Current Events > Funding leads the rate of scientists doing basic science to drop to 1%

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.nature.com/news/survey-reveals-basic-research-in-canada-is-falling-by-the-wayside-1.22224

This is specifically in Canada, but this general phenomenon seems to be true in the US from my experience. Funding for basic science is in the crapper, applied science and engineering fairing much better.
---

what about acidic science?
---

COVxy posted...

This is specifically in Canada, but this general phenomenon seems to be true in the US from my experience. Funding for basic science is in the crapper, applied science and engineering fairing much better.

unsurprising, really

when the path to a tenure track research position involves 10+ years of postdoc hell while you wait for someone to die because universities are not creating new professor positions but constantly pumping out new PHD grads, this will happen.

more and more of the people i knew in grad school are giving up and joining industry because they'd like to have an income
---

This is even only in academia though!
---

Darkman124 posted...

more and more of the people i knew in grad school are giving up and joining industry because they'd like to have an income

I'm thinking about doing this. My PI expects me to go down the postdoc route, but industry sounds tempting
---

A lot if people I know who are looking to transition have been taking their first postdoc to keep the door to academia open while they suss out the options they have in industry.
---

We're gonna look back at these times in the future and wonder how society had become so anti intellectual.
---

i'm not wondering.
---

COVxy posted...

We're gonna look back at these times in the future and wonder how society had become so anti intellectual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4

Darkman124 posted...

i'm not wondering.

Hm, maybe your knowledge can shift us back =p
---

Progression is inevitable
---

Who would call it progress?
---

Ever since people learned you could just do a quick Google search to prove that NASA is just a theatre company, science is on most peoples' shitlists.
---

Wut.
---

You mean you don't know about NASA's lies? The word NASA even means liar in Hebrew. If you can't trust NASA, you definitely can't trust scientists who don't even belong to an acronym.
---

Good. No more LIBERAL indoctrination!
---

whats considered basic science?
---

Applied science is booming. I make a great living working in industry with a MS in polymer chemistry.
---

Darkman124 posted...

COVxy posted...

This is specifically in Canada, but this general phenomenon seems to be true in the US from my experience. Funding for basic science is in the crapper, applied science and engineering fairing much better.

unsurprising, really

when the path to a tenure track research position involves 10+ years of postdoc hell while you wait for someone to die because universities are not creating new professor positions but constantly pumping out new PHD grads, this will happen.

more and more of the people i knew in grad school are giving up and joining industry because they'd like to have an income

that's what my sister ended up doing and she doesn't regret it
---

E32005 posted...

whats considered basic science?

As far as I can tell, it's research that doesn't stand to make anyone any money, and thus usually publicly funded.

E32005 posted...

whats considered basic science?

Pretty much whenever you're asking a question whose fundamental purpose is to further our understanding. Usually the science that tends to piss republicans off: "what's the point?"
---

E32005 posted...

whats considered basic science?

From my understanding, it's the foundation of science like how cells would work and such. Things that provide knowledge but don't have much practical use. Applied science would be taking that knowledge and creating a medical treatment with it.
---

Last bump, since I think it's an important issue for everyone to think about.
---

COVxy posted...

Darkman124 posted...

i'm not wondering.

Hm, maybe your knowledge can shift us back =p

fwiw i think the fundamental problem is actually tied to the culture of the providers of basic research, which is mostly universities

they've been so focused on 'student life' and 'the college experience' that they seem to have forgotten they're research centers. profs get hired as adjuncts rather than tenure track so the number of research jobs isn't rising even though # of grad students is.

university tuition has never been higher yet class sizes are bigger than ever. they'd rather build a gym than hire a new physics professor.

obv it would be great for the govt to fund this better but a lot of the funding would just go to huge labs that employ an army of chinese grad students anyway, and would not increase the number of lead researchers individually. just the number of grad students and postdocs, which is to say the number of people who then join industry anyway.
---

I find it hard to conceptually link university spending and culture with the shift in funding from basic to applied sciences, tbh.
---

I think it's an unfortunate inevitability of the historical link between modern scientific research and funding driven by capitalism. Ever since the scientific revolution, science has always been born on the backs of the people and organizations willing to provide the money. Of course, the opposite is true as well, as the success of scientific endeavors provides the benefits that the investors were looking for in the first place. At first, basic science was perfectly acceptable, possibly even desirable, because of how little a foundation there was to build on. Even a fundamental understanding of how things work lead to wild changes that benefited those willing to foot the bill.

But now, while it may certainly be true that basic science could still lead to revolutionary improvements that investors would want. The further developed capitalist societies no longer want things they can't immediately see the benefits for. After all, they aren't scientists, and are subject to the same inability to properly contextualize information as any of us laymen. As the fields of applied science grew larger and larger, it may only be natural that investors look to that for more development a at faster pace. This is especially true when it's believed that the economy is in a bit of a downturn, as innovations brought by science can often help turn that around.

What we're seeing now may just be the later stages of a relationship lasting over 500 years.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Ever since the scientific revolution, science has always been born on the backs of the people and organizations willing to provide the money.

There's your answer: Patronage.

Idiocracy

Dragonblade01 posted...

I think it's an unfortunate inevitability of the historical link between modern scientific research and funding driven by capitalism. Ever since the scientific revolution, science has always been born on the backs of the people and organizations willing to provide the money. Of course, the opposite is true as well, as the success of scientific endeavors provides the benefits that the investors were looking for in the first place. At first, basic science was perfectly acceptable, possibly even desirable, because of how little a foundation there was to build on. Even a fundamental understanding of how things work lead to wild changes that benefited those willing to foot the bill.

But now, while it may certainly be true that basic science could still lead to revolutionary improvements that investors would want. The further developed capitalist societies no longer want things they can't immediately see the benefits for. After all, they aren't scientists, and are subject to the same inability to properly contextualize information as any of us laymen. As the fields of applied science grew larger and larger, it may only be natural that investors look to that for more development a at faster pace. This is especially true when it's believed that the economy is in a bit of a downturn, as innovations brought by science can often help turn that around.

What we're seeing now may just be the later stages of a relationship lasting over 500 years.

This isn't entirely true, as this is the entire reason we have federal funding of science. Unfortunately, even federal funding has shifted its focus to more applied work.
---

COVxy posted...

This isn't entirely true, as this is the entire reason we have federal funding of science. Unfortunately, even federal funding has shifted its focus to more applied work.

This is what happens when a government forgets what "general welfare" means, and instead sticks its hand into individual welfare.

Questionmarktarius posted...

This is what happens when a government forgets what "general welfare" means, and instead sticks its hand into individual welfare.

If anything, I think traditional republican policy would applaud the shift.

I mean, there's the numerous instances of Ted Cruz and others misrepresenting basic science to ensure that it looks worthless and silly, to justify reductions in spending for basic science.
---

Basic science? You mean mixing vinegar with baking soda?
---

COVxy posted...

I mean, there's the numerous instances of Ted Cruz and others misrepresenting basic science to ensure that it looks worthless and silly, to justify reductions in spending for basic science.

But, they're heavy into jingoism, which big things like physics discoveries and moon landings do quite well.

If there's no money in what you're doing, switch gears and do something else.

Clad posted...

If there's no money in what you're doing, switch gears and do something else.

Are you suggesting that only things that have direct monetary reward are valuable?
---

COVxy posted...

http://www.nature.com/news/survey-reveals-basic-research-in-canada-is-falling-by-the-wayside-1.22224

This is specifically in Canada, but this general phenomenon seems to be true in the US from my experience. Funding for basic science is in the crapper, applied science and engineering fairing much better.

We are turning from Ionians to Latins.
---

SGT_Conti posted...

E32005 posted...

whats considered basic science?

From my understanding, it's the foundation of science like how cells would work and such. Things that provide knowledge but don't have much practical use. Applied science would be taking that knowledge and creating a medical treatment with it.

Ty
---

COVxy posted...

Clad posted...

If there's no money in what you're doing, switch gears and do something else.

Are you suggesting that only things that have direct monetary reward are valuable?

When you work, you need to get paid. If you don't get paid enough, find something else. If money isn't a problem for you, then I don't understand why you're complaining.

Clad posted...

When you work, you need to get paid. If you don't get paid enough, find something else. If money isn't a problem for you, then I don't understand why you're complaining.

I mean, the point of grants usually isn't to take a salary (although it can fund salaries of graduate students and post-docs) but to pay for the scientific experiments themselves...
---

COVxy posted...

Clad posted...

When you work, you need to get paid. If you don't get paid enough, find something else. If money isn't a problem for you, then I don't understand why you're complaining.

I mean, the point of grants usually isn't to take a salary (although it can fund salaries of graduate students and post-docs) but to pay for the scientific experiments themselves...

I don't see how this changes what I said.

E32005 posted...

SGT_Conti posted...

E32005 posted...

whats considered basic science?

From my understanding, it's the foundation of science like how cells would work and such. Things that provide knowledge but don't have much practical use. Applied science would be taking that knowledge and creating a medical treatment with it.

Ty

"Applied science" is just an alternative word for engineering.

Science is about testing / experimentation / validating hypotheses.

Engineering is about using the knowledge gained from science to accomplish some task.
---

Clad posted...

I don't see how this changes what I said.

Because the fundamental issue isn't that scientists aren't getting paid or even that they aren't getting grants (though that's a different issue, the general level of funding), but that these grants aren't funding basic research.
---

Funding still needs to be given to research in quantum physics. There is so little we still understand about quantum mechanics, but the knowledge we do have has the potential to transform the entire world as we know it.

COVxy posted...

Clad posted...

I don't see how this changes what I said.

Because the fundamental issue isn't that scientists aren't getting paid or even that they aren't getting grants (though that's a different issue, the general level of funding), but that these grants aren't funding basic research.

Yep. There was the same issue years ago when there was a shortage of GPs / Primary Care because everyone went into specialized fields for money.

I haven't heard if there was ever a resolution for that.
---

Annihilated posted...

Funding still needs to be given to research in quantum physics. There is so little we still understand about quantum mechanics, but the knowledge we do have has the potential to transform the entire world as we know it.

source?

COVxy posted...

I mean, the point of grants usually isn't to take a salary (although it can fund salaries of graduate students and post-docs) but to pay for the scientific experiments themselves...

at least in practice i found that usually each new grant actually paid for the previous research project, and the work it funded didn't begin until another new grant started

but maybe that's why my adviser didnt get tenure
---

SerperiorThanU posted...

COVxy posted...

Last bump, since I think it's an important issue for everyone to think about.

You know what CE does with actual important issues

Use them as bait?
---

Darkman124 posted...

at least in practice i found that usually each new grant actually paid for the previous research project, and the work it funded didn't begin until another new grant started

but maybe that's why my adviser didnt get tenure

Well, the way that big labs get a leg up on grant applications is that they usually appropriate funds from other grants to run the project up until very close to completion, and then have extensive "preliminary" data, such that the granting agency knows that there's pretty much no risk involved in funding the project. This is one of the contributors to why funding stagnates within well funded labs. Sounds similar, though a bit backwards.
---