’t actually the US support bin Laden during the war between former Soviet Union and Afghanistan? Was the surveillance program, that supposedly has helped prevent terrorist attacts, really legal? How can they avoid wiretapping ordinary Americans? If for example on of my friends in New York accidentally calls al-Qaida instead of his mother? Shouldn’t the Government increase funding for particle physics (which does not seem to be the case according to JoAnne at Cosmic Variance)? Does Bush know where nanotechnology and supercomputing originated from? Are the 10 billion dollars spend since 2001 on developing alternative energy sources worth mentioning? When the cost of the war in Iraq so far is more than 238 billion dollars and counting? When the defense budget for 2006 suggested by Bush is around 439 billion dollars? Are the 85 billion dollars commited to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans then worth mentioning (when it could take decades to rebuild New Orleans)? Are the one billion dollars spend each year on preventing HIV/AIDS (and Tuberculosis, and Malaria)? [...]
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:12 am
#32 Wolfgang,
) and knows a lot more than most physicists. Perhaps that’s why Bush is reluctant to fund some physics projects. 
that’s interesting! It could also be that the Pentagon has already done secret experiments (isn’t there a secret particle accelerator in Area 51?
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:57 pm
[...] Back here in the U.S., on Monday the Bush administration is releasing its FY2007 budget proposals. An outline of the DOE budget lists an 8% increase in HEP spending to $775.1 million, as well as full funding for RHIC. The NSF should also see a sizable increase as part of the so-called American Competitiveness Initiative. The folks over at Cosmic Variance are experiencing some cognitive dissonance. [...]