The Media Just Doesn't Get Science

If you notice there is always a decline in scientific spending during a time of perceived peace following scientific avancements reaching the general public and/or work place. Look at the long decline in the 1990s when there was a technology boom. When scientific advancements start to flow into the work place most people begin to voice their opinion that such funding might be better spent on social fluff programs like the NEA. However, if you recall one of the issues in the 1990s that scared the hell out of the baby boomers was that they were being laid off for younger more technologically skilled personnel. I work in a large corporation, and have worked for a few previously. The constant I have noticed is that the older personnel tend to think they should not have to stay current (rather current should stay the same as it was 20 years ago) or learn any more to do their jobs, even if our understanding of the science and engineering has evolved. What the real hope, particularly amongst the managers and marketing personnel (though some engineers also), is that such evolution will occur slow enough for them to put in their remaining time and retire with a pension (the old concept of retirement). Funding science drives a more rapid advancement than most of these people want.

You make good points. The problem is that science and technological advancement occur regardless. If we don't fund it here, it will simply occur in other countries.

that the older personnel tend to think they should not have to stay current

As an older person, I watched the useless crap that moved in under the umbrella of continuing education - and once in-house, we didn't have to pay for out-of-house anymore. So while I appreciate continuing education - if I have to pay for it anyway, I'll go independent. In addition to taking education of the taxes, I learn knew things banging from contract to contract with different companies.

Roger,

In addition to a general lack of funding (as a society I'm guessing you mean) I was on board with a MNC who also ceased any internal investment.

Decided they wouldn't "develop" product anymore - bleeding edge was too pointy. Now they call themselves a "Systems Integrator" - we lost the top 10% of our engineers within months of the announcement.

Edigan,

The graphs I provided were to back up that I believe we are reducing our funding as a society (as you surmised), however I think corporations are doing so as well (I personally blame Jack Welch who to this day gets praised for it). IBM, GE, AT&T used to have giant laboratories dedicated to research and development, then they started doing "productivity improvements" and have shut down and shrunk those R&D programs. It's pathetic and short sighted, in other words S.O.P. for today's businesses.

Google, who has invested in all kinds of R&D has been mercilessly mocked by the financial media for its "lack of focus". I predict Google develops a game changing product that doubles it's money in 10 years. My guess would be online apps to go with their Android OS. If I were Microsoft I'd just be starting to be concerned, but Microsoft is so busy copying Google to try to kill Google that they don't notice Google sneaking up behind them with a spikey club.

Roger

historically what you find as the down side to things like bell labs or or Xerox being a better example, the corporations are run by barely literate poorly educated business majors with litle vision for future advancements. Consider where Xerox would stand if their business people had listened to their R&D and developed the Mouse and GUI rather than giving it away. Maybe if companies blacklisted the corporate execs who allowed these horrible business decisions to occur, rather than offering ever increasing wages and benefits. This would mean the execs would be much more concerned, knowledgeable and interested in the R&D products, and in turn have a longer term vision. Alternately, start-ups tend to have better long term visions, since they are typically started by the tech people, it is the later financial institutions that require the corporate exec business people get incoprorated in to the companies. The government could modify the system to favor new advanced start-ups to be much more competitive with the large corporations, by say going after the corporations more aggressively for unfair competitions, intellectual properties infringements, and monopoly. This could lead to more start ups that have a higher level of creativity, flxibility, and vision.

As an "older person", I agree with EDignan's obsevation that companies don't fund useful training anymore. When I started at the company where I am currently employed, each division had someone whose full-time job was to track, research, and coordinate training for the people within the division. There were a lot of useful training opportunities. Now it's handled by the receptionist in her spare time. There are only so many MS Word, MS Windows, and anti-harrassment training courses one can take. If one happens to find an outside seminar or training course on his own, there are a lot more hoops, and a lot more signatures one must go through to get it approved. Keep up with technology? That's fine, just do it in your spare time...and at your expense.

You are proving my earlier point. As an example, a corporation i previously worked for started a program to train all of the professional staff in a standardized project management program, the training was online, fairly detailed and extensive, in excess of 40 hours minimum. Each section had an online exam to track training progress and demonstrate knowledge of the project management standards. For the senior level PMs and above (through management), the corporation required this training and paid 41 hours for this specific training. For the much cheaper lower level, associate and below, personnel they allowed you to take the training on your own time and expense. What they found almost immediately, was the management was almost fully billed out for the training, but had barely completed 1 to 3 sections of the program, while many of the lower level personnel on their own time and expense had completed the training and passed all the sections. The older personnel expect that they should be paid for any thing related to training to stay current, younger personnel will do such at their own expense in some hopes of advancing their careers. Also, you may want to consider that there is likely a reason the receptionist keeps providing courses in how to properly utilize MS Word. I know a lot of older personnel tend to use it as nothing more than a simple type writer, as this is what they are familiar with and no younger persons have ever operatesd a type writter if they have ever seen one. The responsibility in most corporations for training assignements falls on the manager of that office or above, which can lead to training for younger personnel that is rudimentary for them, but seems advanced for the aging managers. you know the training that starts with a 5 minute discourse on how to turn your computer on.

Roger, I agree with everything you've griped about. And I think you've answered your own question/rant, in part.

People want it, they want it now, they don't want to pay for it, they don't want to work for it.

The emphasis on science and technology education and achievement in the U.S. has diminished astonishingly in my lifetime. While I try to maintain some faith in the intelligence of my fellow human beings, it gets harder and harder to do when I see that more people vote for "American Idol" finalists than for president. Nobody reads. Nobody thinks. It's too hard.

People come to CR4 expecting their assignments to be completed here, politicians pander to whatever wheel squeaks the loudest (never mind if its the wheel that really is in dire need of grease)...

Science gets the usual short shrift because returns are not seen to be tangible and immediate by short-sighted policy makers who hold the purse strings and other ignorant so-and-sos.

Gee, I sound sour. No way to start the weekend.

</rant>

You're right, the weekend is coming, I should have saved this for Monday.....it's just that CNN article set me off. I agree with your sentiments though.

Actually, I think the returns are all to tangible even to the most ignorant of people. The problem is the returns they perceive are a society evolving without them. Science has always been a bit superstitious and scary to the general public. Think of how many movies involve a premise of a scientific advancement being used or accidentally going awry to destroy mankind (or in the common factory worker or low level maagers perspective make their current jobs unnecessary). There is a huge push for the status quo, particularly amongst generations that have seen a lot of scientific advancement during their working lives. Most of these people never see much advantage in the work place to scientific advancements, just the disadvantages of having to learn constantly to keep up and and evolving work-place. For at least 99% of the populus, they just want to show up do the same thing they have done for the last 25 years and receive that pay check, changes in the work place present new opportunities for a yopunger brighter person to overtake their position or for them to be pushed out in favor of the new technology and the young newly educated personnel.

And the general public expects the government to fix the economy in six months or less or they jump ship.

Roger,

I think your point is good. I agree with you that a problem exists (the trend rather than the absolute value of R&D/GNP looks like a problem to me), agree that funding is not what it should be, and agree that media misconceptions are part of the problem. I disagree with what I think is your perception that funding is the probable answer (or do you see the funding level as a symptom?). I would suggest instead that rank stupidity might be a more likely suspect and, if that is the main cause, I fear it may be too late to correct. We now have in the pipeline teachers-to-be who are being "taught to the test" who will then think that is proper and will perpetuate that idiocy for perhaps several generations. I doubt we have more than a decade or so left before we can't fix our ignorance.

Did you by chance watch the National Spelling Bee last night? (OK, I lead a boring life, but humor me) Is there some reason that 80% of the finalists were ethnic SE Asian? Do Indian parents know something?

I was recently in a discussion and one of the topics was the Wason Four-Card Test

http://www.socialpsychology.org/teach/wason.htm#top

To me, it seemed ridiculously simple. Anybody who can do simple digital circuits should get this in a flash. Yet, only about 20% of the persons tested could get it according to the referenced book. I suspect that, if I were to go to our local high school (well-ranked, with well over 90% going on to higher education) and asked them the difference between an AND gate and an OR gate, they would stare blankly for at least the 1.27 seconds of their attention spans.

And, I don't mean to blame the students. We, the parents, taxpayers, and voters, created this.

I don't blame students. Humans are simple, they want to be rich and important. We've have a great medical system in the United States because Doctors are paid well. It's easy for kids to see "If I become a Doctor I'll be wealthy and highly regarded" so that's what they do. It's not a learning problem, it's a focus problem.

Science doesn't pay as well and certainly doesn't have prestige in this country. However it does pay very well in India and China so you see a ton of people in those countries becoming scientists. When you're an up and coming country you understand the value of science because you are confronted by the inequalities of technology every day. Such technological inequalities can only be overcome by a dedication to science.

What disturbs me more is the writer mistake of art for science. What an artist's imagination of what the future should look like is just that his imagination. The writer's questioning what happen shows our media's loss of reality of the real world. That they are willing to use their own imagination to create controversy to sell news and themselves.

Such is life, "Yellow" Journalism has always had prevalence, since way before the US began, and even throughout the history of the US. Journalism has always been about story telling to convey the opinion of the uneducated journalist, editor, or publisher to the public in a manner that gets attention and entertains the greatest masses of readers. It is only for very short periodic adjustments, when the public substantially loses faith in the truthfulness of articles and begins to not spend money to obtain information (important) but rather for entertainment (not importantant, and subject to the whims of economic circumstance), that there is really any implementation of a concept of journalistic integrity. Much like any other industry, colleges teach a standard of practice, which meets a high standard of integrity, that doesn't translate into corporate society (unless it makes money, without risk of losing more money due to some consequence). This leads to those who are not as technically adept but more willing to adapt to a downwardly flexible ethical standard more favorable for promotion to management within the industry, as they can see things in terms of anything that earns more money as ethically acceptable. As managers, they look for people who are even more ethically flexible than they are (but not so much so they perceive a risk to their own employment or company profitability). So you have this slow downward spiral towards less integrity and ethics that at some major event, scandal, becomes apparent the level of decline and a sudden adjustment occurs (sometimes small, sometimes large).

Additionally, everyone is probably aware that journalism is about as far from science as a student in college can get. It should be obvious then that you have people writing about a subject they are no more familiar with at the core mechanical level, than the common used car salesman (actually probably less). So they look for catch phrases, ways to simplify, and frequently mis-interpret. since they do not really understand science, the subject is boring to them so they must seek ways to spice it up, and do what is needed to tell an intersting story to the greatest number of people.

Well said! Who was that masked guest?

Here in California we were part of mexico, so things get a bit blurry as to who the immigrants are & lets not forget the Miwaks, inca's, yokutch, santa rosa, chumash.... Who would have a slightly different view of who the immigrants are

Things change, within the "change" there will be winners & losers.

The tax structure has changed over the years to favor short term ROI over everything else...

Consumption taxes, with rebates for longer term stuff [R&D] maybe?

The lack of investment is the symptom.

How bout some conjecture about realistic ways to change....

Garthh-

I have been a strong proponent of consumption tax as a replacement to income tax for many years, but it is like whistling in the wind. Pay for what you take out of the common wealth, not what you put in. If people are taxed on what they consume, they will tend to save more, which makes more money available (hopefully in private institutions) to finance research and development...

Consumption taxes encourage saving & investment

Probably need some import equalization [tariffs] too

Possibly some rebates [or other incentives] for local value added processes...

proportional representation could help break the strangle hold the powers that be have on our government at all levels.

the world is analog not digital

Immigrants in general are not the problem, Most come here for a better life as my grandfather did, he came here to become an American. He did not forget his Italian heritage but it became 2nd to his new American one. Many Immigrants come here complain about or even spit on "Our American values" these are the one that give hard working ones a bad rap. The illegals also most are here for a better life, but they are a huge drain on system and has cost us billions and none of the leading parties are will to do very little to seal our borders. (only because it would be political suicide)

This should be it's own discussion

Actually its people like you who are causing the decline, uninformed and bigoted and afraid to stand behind their hateful words so they login as guest.

"The parallels between modern day US and ancient Rome are stagering. "

I quite agree. Just look:

They were in Southern Europe. We're in North America.

They wore togas. We wear jeans.

They drove chariots. We drive Toyotas.

They had caesars. We have presidents.

They had X fingers. We have 10.

A blind man could see feel the similarities. Thanks for pointing this out.

If money is burnt up in fighting the wars very less is left for research. This is what has happened in U.S.

I'd have to diasgree about your point on cancer funding. Colon cancer receives almost as much funding per case as does breast cancer. How many people are vain about their colon?

Roger-

Do you really want a bunch of politicians defining the "scientific research" to be pursued? That will only lead to more Al Gores and other populists that do nothing to advance science other than come up with all sorts of very, very expensive schemes to fix non-problems (oh, yes- they do create jobs!). The real tragedy is the decline of the private sector financing of basic research- such as was represented by Bell Labs, Lockheed's Skunk Works, 3M, and many others. Put your great universities into the hands of politicians, and you will see Disney merging with Stanford in an attempt to corner the market on science fiction (which generally sells better than science fact).

Yes I do want government funded science. Some projects such as the LHC and NASA are too expensive to fund by private industry. Also, government doesn't decide what gets funded, you don't understand how the grant system works. What projects get approved depends mostly on the referee's assessment and they are usually from academia.

It's blind opposition and lack of understanding like this that has led to these funds being cut.

Roger-

I agree that in the past, projects like the LHC and NASA's efforts have been government money well spent. What I object to are the current focus where funding is being spent- digitizing medical records instead of improving overall health care; burying CO2 instead of planting trees; chasing century-old technology (electric automobiles) when there is no evidence that the conditions that killed electric automobiles 100 years ago have changed to any significant degree; chasing "alternative energy" options that have very little chance of addressing future needs (biofuels, solar, wind), while ignoring nuclear energy; chasing the wrong fusion energy solution; my list could go on and on- and I am sure there are those that would object to including some of these as chasing pipe-dreams- which is why politicians (which does not necessarily mean government agencies) should not be called on to make technical decisions...

Hi CWarner,

Don't worry electric car will meet same fate as they had met 100 years ago. Oil lobby is still strong and the Arabs.

Suresh Sharma.

I agree with what you are saying about NASA but , A lot of technology and came from the 60's & 70's Space programs. NASA just grew too big for it's own good or should I say the publics good. Even today a lot science come out of NASA but the cost so much higher.

Jim C

"NASA just grew too big for it's own good" They grew too big in inefficiency not in % of Federal budget. The became such a top heavy bureaucracy that they could not get anything done.even after the shake up they some years back NASA is too big to run itself. In the 60's the USA had one major driving force, "Beat the Russians to the moon". Every machine shop in our area was doing work for NASA, Many of these small companies where creating new technologies. In such a short time the space race brought on innovation like no other time in our nations history.

WE need to another space race.

Jim C

How does that make sense? How can they be a "top heavy bureaucracy" if their piece of the pie has shrunk so much? Aren't you even willing, given the numbers, to consider the fact that they are in fact underfunded as the evidence suggests?

Do you even believe there is such a thing as underfunding? Or do you wan't a space program for free?

I like Al Gore, remember?

You Wrote:"Do you really want a bunch of politicians defining the "scientific research" to be pursued?"

You mean like when Kennedy set the goal of getting to the moon? Or did you mean like when FDR started the Manhatten Project? I just want to be clear which of those government defined and funded scientific projects was a failure. Which one?

Roger-

Valid points. However, I submit that both of your examples were projects where the politicians set the goals, then left the scientists alone to do their work. Harry Truman did not even know of the existance of the Manhattan Project until after he found himself President unexpectedly.

The difference today is that, instead of suggesting that scientists work to solve the energy crisis, the politicians are dictating HOW that should be done- windmills (which typically get abandoned when the government subsidies dry up), burying carbon, electric automobiles, etc.

Politicians should set the goals- ie., "build me a bigger bomb" or "take me to the moon", then get out of the way while the people with the know-how look at the issues...

A large part of the problem is we are just recycling old money by suing our Nabors to get rich quick. No imagination is needed there. In the US we produce 9 lawyers per 1 engineer. Japan is the opposite. Is science and technology going to grow this way? Funding is one thing but having educated scientist and engineers is a must in order to drive R&D.

I am on my way to my 8th patent and as an individual have spent half of the money that I ever made on R&D. I am not rich, but I made rich people. My thirst is for knowledge, and the joy I get from building a better mouse trap, but the money would not hurt either.

Thanks a lot, guys.

Now I'm so totally, completely depressed, it hurts.

I believe what we're dealing with here is The Law Of Diminishing Returns.

If world population levels had remained at a constant, at any given year in the past, let's say for example, 1950, then I think science spending as a % of GDP would have remained at the 1950 levels too.

But more people (wherever) suck more resources from everywhere, not just from the US, because vacuums suck resources from all over, and that's what drags the highs down to the lows.

Soon, the world will be at one universal level, and that level will be the lowest common denominator.

It's this inbuilt knowledge that drives bankers and politicians to snatch as much bonus as they can while the getting is good, cos they know the day of judgement is coming and they want to have as much resource advantage as possible, for when that day arrives.

"Let's stop telling ourselves lies that we can have our cake and eat it too."

You mean we aren't "entitled"?

masterblaster-

Excellent take on the role of the independent. Much unsung invention in the historical US was the result of isolated individuals with a need who just went out and built it- the good stuff was later moved in to the mainstream. Although I have trouble ranking Edison with the likes of Tesla and Alcorn (Edison was mostly a businessman), Edison's Menlo Park served as a model for the likes of Bell Labs and Westinghouse (in the days of old man George), 3M, and many other independent research organizations. Need is the mother of invention. But if you put politicians in charge of doling out the money, you get political science- like Al Gore.

I was reluctant to use Edison as an example as it is true he evolved into a businessman for personal gain and at times at the cost of others. That being said with most successful inventions comes the business.

If I had been a better businessman I may have money from my inventions instead of making others rich. I have been living with fact that they can go bankrupt tomorrow but history will show that I did the work.

Here's Masu's take on this subject, from a different thread:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/399899/Re-Future-Energy-Sources-3-1-2-Hydrogen-Hydrides

Garthh-

Thanks for the link- very thought-provoking. To quote Masu:

"...if we do not move forward and address the wasteful and inefficient way we go about our daily lives we are going to be in serious trouble."

This is actually contrary to much of his argument about the pursuit of electric automobiles. In my opinion, we should be looking at those aspects of our society that dictate the need for individual drivers to commute significant distances in inefficient modes. I am not suggesting a ban on personal vehicles or a ban on SUV's, but, rather, addressing those social issues that encourage their popularity. One place to begin is to look at current zoning practices in most communities, which insist on separating jobs from living centers, shopping from homes, etc. I recently read of a nacent resurgence of the idea of planting gardens on normally barren roofs- creating green space in a less-than-natural environment (nothing, unfortunately, about making the roof-top gardens accessible to the general public...).

There is, of course, a down side to creating isolated, totally self-contained communities where one can walk to work or walk to the grocery store- we lose critical interactions between communities. But, rather than trying to replace our current gas-guzzlers with systems that just shift the detrimental aspects further from the environment of the user is NOT a solution...

I was at a renewable energy conference a few months back & was talking to a gentleman involved with urban planning. He suggested that all essential services should be located within a radius that a grandparent & a small child could walk to within 15 minutes. A somewhat self-contained community would decrease personal isolation. Wouldn't it increase regional cooperation?

[present downturn accepted] Energy & transportation costs are going to continue rising. As transportation costs increase regional manufacturing will make more sense.

Well it could work

never happen on any large scale...

Some things have gone wrong with my joints in my feet, hands, elbows and knees so that I am pretty much in some level of constant pain.

I agree with the urban planner that everything for a small child and a grandparent ought to be within a 15 minute walk.

Battery Park City in NYC appealed to me.

Actually I thought awful well of Manhattan between 96th St. and Battery Park.

The East Village of Manhattan has schools, places to live, stores, all pretty much within the radius your Urban Planner suggests as ideal.

No wonder anybody who isn't rich has had to move.

He was actually attempting a project in Bakersfield, which woulp be typical of suburban sprawl in California. He was also suggesting a mixture of densities of development no higher than 3 stories...

Hi Masterblaster,

You have really blasted what I was just thinking and posting.You are absolutely right we do not have those genius people who have changed the world. Most of them had spent their own money for their inventions.To-day we need such inventors to be reborn.

Suresh Sharma.

Tesla work for one of the largest corporations in the US.

Though I agree that there is a certain amount of technological advancement that occurs outside of the corporate and governemtn R&D, particularly in the 18th and 19th century during periods when corporations were under pressures from the government breaking them up allowing the development of new start ups. (Edison was a startup that became larger, much like GE at this time of anti trust laws and such.) however, much more of the great advancements have occurred through government and corporate sponsored R&D programs. Consider any major organic or bio-chemical advancement; e.g. nylon or any other plastic; computers and electronics, think WWII and Space Race government funding; aerospace technologies, medical advancements, etc.. Most of these cost a lot of money to conduct the research and require expensive advanced laboratories that common people can not afford to have in thier garages.

RCE reply to #67

What came first the chicken or the egg? If the chicken was the a Corporation and the egg was an Invention then in the world science and engineering it usually starts with an idea that leads to a patent and then if you're lucky a corporation to develop it.

Tesla's research and the development of AC power and Magnetic motors and such were sold to large companies that he had shares in but he sold all of his shares for next to nothing so that he could pursue his dream, the Tesla effect of wireless energy transfer to wirelessly power electronic devices which Tesla demonstrated on a low scale (light bulbs) as early as 1893 and aspired to use for the intercontinental transmission of industrial energy levels in his unfinished Wardenclyffe Tower project. The tower was never completed and Tesla was ultimately ostracized and regarded as a mad scientist.^[6][7] Never having put much focus on his finances, Tesla died impoverished at the age of 86.

gdevine's reply to #55 statement "The funding of independent scientific "adventures" is unnecessary in today's business environment." What orifice in the human anatomy did this spew come from? I would like to see were you got your data to back that statement up. If you are just making statements to see how many post you pile up then you might as well send it to the "National Inquire" Although there are some people who believe that rag.

Remember people, we are engineers and scientist, we do quote hear say and rumors as fact. We make a hypotheses and through calculations, and empirical testing we come up with our truth that can be verified, securitized and criticized by our peers.

I am an independent inventor that has been self employed doing R&D at my own expense since 1989. I sell the technology and reinvest the profit into my next idea.

While you are driving past a refinery, marine fueling depot or trucking fuel terminal, pharmaceutical, petrochemical plant and you see a flair on top of a stack burning off vapor from the facility my inventions are stopping that flame from blowing that facility up. "detonation flame arrester". Since 1989 my work has protected property and countless lives all over the world. Some of the users of my patents include Dow Chemical, Rohm & Hass, Imperial Oil, BP, Union Carbide and many more. So you will excuse me if I do not believe in what you say.

It is not necessary for big corporations to develop ideas, they come into play when it is time to market. What is needed besides the obvious education is a good understanding of the need for the product, knowledge of intellectual property and good patent lawyer and contract lawyer.

Yes, people can always develop these smaller items and market them to corporations. However, because of certain health and safety needs on some items, pharmaceuticals being a good example, most people can not afford to go through the extensive testing protocols to develop totally innovative new product that have such health and safety or consumer protection regulations. Some patents do not get picked up by corporations, but rather the corporation just start making knock offs. If done early enough, the inventor can not afford the legal battles over patent infringement. I have known a number of people who have patented many odd tool ideas, shovel modifications, etc.. However, never met anyone who patented a cure for any affliction. Some of the big items you just need the money and resources to research, develop and defend.

By the way, Tesla had no shares in Edison and was paid $18 a week as a engineer. He then quit Edison and went to Westinghouse where he promoted AC electricity over Edison's preferred DC electricity for transmission. He developed many patents while working for both companies utilizing their funding for his R&D. Admittedly, he later quit Westinghouse to pursue some fairly crazy ideas for that time, things like Xrays not being the risk but the ozone generated by Xrays is the health risk, etc.. He actually was the kind of person who would get off track on his own and needed a company to assign him problems to solve, else he would try to solve things beyond the technological capabilities of his day, which just makes the task too large many times.

I am not talking about medicines. That is a small extreme sample of technology. There is whole world of other areas to deal with. I had to have my detonation flame arresters certified to pass standards, like CSA, FM, UL and the USCG and the European equivalents. I paid for the research, the patents and the certification before I sold the technology. I am not talking about small trinkets either. One flame arrester for 72" Diameter pipe weighed 20,000 lbs. Give it a rest. Individuals can and do develop substantial technologically advanced products.

You are going to twist reality any way that will suit you because you will not admit that 1 person can still make a difference. You probably need to believe this so you do not feel like a failure. That is fine, you will not be in anyone's way. Just stay on side lines, watch and criticize.

This topic is dead to me now.

The funding of independent scientific "adventures" is unnecessary in todays business environment. If it has a solid foundation then it will be picked up by corporations that have the money and expertise to pursue it. Exploit it, yes, but they will develop it.

Government investment in technology has always been better spent in funding military projects. The technical spin-offs of the multi-million dollar projects of the past are everywhere. Especially in the materials industries.

Funding for education should be the real goal for technical development. Just think how far ahead we would be if those who believe they can cure the worlds energy needs with aluminum foil in a bucket of water could get past this and get on to bigger and better things.

Interesting graphs and post Roger.

I think a basic problem is that the pace of change is such that ordinary people are afraid because they feel they can't keep up.

A little like the hobo on the park bench - "I was a leading computer designer, then I took 6 weeks holiday and fell behind in my field".

This fear combines with journalistic sensationalism to lend credit to any scare campaign which will discredit science, technology or any industrial development. By painting advances as potentially disastrous, the fears of people are given a vehicle to ride on.

The upshot is that government puts less into science. Industry puts less into R&D.

Essentially, we are coasting on the advances made some 40+ years ago. Simply developing from an old base.

This is comforting to the majority who are afraid of change.

If we approached things with the view that they are going to change and that this change is an opportunity, not a problem, we would see a different result.

The 60's were a time when change and advance were welcomed. Now, any new idea is greeted with "Who is doing it now?" rather than "This has possibilities". Basically, leaders are more concerned with protecting their backsides than leading us forward.

While government funding is important for the development and discovery of new knowledge, they are poor at "picking winners". If they finance research which then becomes public property (after all the public paid for it), and let private industry and individuals develop it from there, progress will still be made.

Why is it that TV shows are about doctors, lawyers and cops, but never about engineers?

Why is it that doctors and lawyers are far more highly paid than engineers?

Obviously society doesn't value us as highly, yet without us, society wouldn't have any where near the present comfortable life style.

If you write a song, copyright protects your interest in that song for 70 years after your death.

If you develop a major invention, patent protection gives you up to about 25 years protection.

Where are our values?

I've raised more questions than answers in this rant, but our fundamental problem as a society is the lack of effective leadership with the courage to direct resources where they will provide the greatest long term benefit to society, not where the various pressure groups point.

The greatest long term benefit to society is by increasing the amount of science and engineering research and development.

All other programs have short term payback, but none have the potential of science and technology to deliver life changing impact over the long term.

Copyright laws are seriously out of whack today.

There's one or more Guests on here getting pretty damn snarky without the stones to sign in. If you can't stand behind your words, how 'bout bugging off?

Science will never out pace human nature.

The best indicator of a nation's health is by far the esteem in which it holds its weakest members. This holds true whether the nation in question is at the bleeding edge of technology or is wallowing in a scientific backwater.

But I know what you're saying, and I completely agree. I have the same complaints. The Media seem to have convinced themselves somehow that Everyone Else is just as stupid as they are, if not more so. I might also point out that the media in this country is largely controlled by a very small group of people who probably know each other and who might even have a common agenda. After all, "Educated masses are dangerous masses."

Ever read The Marching Morons?

This would imply that the British Empire during the 1840s was in horrible condition possibly failing health. It would also imply that the Roman Empire by the time of Augustus was in dead throws. Envision the US at its highest point, immediately following WWII, racism was prevalent and deeply entranched, the homeless were in far worse shape than they currently are (and the general public didn't worry as much about them in public, and actually looked down severely on the homeless). Over indulgence of a nation in social programs actually is a sign of a failing society, this was a sign of the British empire as it began to die in the later 1800s, the Roman empire as it extended more priviledges to the lesser citizens and sought to outsiourse the necessary needs that were beneath the lesser romans in the 4th and 5th centuries. Pick any major society, and you find that as the society declines there is a concurrent level of priviledge and focus on the weakest members of that society, above that investment of other societies of the time. The reality, is that the weakest member contribute very little to the maintenance and advancement of a society, thus the more you invest in them the greater the loss. The society must then compensate for that loss by reducing the necessary levels of advancement and maintenance, thus slowly falling behind and falling apart while attempting to make sure no child is left behind or citizen.