Should Stimulus Be Funding National Laboratories?

IMHO, Yes, because its falls under reinvestment.

Excuse me but this sounds like sandbox whining over somebody getting a better toy. The ARRA (aka the stimulus plan) looked first for government projects sitting on shelves waiting for funding to spur rapid use of the funding instead of having the money just sit in a bank somewhere waiting for somewhere to go. (We now clearly see that many of the banks wouldn't know what to do with the money if they were given it. I wonder how many would still give it to Bernie if they could.) Well after the eight years of empty praise and drastic cutbacks in science by the former administration, the scientific community has many projects ready to go. This funding of scientific research will return wealth many fold. Unlike a bridge or highway project (both very useful endeavors) scientific research will not just build new machines that employ Engineers, Scientists and the craftsmen that build and maintain the machine. The machines themselves will permit companies here in the US to be more efficient in their R&D work. In the case of the Advanced Light Source, 3D images of the proteins that protect bacteria and viruses can be mapped so that likely drugs can be developed for treatment. The intermediate chemical states of catalyst reactions can be identified to assess catalyst improvements. New realms of circuitry design may continue the pace of Moore's law.

If the investment has some tangible short term benefit to stimulating the economy and economic recovery for the general population then yes. Pure theoretical science would be a bad investment in the sense that it take 50 years or more to refine the theories and before applied scientists and engineers can develop some ideas of how to apply the theories that are to the benefit of the public and market growth. Admittedly, I favor funding for sciences, but it should be done through appropriate venues, else science starts to appear as politically corrupt as union and agricultural lobbies, and loses public trust. However, investment into applied scientific invention is a good thing to spur on the development of new markets in which we can lead, assuming the applications can find a use for the general public reasonably rapidly, less than 5 years. I am strongly against excessive funding of global climate change initiatives until they get some consistent scientific method and scientific vetting in place, too much psuedo science and political posturing getting too much press without good solid theoretical proofs and experimentation supporting the theory by not disproving it. Heisenberg had to not only provide a theoretical proof, but also argue it against Einstein and a room full of the greatest scientific minds of the age, and still have a number of experiments attempt to disprove quantum mechanics. The theory held up and has been in effective use now for many decades. It only took about 30 years before they found good real world applications for it in electronics.

Pure theoretical science would be a bad investment in the sense that it take 50 years or more to refine the theories and before applied scientists and engineers can develop some ideas of how to apply the theories that are to the benefit of the public and market growth.

True, but with the investments that the uU.S. put in post WWII, we have have or were enjoying it.

The problem with putting in quick fixes, it only acts as a short term band aid, with results waning at best. Especially with special interests knocking on the door and pressuring and enticing the people in control of the purse strings.

Long term investments usually are the best, with the results being spread over a long period of time. First being initially investments in personnel, materials, equipment as well as construction, IMO, this should match the short term effectiveness, and on top of that, results coming from the developments down the road.

phoenix911

However, ARRA is a short term fix for the economy and should be used accordingly. There are long term solutions that should be properly lobbied to have the funding increased if so needed. If you create a band aid you do not try and use it to solve surgical needs, you use it for what it is intended to be used for. The problem I see, in that i deal with ARRA projects daily, is that the intent of ARRA funding is very seldomly met, most of the funding gets tied up in bureaucracy and funds the bureaucracy, so it really goes no where. Or even worse, you are seeing all these irrelevant projects being submitted that are not with in the intended scope of ARRA, where they grant writers try to blur the lines and create the neceessary ambiguity to get the grant proposals to fit in a fridge or loop hole of ARRA. This all leads to more clutter and more bureaucracy in the process. It is easier to get a narrow well defined scope accomplished rapidly and in a cost effective manner, than a broad poorly defined all encompassing scope. These long term science projects should get together and lobby for long term funding like agriculture does and get specific bills initiated. I know there are more than enough marketers for the scientific societies, i receive a ton of adds from ACS alone.