Hacker News Reader

Comment by ithkuil | Hacker News Reader

I recently heard this comment by Sean Carroll in his June AMA episode

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2022/06/13/ama-...

--- [..] we do not have a fixed pot of money that we sit down and say, “What is the best way we can spend this on research?”

It’s not like there’s a fixed number of dollars and we say, “Okay, biology gets so many and chemistry gets so many, and particle physics gets so many.” This is a lesson that has been beaten home over and over again when we’ve had an expensive science project that people have campaigned against on the theory that the money could be better spent elsewhere, and the project gets cancelled, and guess what, the money does not get spent on science at all ’cause there’s no rule that the amount of money spent on science has to be fixed ---

View on HN

This is not correct. There is a fixed annual amount and it is partitioned by policy and earmarks.

At least in some countries, the government makes a yearly budget and decides what to fund, including specific projects.

That's what I said.

See the ssc as an example. Note also the nih is a massive fund (25+ billion in grants per year, all bio). Nsf is a better example because they have to fund many fields. Doe has fixed funding for nuclear, plus soft funds for scientists in many fields (they funded the human genome long before nih).

This is not accurate. There is no fixed annual amounts for anything the US Congress passes, notwithstanding the fact that the LHC is an international project.

Congress decides the fixed amount and it gets partitioned after allocations.

Is this a case of America != The World

No, all countries with large science programs use similar processes for total fund size and suballocations (dunno about zh but jp and eu are quite similar, with some non important details)

What you're ignoring is the reasoning and the process behind that decision. Of course it matters what it is that needs funding and how effectively the people requesting the funds are making their case.

If it was a competition between english literature and greek philosophy you can be absolutely certain that the fixed amount would be a tiny fraction of what it is now.

Curing cancer, infinite amounts of cheap energy, staying competitive, winning against China both economically and militarily, you really think the size of the pie would be the same without these things?

Interesting point. So, hopefully the science of environmental stewardship gets a name like “Environmental Engineering” or “Resilience Engineering” from the NSF and grows the pie.

Because the costs of not adapting to climate-related environmental change will be astronomical. I mean, would you say climate adaptation is on par with the importance and urgency of curing cancer? The arguments would be interesting.

The truth is somewhere in between.

Ultimately there is a fixed amount of effort people can expend - however the science budget isn't fixed in the sense that projects like the LHC can generate the excitement etc to enlarge the overall pie ( for science - taking away from something else of course - though that could be time spent at home unemployed ).

Most science is done through small incremental advances that add up over time - one of the problems with that is it's rather hard for politicians to see or understand that.

Big projects capture the attention. Though obviously big projects can also, if they fail, damage the reputation of experimental science as a whole.

So yes - LHC isn't probably the best use of money - there are more pressing immediate concerns - however on the other hand - everyone has heard of it - it attracts funding and people to science ( and does good science of course ).

Tricky balance.

Only nationally. There is no global science institute, which means there is no big picture funding.

This is a huge problem when the immediate extinction threat problems are global.

Like the NSF, a “Global Science Foundation” is a vision we should all promote. There is a big need for supporting global science. It would have so many follow-on benefits culturally, politically, economically, ecologically…

Genuinely curious about the downvotes

If it's just one downvote, it could be accidental, otherwise my guess would be people who don't like those types of organization or ideas.

I think about this with space exploration as well. What is the most efficient and practical way to tackle large exploration and science projects that may not see fiscal profit in near term? I’m fiscally conservative capitalist, but want to find a way to do all the science and help the public have higher risk tolerance. My family worked on Apollo and I just worry our generation’s tolerance for risk and ambition of that sort is sapped. Or, that a WWIII is necessary trigger an age of growth as I and II did.

>> I’m fiscally conservative capitalist, but want to find a way to do all the science and help the public have higher risk tolerance.

You want to remain conservative, but also want everyone else to be more risk tolerant?

It's always easy to talk about spending other peoples money isn't it? ;-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com