Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Poll: US Taxpayers Want More Funding for Scientific Research
arstechnica.com — Substantial majorities of US voters not only favor solving major issues through scientific research, but they appear to be willing to spend money on doing so.
jaybol- 900 diggs
- digg it
- yellowcakewalk, on 07/03/2008, -24/+2More $$$ for science here on Earth, especially the hard work of sytematics and taxonomy. Space exploration is "cool", but has a very poor return for the money ( Lockheed-Martin and the other war profiteers love NASA ).
- DreadPirate, on 07/03/2008, -0/+14Funny, you love NASA when they post climate figures that agree with your beliefs, but any other time you want all funding pulled from them. Hypocritical much?
- Shogi, on 07/03/2008, -1/+15Sorry to burst your bubble but space is an evolutionary imperative for us. And the sooner we accept this, the better we'll be. Not my first choice for a quote, but Agent Smith in The Matrix said it best: "You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area."
At our rate of expansion, we are going to run into some serious overpopulation issues within the next couple centuries. On top of that we are slowly but surely wrecking this planet. I'm not talking about global warming, I'm talking about pollution, waste, war, etc. If we don't eventually get off this planet we are toast. And we can't just wait for space to happen to us. This isn't boating or flying where a couple of guys can experiment in their bike shop and magic happens. We have to make a concerted effort to get there together.
Even in the short term, space exploration can do things for us here and now. The more we view and explore space, the better we understand it and the principles that hold it and us together, allowing us to make advances in other areas.
Anyone arguing against space exploration is a short-sighted penny-pincher. And what the hell has NASA ever had to do with any war aside from the Cold War? - starmanjones, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1space sciences are the only sciences that can ensure our survival. there is free energy easily gathered and free resources... lifeless and going to waste while we wreck the only planet we know of that evolved life. you are chasing a dead end.
its not just a case of two factions in science both right. what you are suggesting requires new technologies and social engineering. what we suggest uses technologies that we know... and turn the problems of poverty and resources and energy into logistical solutions.
"we underestimated the number of people..."
ok lets go get some more raw materials and energy and make some more.
need food. grow it out of the weather in an enriched pest free environment on orbit and drop it where its needed.
energy... more [whatever works best there are dozens of known solutions.] solar panels.
resources... snatch that rock.
water? kuiper belt. if we want to be efficient... use the ice as reaction mass... propellent and put it on a trajectory that we can catch somewhere else its needed. mars?
we have the answers. the only answers that are lock.
- DonWigler, on 07/03/2008, -18/+20I fund scientific research every time I buy a product or service voluntarily, no government bureaucrats required.
- Spudster, on 07/03/2008, -7/+13Okaaay Ron Paul...
- EarlOfLade, on 07/03/2008, -3/+11Really?
What have you bought lately that funded research into quarks and leptons? How about into AIDS? Or in alternative fuel sources?
I understand that the American right need to spew absurdities in the absence of real arguments, but really...- scamper22, on 07/03/2008, -5/+1I paid my expensive tuition which gives professors the funds to do their research. I also bought a blackberry, whose founder is a big giver towards scientific research.
AIDS...don't get me started. My laptop came with Windows :P Bill gates gave millions to aids research.
Alternative fuels... well the market seems to be handling that just fine. Gas prce go up... plugin hybrids by 2010. Google invests in nano solar. - cesig, on 07/03/2008, -2/+7So scamper22, basically you're doing nothing because you assume other people will do it for you?
That's even worse than saying you intentionally don't donate. - oldman, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5Seriously, you want to claim that the profits one gets from your purchasing his product is somehow a support for his efforts? Then of course you are willing to take responsibility for the thousands who died in Indonesia because of Union carbide? or maybe you will own up to your responsibility for the Love Canal? The Berkeley Pit?
And as far as the market taking care of problems, Give me a break. We've known for a century or two that oil was going to run out and the market gives us Hummers, so you don't feel bad about having no discernible penis.
And let's be sure we keep government out of the boardrooms so that businesses can continue to do whatever they want with impunity. Spy on you, Hey tough beans. How about Enron think anyone will see a dime of their money back how about even a fine for their gross and malicious scams of their customers. - spongya77, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2oldman
Well said. Working in research it is shameful how little money is spent on doing constructive things. Your average professor is sitting in his/her office, and does nothing but writes grants and papers to get funded. - mllawso, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Yeah, and how much of that tuition is going to research? The physics lab at my school has 10 year old computers and instruments from the 60's.
Do you remember that digg article about laser-based body imaging? Our setup was a fishtank filled with coffee creamer and a laser from 1982 (The photoarray was new though: 1998) - LeeSoong, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1How many products do you need
that operate on Quarks ?
The only fuel you need is wind and solar - proven technologies are available since the 1970s:
http://www.homepower.com/home/
The fact that the USA could have been converted to a fully solar / wind / water / geo powered nation for less than the cost of the Iraq occupation - now your talking priorities...
- scamper22, on 07/03/2008, -5/+1I paid my expensive tuition which gives professors the funds to do their research. I also bought a blackberry, whose founder is a big giver towards scientific research.
- MammasMilk, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2when you buy what, M&M's, hair clippers, a gallon of milk, edible underwear? Name some examples, otherwise you're closing that avenue of conversation.
- SpinningHead, on 07/03/2008, -2/+5Even the drug companies get the bulk of research funding through the government. When you buy their products they pay for those evil advertisements telling you to doctor shop so you can get a prescription.
"Having a bad day? Try Morphine." - starmanjones, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1>I fund scientific research every time I
>buy a product or service voluntarily, no
>government bureaucrats required.
i keep hearing that crap. its never happened. no nasa no space program. no space program no humans.
so then... if business does it all and i fund with my dollars a vaccine... i don't want to give it to you. screw you and your children.
if the stream dries up and you have no water... because the town up the way is watering their lawns... do you go shoot them? take the water? or maybe the better way is the corp of engineers builds a damn. oh right you'd rather do without water.
its dumb. its the polar opposite of communism and no more practical. actually i think the commies might be better than social darwinists because a group can do more than an individual any day of any week. they could pull something together while you are loading your rifle and taking it from your neighbor.
- Zarokima, on 07/03/2008, -1/+8Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/54/
- Shogi, on 07/03/2008, -4/+11Scientific research is a must in this era. Nanotechnology, stem cells, alternative energy, vertical farms, quantum technology, disease curing and prevention. Each and every one of those fields could individually change the way we live our lives for the better. We could solve the food crisis, the energy crisis, cure cancer and STDs, clean up the environment, and finally provide a solution to poor and homelessness. Scientific funding is CRUCIAL to every man, woman, and child, born and unborn. Choosing not to fund science is absurd.
We would not be where we are today without science, and if we don't fund it, it stagnates and goes no where. Yes there are other issues requiring our attention and taxes, but that does not mean in the least that we should skimp on science, not when it has such promise and potential to do so much good. No way in hell.- JonGalt, on 07/03/2008, -5/+1Science is here regarless of whether or not we wish it to be fool. L2notbretard.
- sleepyjjk, on 07/03/2008, -6/+1"It's really clear to me from the poll that public policy decisions need to be based on science," she said, "that's what the public thinks." Shawn Otto, from Science Debate 2008 went further, suggesting that a preference for scientific solutions to issues have become, "an important part of the American psyche and the American way of life."
Although I wish this was true to a great degree, I simply don't think it is. Yes, the article states later that people aren't sure whether or not they want to use taxes to fund this research, but even so, if what she said was true it would be reflected more in public policy and the public's mindset.
For me, the article's title was very refreshing, and I really do hope it's true, but I fear it isn't. Please prove me wrong America.
Anyway, on a side note: not only should we be funding more research, but we should also fund science education more. No, I don't mean education for children or even college kids, but for the general public. There should be better ways to educate the general public about current theories in science and also what's in store for the future for science. I think America needs to develop a much better way of that dispersing knowledge that might not be known to the public. Subjects like astronomy, physics, biology, or chemistry can easily be made interesting and enlightening to anyone - but it must be done in an interesting way. (Basically I'm saying we should have something similar to Britian's bbc) - dweeb79, on 07/03/2008, -5/+15I think NASA needs more money because the technology they develop is key to our country's success.
- JonGalt, on 07/03/2008, -14/+3Like what? What have they developed....Your a ***** moron.
They have not invented ANYTHING. They have spent roughly 500billion dollars and the closest thing they came to "inventing" was government waste.
here go here and tell me how many of these things they actually invented? Look them up before you start telling me because you may feel foolish...
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
nasa = waste of money.
Did you know private companies offer to send satellites into space for about 20 million Dollars but NASA (at a MASSIVE LOSS will step in and offer to do it for 2 million?) That loss being YOUR tax money.
I think NASA need no money because the technology they didn't develop and didn't invent is going to be used by private industry and individuals will decide if its key to our countries success.
BTW, did you just copy and paste that from some ***** presidents speech?- Fallenshadow, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4your a very simple guy aren't you? the return on investment in NASA goes far beyond tangible product. Information, knowledge, understanding of our planet and universe, these are all products directly attributed to the efforts of NASA. You are a ***** moron.
- dweeb79, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3"U.S. businesses can take advantage of a vast pool of NASA-developed technology resources to find solutions to technical problems. Through a program known as Technology Transfer, NASA technology can be adapted, at little or no cost, to meet a particular need -- saving your company valuable time and money. Applications for NASA technology are widespread, from building prototypes of new production items to nondestructive testing of an existing component."
http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/techopps.html
Yeah completely useless...... - nwoantibody, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1You're tripping, read Dark Mission: The Secret History of Nasa;
maybe one day, for one day, you won't be a sheep.
- JonGalt, on 07/03/2008, -14/+3Like what? What have they developed....Your a ***** moron.
- zyl0x, on 07/03/2008, -6/+4When was the last time the majority control the country?
- datastorageguy, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1The last presidential election? The last congressional election?
- JoeVet, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1Those elections are not based on a majority vote. If they were Bush would never would have been elected.
- datastorageguy, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1The last presidential election? The last congressional election?
- Spudster, on 07/03/2008, -7/+12God help us that we spend government money to increase our knowledge of the world! The Ron Pauler's won't like this...
- JonGalt, on 07/03/2008, -7/+61.) I support Ron Paul.
2.) No I don't like the government spending my money on things not related to
a.)Protecting my individual rights as written in the constitution.
b.)Providing for the common defense.
c.)Providing for a strong justice system.
d.)I realize that may sound redundant but its what needs to be said.
3.)The government doesn't expand my knowledge of the world. It just expands the amount I'm REQUIRED to pay as opposed to private individuals (please see all major scientific advancements in the past 1 million years) uncovering the hidden mysteries of the natural world.
I realize this is hard for a democratic socialist or a republican theocrat to understand. But not all of us need to be told what to understand. We do it just fine on our own. - thorseth, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Here are different scientific breakthroughs and the government who funded them:
GPS (US)
CERN (+www) (European governments)
Internet (US)
Apollo program (US)
Manhattan project (US)
Quantum mechanics (DK, DE + others)
Planetary orbits : Johannes Kepler (HU) Tycho Brahe (DK)
Science as we know it : Galileo Galilei (Republic of Venice)
And so on and so forth...
What some seem to miss is the there are some projects that are so grand and so daring that no private entity will ever embark upon it. Show me one private company/person that would have funded development in quantum mechanics as a investment with a return expected in that persons lifetime...?
- JonGalt, on 07/03/2008, -7/+61.) I support Ron Paul.
- wwwdot1jesdotus, on 07/03/2008, -11/+10I don't get it. If people want more funding for scientific research, they are more than welcome to send in a little extra at tax time. As for me, I'll keep my hard earned cash, thank you.
- Brian48216, on 07/03/2008, -3/+7awesome! That means when you get cancer we won't have to treat you!
- JonGalt, on 07/03/2008, -6/+4what does that even mean? Last i checked we didnt have unviversal FAIL care so im pretty sure that wouldnt apply.
- Fallenshadow, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5He wasn't referring to the health care, he was referring to the cancer research backed by government grants.
- egpaterson, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1That also means get your ass off the Internet, since its development was funded by the US govt.
- Brian48216, on 07/03/2008, -3/+7awesome! That means when you get cancer we won't have to treat you!
- datastorageguy, on 07/03/2008, -4/+11Is there any way for my taxes to go to a government program that is dedicated to lowering my taxes?
- JonGalt, on 07/03/2008, -9/+7That's funny, I pay taxes and I don't? Id like to hop on Datastorageguys program. Good idea. I'm pretty sure id rather have private companies doing all that and making huge profits and actual advancements. One company knows where to spend 1 dollar better than the government knows where to spend 1 million making advanced shoe polish.
Government scientific funding = no end in sight for global warming myth.
Why do you think so many studies are done on the *****, it just helps fund their real projects.
Its kinda like when you give the church money to "teach" seat belt safety. they just have that much more money to put into shouting about how great Allah is to everyone that doesn't want to hear about it.- wwwdot1jesdotus, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Give a church money to teach seatbelt safety? WTH?
- JonGalt, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2Please see Faith based initiative. Im not just making this ***** up. Its *****.
- wwwdot1jesdotus, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Give a church money to teach seatbelt safety? WTH?
- mirot, on 07/03/2008, -6/+5Why are they asking the government to fund this, its the taxpayers that end up paying for it...
so instead of imposing your beliefs on others through tax... donate!- Ramble, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7Because donations are not enough for important scientific grants. People will not donate to a long term benefit, they want short term results now.
- mirot, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3So you agree that you represent a minority, and therefore need a not-so limited government to impose what you believe is right on people who dont give a *****.
Do all you Ron Paul lovers forget that he was all about limited government and letting people do what they want with their money?
The government is an inefficient piece of *****.. it will never distribute its tax revenue as well as individuals could. - eir574, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7@mirot
Are you confirming that you are satisfied with the current state of health care and will never take advantage of improvements made through government funding of research? Again, will you forgo your flu vaccine in the event of a pandemic?
Funding of long term scientific research is one of those things that the private sector isn't always equipped to do. Industry wants to work on things that are likely to lead to marketable products in the short term. The basic research that gets us to the point where industry could potentially take over needs other sources of funding. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute is a great source of private funding, but they can't cover all of our needs.
I've worked in labs that have gotten some funding from donations. It tends to be enough to buy a computer here or there and maybe to cover some other incidental expenses. It's not enough to get vital projects off the ground. - Ramble, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5Maintaining an army may be fighting for something you don't believe in, that's another thing that's imposed on me.
- lydecker, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5"So you agree that you represent a minority"
Doesn't the article summary clearly state it a substantial majority? What am I missing?
- mirot, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3So you agree that you represent a minority, and therefore need a not-so limited government to impose what you believe is right on people who dont give a *****.
- eir574, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7Federal funding for research that will improve health care is 'imposing your beliefs on others?' If a flu pandemic hits us, will you forgo your vaccination in protest?
- Squidwalk, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5You can say the same thing about government support of faith-based programs. Here's a poorly-titled Digg article about Obama supporting said government support:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_to_expand_ ...
Now I'm not a fan of spending tax dollars on religious causes I don't agree with. But I won't pretend that I have the economic skill to distribute the huge mass of tax money the US brings in every year. I'm just happy if some of the causes I believe in, such as affordable health care advances, get some funding.
Lets all not forget that no matter how much funding out pet causes get, the war usually gets a greater chunk daily.
- Ramble, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7Because donations are not enough for important scientific grants. People will not donate to a long term benefit, they want short term results now.
- maximumrebel1, on 07/03/2008, -5/+4I think the majority of taxpayers would rather not be.
- Brownds, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1As long as it is worth while research like finding a cure for AIDS and not the mating habits of the African booboo dooky bird or some ***** like that. And you have to show progress to continue to get funding. I am sure there are plenty of government funded programs "researching" to find a cure for "X" that are milking our tax dollars with no results to show.
- Sairynn, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2What if the mating habits of the African booboo dooky bird help us understand the cure for AIDS?
- Brownds, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1What if just giving me large sums of tax dollars to spend on hookers and Beer does the same?
- Sairynn, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2What if the mating habits of the African booboo dooky bird help us understand the cure for AIDS?
- fnordy, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5Almost all of the major technological breakthroughs that we have came from Basic Research, more often funded by Government money than not. If it wasn't for public money into research, we wouldn't be using this system right now, as the internet itself is a spin-off of Basic Research. Virtually all of the technology that we are using right now to hold this conversation comes directly from Basic Research. If that is not a good reason to fund it, I don't know what is?
ttyl
Farrell- MacEnvy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Dearest Farrell,
While I agree with your sentiment, Digg is not a diary. No need to sign your name.
Love and Kisses,
Mac
- MacEnvy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Dearest Farrell,
- ProUSADigger, on 07/03/2008, -4/+0If we're going to get things like "Global Warming", "Ozone hole", "North Pole melts this summer",
" 1970's ice age", "Worst hurricane season ever", and the hundreds of other ridiculously incorrect
results from their "research", I think I will keep my money, thanks.- mlrigsby, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5I agree. I hate it when research into the real world conflicts with my preconceived notions and opinions. I was getting along just fine before, thanks.
- scoottie, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1would be better if they stopped paying farmers not to grow crops and put that money into developing high speed internet like what they have in Japan
- tyshro, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3ProUSA Digger: there is a difference between press coverage of science and scientific research into an area.
But what I really wanted to point out is that investment in research is relatively cheap compared to say, fighting a war or providing health benefits to veterans. $50 to $60 billion per year. A few billion dollars a year funds the NSF - $6.9 billion if the projected 12.5% increase for 2009 happens. NIH, the largest research organization outside the military, gets about $30 billion (not all of which is for research), and there are a few agencies that get $1-5 billion for research. The entire non-emergency 2009 US budget is $1.01 trillion; the US gov spends roughly $3 trillion if you add the war.
check http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/prev09p.htm for more info. - gthrank, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3In current day America, scientific research is just not The American Way. It's prayer and ideology that steers this country today.
The consequences are becoming plain to see as our economy and security sink further into a hole. - rxbudian, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2US Taxpayers want more funding for research but don't want to have their kids have a higher standards at school for fear they get bad grades... that's kind of contradictory. What is happening is that foreign students that studied harder gets all the benefits from the increase in funding, therefore they get hired for positions that the american kids can't qualify, which increases migration, that americans don't really want.
- kufurex, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2I wish I could pick where my tax money was spent. ALL of it would go to NASA and scientific research, instead of what it is spent on now, which is the highly necessary research of how moronic politics and war impact the US economy.
- vman51, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Basic Scientific Research is what will drive this country into economic success in the near future/future. We need to invest properly now!
- Barackalypse, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I wish these voters were as gung ho about following the Constitution as they are about spending money unConstitutionally.
- randumbusername, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1fine. it's not like taxpayer money isn't being throw in every direction anyway.
how about a new poll. i bet 100 percent have no idea where the money paid on taxes goes.
damn makes me want to be a politician with such a gullible public. one of my future goals is figuring out how i can feed at the public trough. if you can't beat the system might as well join it.
call me evil but go halliburton, go vestas, go first solar, go archer daniels. exploit the ***** out the government and make me some money. anybody got any company names that will benefit from the next big form of waste: universal healthcare?
hell go novell, redhat, sun. i just read india is about to pay up for linux. make me money dammit.
go nalco, go cleanharbors, go boing, go northrup. oink oink
- irb0b0, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1now if you can only imagine what kinda research we could've come up with from that stupid war fund. Good luck affording anything after that... your dollar will just be getting worse, oh sure you'll get more of them... but what good is that if they are worth jack?
- phreak79, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1It's funny, this is good news but the first thing that popped into my head was the Simpsons episode with the bear tax, where they wanted the bear problem sorted, but didn't want to pay for it, and ended up blaming immigrants for the increased taxation.
- Scheissen, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1Why don't they give up their money then. ***** hypocrites.
- kkDonut, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1I'm 100% for more NASA funding, but how can you (digg) be so hypocritical?
Obama plans to cut NASA's budget in half, down to 250 million annually.
(still some .8% of total gov spending) - JoeVet, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1All these people bitching on the internet about government funded research.....the irony is amazing.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by