tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post971657661273520180..comments2024-03-15T21:47:07.684-05:00Comments on nanoscale views: Science, communication, and the publicDouglas Natelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-85068774439342671622011-12-14T19:54:41.673-06:002011-12-14T19:54:41.673-06:00Actually the Physics Today article is free.Actually the Physics Today article is free.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-86485070402127349892011-11-07T08:04:24.544-06:002011-11-07T08:04:24.544-06:00well thx. good onewell thx. good oneGrand theft auto vhttp://5gta.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-79200725710585345222011-10-24T20:46:08.330-05:002011-10-24T20:46:08.330-05:00Anon@3:21, I think we're talking at cross purp...Anon@3:21, I think we're talking at cross purposes. Clearly, all other things being equal, I'd expect China and India to each be producing four times as much science/engineering as the US, since they each have about 4x the population.<br /><br />I'm not trying to claw back US predominance, and I didn't say I was. I'm saying that if the US is to compete and be innovative, period, investment in research is needed. Making a conscious decision not to invest in research either publicly or privately is not a recipe for economic success, period.Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-34228639310640885792011-10-23T15:21:05.802-05:002011-10-23T15:21:05.802-05:00The era of US preeminence in science is coming to ...The era of US preeminence in science is coming to an end. In the coming decades, science itself will move to China, Korea and India. By this I mean the percentage total worldwide basic science funding.<br /><br />It was a good run, but I don't see a reason to try and claw back something that's not going to return, Doug. Tell your students to move to Korea or Japan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-13983585908008494802011-10-23T12:57:12.453-05:002011-10-23T12:57:12.453-05:00High Tc got "killed" (comparatively) bec...<i>High Tc got "killed" (comparatively) because no one has solved the problem after n years (now 25)</i><br /><br />It is not the only problem that has not been solved for a long time. One could argue that quantum computing has been around for <i>at least</i> as long (arguably longer) and it is still enjoying a reasonable degree of funding. The notion that one should stop funding research in a specific area because the problem is not solved seems questionable to me. <br /><br /><i>"Science is important for cultural progress, but probably won't be useful even in the long term"</i><br /><br />No, but I would never say this. It will <b>surely</b> useful, in both the long and short term. <br />I just don't think that one should try to impress politicians and taxpayers by the bits of quantifying the impact of basic research in terms of new gadgets.<br />Greater emphasis should be placed on the training of a highly qualified workforce, and on the technological and business spinoffs, which seem to correlate reasonably well with that kind of investment, even though of course, one cannot predict when and how the payoff will come (it may not even be related to what the subject of the research is, as in your example of the internet). <br /><br />Is it an accident that the states which have traditionally enjoyed a stronger hi-tech based economy and higher standards of living, are also those in which the best universities can be found ?<br />Is it crazy of emergent economies such as China invest heavily in basic research ?<br />I don't think that this is an impossible sell.Massimohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12565804412343316037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-7226365435812408152011-10-22T22:02:30.503-05:002011-10-22T22:02:30.503-05:00We should not give up of course. I dont know what ...We should not give up of course. I dont know what the solution is but I know we cant subsidize the world's research forever and get little for it with a 15 % unemployment rate. Perhaps the solution is Smoot-Hawley. Perhaps it is for research to be more industry oriented and more industry-led. After all, for-profit corporations do a much better job safeguarding precious IP and also realizing its commercial value. That said, giving billions to NSF is still much better than giving trillions to the banks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-8916197490215954682011-10-22T20:54:30.299-05:002011-10-22T20:54:30.299-05:00Massimo - I understand your point, but the honest ...Massimo - I understand your point, but the honest fact is that historically, basic research in the physical sciences has been a good bet for society in term so of <i>eventual</i> technological improvements. High Tc got "killed" (comparatively) because no one has solved the problem after n years (now 25), not because someone promised maglev trains. I'm pretty sure that telling the public, "Science is important for cultural progress, but probably won't be useful even in the long term" is not a winning strategy for anyone, and I bet you'd agree.<br /><br />Anon@11:16 - So, is your position that we should give up, then? Because even when we do end up developing good technologies US manufacturing jobs can be off-shored to countries with cheaper labor and government-subsidized manufacturing? I don't accept that - I don't accept the idea that we should stop trying to innovate because it's a fool's errand.<br /><br />J - thanks! I've never run for a professional society office before. We'll see what happens.Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-80280196115497368312011-10-22T16:44:10.642-05:002011-10-22T16:44:10.642-05:00Doug,
I am afraid that the argument "we need...Doug,<br /><br />I am afraid that the argument "we need more investments in research because that is how we get bigger and better toasters" may have worked in the past, and may even work today in the short term, but is ultimately going to harm science (no, not because jobs are eventually moved to China, that is just nonsense).<br /><br />If you try getting money by promising gadgets, when the gadgets do not materialize people get angry, and the repercussions are long term.<br />This is how high-Tc was killed ("where are those levitating trains you told us about ?"), and this is why experimental high energy physics is such a tough sell these days. I think that, even though it is clearly much more difficult, we need people to understand that science (both research and education) is a crucial component of societal progress, and its impact goes far beyond B&BTs -- methinks, anyway.Massimohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12565804412343316037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-7138109405034311462011-10-21T23:16:12.557-05:002011-10-21T23:16:12.557-05:00The trajectories of US job creation and federally ...The trajectories of US job creation and federally funded research have diverged in the last fifteen years or so. Lets recap :<br />1. Massive research investment in the semiconductor industry - majority of US semiconductor companies are fabless and job intensive fabs have relocated to China, Taiwan and Korea<br />2. Software industry - jobs have relocated to India, Israel, Eastern Europe, ireland, etc.<br />3. Massive continuing research in solar - all solar manufacturing is in China now<br />One can go on and on ..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-49240729112515699722011-10-20T15:33:39.489-05:002011-10-20T15:33:39.489-05:00I know you worry about this, which is part of why ...I know you worry about this, which is part of why I voted for you in the DCMP elections.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10294551872667818548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-22743972559034928092011-10-20T07:35:19.236-05:002011-10-20T07:35:19.236-05:00If you want another citation, http://dx.doi.org/10...If you want another citation, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00091-3Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-91180154107925477922011-10-20T06:25:20.265-05:002011-10-20T06:25:20.265-05:00Really? You realize that the Internet started as ...Really? You realize that the Internet started as federally funded research, right?<br />See here: http://www.sciencecoalition.org/successstories/<br />And http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2010/0629_research_innovation_litan.aspx<br /><br />Basic research leads to long term innovation overall, oratleast it has historically. If it is not funded by industry and not funded by government, then we are going to face a lack of innovation. It is hard for metro believe that that OSA good thing.Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-63229088119778996222011-10-19T23:21:11.323-05:002011-10-19T23:21:11.323-05:00While the US consumer has clearly benefited from t...While the US consumer has clearly benefited from the products of federally funded basic research, it is not at all clear that the US economy has, in terms of jobs created.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com