digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Stephen Hawking confronts UK government over science budget

timesonline.co.uk — Britain's most famous scientist, Stephen Hawking, has accused the government of making “disastrous” cuts to research funding that threaten the country’s international standing. The leading physicist also reveals he turned down knighthood several times

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ligyron, on 06/16/2008, -74/+114He only turned down knighthood because he can't ride a horse. Bury is the red thumbs-down button to the right
    • PinkChicken, on 06/16/2008, -9/+16I cannot bury someone when they make me laugh that loud.
    • X9001, on 06/16/2008, -5/+31Thanks for reminding me, sometimes I have trouble finding it
    • Fludd777, on 06/16/2008, -26/+6Found it... *****.
    • MikeWanDo, on 06/16/2008, -4/+9Wait... Isn't that my left?
      • mrkmrk, on 06/16/2008, -5/+2It's to the right of the comment itself, and also to your right unless your screen is way off-center.
    • skcoder, on 06/16/2008, -0/+24Just wait until he creates his own robotic limbs and robotic horse that spits fire upon those who make fun of cripples. Then we'll see who gets the last laugh.
    • OwdenBowden, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Stephen Hawking taking of the US well all I can say to that is: http://www.rosswalker.co.uk/tv_sounds/sounds_files ...
  • PinkChicken, on 06/16/2008, -17/+7Britain's most famous scientist? That's a touch of an understatement.
    • JakeyG14, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5No...it isn't. He's a scientist, he's from Britain, and he's Britain most famous scientist; looks like your basic run of the mill statement to me.

      There are, however, other well known British scientists but none more so than Prof. Hawking.
      • PinkChicken, on 06/16/2008, -4/+2He's the most famous scientist in the world, not just Britain...
        Dummy
      • AROZ, on 06/16/2008, -2/+1Most famous of all time? I definitely count Darwin as a scientist.
        • sabach, on 06/16/2008, -1/+3The most famous scientist of all time is Einstein. If you sat down a random group of non-scientists and showed them pictures of all those mentioned in this thread, the one they'd recognize would be Einstein.
      • galeninjapan, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2Dawin?? That's LOL-worthy try Isaac Newton
        • AROZ, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Darwin changed our conception of the world and human nature radically. True, I forgot about where Newton came from. All in all he deserves the title, but Darwin ranks very high as well.
        • galeninjapan, on 06/16/2008, -4/+3Physics > Biology

        • AugustusOsari, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Biology is just an extension of physics. It's foolish to say either one is better.
        • Ramble, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Not really. Cell biology could be thought of as just more physics but there's a lot of stuff in biology you're going to find hard to explain with physics.
    • JettaMan, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2Wouldn't Sir Isaac Newton be Britain's most famous scientist? He's the father of all scientists.
    • Incomp3tnt, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1He doesn't like you. I don't like you either.
      "I'll be careful..."
      You'll be dead!
  • mecharabbit, on 06/16/2008, -12/+120Stephen Hawking is British? How come his computer voice thingy doesn't have a British accent?
    • flyguyjm, on 06/16/2008, -1/+64It was made by a US company
    • cloak419, on 06/16/2008, -2/+14BADUM CHA!
    • BlueSkyfish, on 06/16/2008, -1/+55He says he prefers the American accent because its better with the ladies. He also doesn't want to get a better system because that voice has become kind of an icon for him,
      • lamiaconfitor, on 06/16/2008, -0/+22He even uses a more clunky and awkward computer because of it. Which I find strange, but hey, if he wasn't eccentric, he wouldn't be a real genius.
      • mecharabbit, on 06/16/2008, -1/+30Oh, come on. He should get one that sounds like Sean Connery. He'd get more tail than he'd know what to do with.
        • Daggity, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
        • DroogInPhoenix, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5I saw a GPS system that you could choose different voices like Mr. T. I pitty the foo.
        • sittered, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5Don't underestimate Hawking's mind. He'll use permutations and know exactly what to do with every known instance of tail.
    • cheesehead, on 06/16/2008, -8/+2You ***** are mean. Please stop it I'm dying!! Laughing, and I hate myself, Oh hah hah, No ho ho
    • Sixxer, on 06/16/2008, -2/+1He has always said he wanted a British voice. I don't think the device uses supports it.
    • digitalpencil, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5'born in Kent, speaks with an American accent.. pretentious'
  • i4mt3hwin, on 06/16/2008, -16/+3It's quiet in here... can you hear the echo?
  • caltheos, on 06/16/2008, -7/+101“Professor Hawking does not like titles. In fact he dislikes the whole concept of them,” said a spokesman.

    Isn't Professor a title?
    • SLockhart, on 06/16/2008, -16/+11No it's a job.
      • clarient, on 06/16/2008, -5/+13Teaching is a job. But not every teacher is a professor. It is most certainly a title.
        • kh99, on 06/16/2008, -1/+4But it's a job title. That's not what he's refering to when he says he doesn't like the concept.
        • AChopra, on 06/16/2008, -3/+0Uh... can I be male Prostitute Chopes then?
      • julianrod, on 06/16/2008, -2/+8The teacher teaches. The professor professes.
    • Greengoo, on 06/16/2008, -3/+34Professor Hawking also was quoted as saying he, "pities the foo who don't fund da sciences."
    • facelesscoward, on 06/16/2008, -1/+4Already, he knew he wouldn’t be able to do it. In fact, he KNEW he wouldn’t.

      What does the "whole concept of [titles]" encompass that titles doesn't?
  • grungegbunny, on 06/16/2008, -7/+11Hawking rants on something else.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-19YunvV0eo
  • mrpleco, on 06/16/2008, -3/+29Stephen Hawking is my hero.
  • Puppetfunk, on 06/16/2008, -4/+92Stephen Hawking. That man is the true meaning of bad-ass. Chuck Norris holds no candle to The Hawk.
    • mastazed, on 06/16/2008, -3/+67Stephen Hawking has two speeds, reverse and kill
    • Audacitor, on 06/16/2008, -1/+9Stephen Hawking has two voices, DECtalk DTC01 and voice-of-god.
    • KiSA, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4Oh God... Please don't tell me this is the beginning of Hawking getting the same internet viral treatment as Norris did; I actually respect Stephen Hawking.
    • Drazzim12, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4Well I've read that following a nuclear holocaust only cockroaches and Stephen Hawking will survive.
  • atlquaker, on 06/16/2008, -3/+71Britain cut their science budget? Wait, is Bush running England too?
    • slightlygifted, on 06/16/2008, -6/+10obama's the one wanting to cut the nasa budget.
      • sardion2000, on 06/16/2008, -19/+3And just what is NASA doing lately hmm?
        • skidzilla, on 06/16/2008, -1/+23Being awesome by Landing Probes on Mars.
        • wiredDeath, on 06/16/2008, -0/+9Building a whole new generation of space craft to put a human on the moon.
    • Skooma714, on 06/16/2008, -1/+6He was until recently.
    • JettaMan, on 06/16/2008, -12/+6Socialist countries that try to have science budgets usually fail miserably in the long term. It's much better to build up privately funded science institutions like MIT, Carnegie Mellon, etc... They do it much more efficiently and they aren't as hamstrung by bureaucracy and regulations.
      • waydee, on 06/16/2008, -6/+7Yeah, no.
      • plingboot, on 06/16/2008, -0/+9Oh come on.
        The UK has plenty of private research institutions and
        the UK, home of the Industrial Revolution / capitalism & Adam Smith ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_theory_of_ ... ) and free market Thatcherism, certainly isn't socialist! They might well have tax funded schools, welfare, health, prisons, research etc. but that's considered the norm for all civilized g8 nations... isn't it?


        • JettaMan, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1You guys don't understand private property rights. I've heard that even though you own your property, you can't even do what you want with it! Want to paint your house blue? Go crawling to the local bureaucrat and see if he will let you. Want to build a new house? Again, they have to make sure it fits into the neighborhood with some weird conformity laws you have. It's ridiculous.
        • ukblacknight, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2@JettaMan

          They're called planning laws. Your country will have them too. They're there to prevent jonny ***** building a huge skyscraper in an area that is unsuitable (the local water, electric, roads etc wouldn't be able to support it etc). Your example about painting your house blue might be only a localised rule in certain areas.

          Our property rights take into consideration others around, and also if the local infrastructure can cope with the requested change.

          Don't be so naive.
      • ezcheezbandit, on 06/16/2008, -7/+3soooo, who was in space first?
        • ukblacknight, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5The Russians.
        • JettaMan, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1The Germans. The Soviets abducted them and theri technology after the war. The U.S. also used them and paid them well.
        • ezcheezbandit, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1why did i get dug down i was saying americans were NOT the first in space.
      • roodammy44, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5No, it's better that there's a mix of privately funded and socially funded institutions.
        Otherwise if it was just private the only advances we would get would be in the field of whatever sells the most at the moment.
        NASA is a socially funded institution remember, and a lot of those institutions you gave as examples receive a great deal of public money.
        • JettaMan, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Yes, but education and research sells. That's why your Standfords and Princetons are the premier research institutions. And, even better, the research is usually much more practical in application. They actually benefit people, as opposed to researching Eskimo eating habits or something useless.
        • roodammy44, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1They're the premier research areas in america. Look up CERN (publicly funded).
          I agree they should exist, and they do benefit people, but private companies would never pony up billions of pounds to smash atoms apart or create a network of giant radio telescopes.
          Even the internet which we are using now has most of its components created by publicly funded scientists, although the copper lines that go to our houses were created by private companies.
    • atliberty2say, on 06/16/2008, -3/+4Bush would have to run 'Britain' to cut the 'British' budget, not England. Britain is not England. Even George Bush probably knows that by now.
      • bosssmiley, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4Britain = England + Celtic garnish
      • TCEuk, on 06/16/2008, -5/+2Actually it is technically correct to refer to the United Kingdom as England... the word England encompasses all of the states... QI turned me into a smart ass, i appologise!
        • Ramble, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3No, that's not correct.
        • FapCommander, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Buried for being stupid
        • atliberty2say, on 06/16/2008, -0/+0'Actually it is technically correct to refer to the United Kingdom as England'

          - Who mentioned the United Kingdom? Britain isn't the United Kingdom. There is no Prime Minster of the United Kingdom or England. Gordon Brown is the Prime Minster of Britain. I wouldn't claim smart ass status just yet.
      • Foamator, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2Lol, I saw that episode of QI last night (on Dave) and was thinking the exact same thing when I read that.
        ^_^
  • muniak, on 06/16/2008, -0/+9He's so badass.
  • nobelief, on 06/16/2008, -10/+3I can hear the echo
  • goddessophia, on 06/16/2008, -18/+6Speaking of funding let me dish out some more dirt on America's incredibly moronic president who's daddy's money got him into Yale.

    "In a no-child-left-behind conception of public education, lifting everyone up to a minimum level is more important than allowing students to excel to their limit. It has become more important for schools to identify deficiencies than to cultivate gifts. Odd though it seems for a law written and enacted during a Republican Administration, the social impulse behind No Child Left Behind is radically egalitarian. It has forced schools to deeply subsidize the education of the least gifted, and gifted programs have suffered. The year after the President signed the law in 2002, Illinois cut $16 million from gifted education; Michigan cut funding from $5 million to $500,000. Federal spending declined from $11.3 million in 2002 to $7.6 million this year."

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 ...


    From 5 million to $500,000... 1/10th left to HELP THE GIFTED... I guess Little Bush is under the assumption that everyones daddy can pay for an Ivy League education and that intelligence is irrelevant.

    TRAGIC... no wonder Americans are consumers first and then producers, maybe... if this continues we are going to become China's bitch!

    I don't hear America singing, does anyone know what I am talking about?
    • ligyron, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2>does anyone know what I am talking about?

      No, you're a woman
      • goddessophia, on 06/16/2008, -4/+1Yes, and that means you are stupid enough to follow me because you don't listen.
    • Hetman, on 06/16/2008, -1/+4Troll you could at least comment on an article that had something to do with america.
      • pintomp3, on 06/16/2008, -3/+1cutting of science budgets and falling behind on sciences seem to fall right in line with america lately.
  • MacroDaemon, on 06/16/2008, -1/+60The problem with insufficient science funding is present almost everywhere, since it's easy to cut funding to a field which does not maintain our immediate quality of life, but instead offers future benefits.
    This, in my opinion, is a key issue that requires far more attention than it's currently receiving.
    • manstein01, on 06/16/2008, -8/+1Yep, but cut social services and you're starving children to death.

      Seriously, every time a social program is cut like 1%, it is taking food out of children's mouths according to bleeding hearts.
    • pintomp3, on 06/16/2008, -0/+8some times research funding is political too. reagan didn't want to fund AIDS research because at the time it was thought to be a gay disease. the current administration doesn't want to fund embryonic stem cell research because it believes a zygote is a life. funny how they have no problem funding bombs and war though.
      • roodammy44, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2It's a less controversial thing to cut to get the votes of the religious people. :-(
  • Barackalypse, on 06/16/2008, -12/+1While I can't claim to have read Britain's constitution or charter or whatever founding document they have, I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that it doesn't actually authorize the government to spend money on science research. I bet it can only do the usual stuff like maintain an army and navy for defense, establish currency, establish a postal system of roads, levy duties to fund itself, etc.
    • dsmx, on 06/16/2008, -2/+3Britain doesn't have a written constitution and has no laws set in stone.
    • atchon, on 06/16/2008, -1/+0This part of our constitution has been changed by multiple supreme court rulings which now states that general welfare is broad and not part of the enumerated powers listed afterwards. As I assume you were trying to take a shot at the U.S. more. Ours also states "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
      In the bit of the constitution you are referring to for the U.S.

      If you weren't taking a shot at the U.S. funding as well my apologies.
      • Barackalypse, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Ahh yes, the general welfare clause. First, if they intended that to be a coverall for anything the government wanted to do, why did they bother defining the powers granted to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8? The answer comes from James Madison, they didn't "With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

        The Supreme Court rulings you speak of largely concern New Deal era expansion of government power, of which then Justice Roberts said in 1951 , "Looking back it is difficult to see how the Court could have resisted the popular urge ... an insistence by the Court on holding Federal power to what seemed its appropriate orbit when the Constitution was adopted might have resulted in even more radical changes to our dual structure than those which have gradually accomplished through the extension of limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal government.", which basically translates to "we saved the Court by sacrificing the Constitution".

        All fo which is to say, pretty much everything the government has done since about the 1930's has been unConstitutional.
  • Greengoo, on 06/16/2008, -12/+13The Mighty Stephen Hawking is a ***** Quake god,
    got my finger on the trigger and my eye on the quad.
    I know it's just a game, but I didn't come to play,
    the Hawkman cometh and he's bringing Doomsday.
    You say, "impressive", I already know it,
    I'm a hardcore player and I'm not afraid to show it.
    I got a Phd in pain and a masters in disaster,
    the mighty Stephen Hawking is a ***** QuakeMaster.
  • julianrod, on 06/16/2008, -2/+31"Professor Hawking does not like titles"
    brilliant
    • neotrantor, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1titles as in monarchy bestowed titles, not earned degrees.
  • Oztog, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Time for some synthesised Smack down
  • lamiaconfitor, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2Hey, lets do it! (coming from the US) Who is this Cox, and what gives him the gumption? sure... science does not stimulate the economy... if not, then what the hell does? Even the erroneous but popular comment that war does is actually based on the fact that the technologies developed to give one country an edge in a war is what is driving any correlated economic boom. Damn stupid government *****.
  • myhandleondigg, on 06/16/2008, -1/+4"reor-ganise"

    really?
  • stonewaljacksn, on 06/16/2008, -8/+3Shut up and donate money yourself and stop expecting the government to do everything. How about that? There's no difference between taking tax money from everyone or having people who really care about it donate themselves.
    • JimmySpaza, on 06/16/2008, -3/+7" There's no difference between taking tax money from everyone or having people who really care about it donate themselves."

      No, there is indeed a world of difference. One is economic slavery, the other is charity. If you don't know which is which, then you have no business in government or even voting for that matter.
    • onetimer, on 06/16/2008, -4/+10...And this, in my opinion, is where libertarianism fails to make the world a better place. As someone who has worked in a field that is doing research with a government grant, I can assure you that the free market cannot guarantee to fund research that is important. Without government funding, the only research that would be technology/medicine that is PROFITABLE in the SHORT term.

      I lean on the side of limited government spending, but scientific research is something that is too important for the future of humanity to cut funding for.
      • Rabbittt, on 06/16/2008, -3/+3That's a straw man.. Government funding of science and technology is completely within the bounds of a Libertarian government.. Read the Constitution.. It's just gotta be funded in the right way to be considered legit..
        • onetimer, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2Wrong. Libertarianism (like ron paul's brand) believes that it is not the job of the government to federally fund scientific research (meaning bye bye NIH), and that it should be left in the hands of the free market. In fact, you can only tell me this because you are using an internet that was developed under government funding (and just barely) after every company looked at the proposal and refused to pledge a cent.
      • bradspangler, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2You "can assure"? Like your status as a recipient of stolen (i.e. tax) money makes you some kind of expert at anything? You've just admitted to being a paid lackey of the ruling class, subsisting parasitically off the toil of the productive.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/16/2008, -2/+1No there IS no difference. Money is ***** money. Give me a break. In one situation the government steals it from people, some who don't give a ***** about the cause that it's funding, and in the other people who dont wanna fund it keep their money, and the people who do want to fund it DO IT THEMSELVES. As if tax money isn't practically charity anyway. wow.
      People are so stupid. Onetimer, you are wrong for thinking that your opinion of making the world a better place is the same as everyone else's, which is exactly why people should be able to keep their own damn money so they can fund causes THAT THEY DEEM USEFUL.
      Stop being a bunch of bitches and realize that these socialist pussy-citizen governments will be the downfall of humanity and the cause of the regular joe's enslavement.
      My bad, I just happen to have faith in the individual. It's too bad you don't, but go ahead and join the herd where everyone thinks the same.
      Stephen Hawking can ***** go to hell for crying to a mommy-state government for funding instead of pleading with the individual citizens. I don't care how smart he is.
  • cablegrafxart, on 06/16/2008, -3/+17social services? like the FOOD STAMPS my roommate uses, because she refuses to get a job and instead leeches on her friends, has yet to pay me rent or look for a job?

    welfare can kiss my butt. science, on the other hand, IS good for the community. New technology and ideas can inspire inquisitive youth. Government money can promote research that is not required to immediately return a profit... Take away gov't sci funding and we'll be left to rely on Large Corporations, where research is only driven by market forces.

    -matt
    • N256, on 06/16/2008, -0/+10Stop paying for her rent.

      -N256
    • Jeeum, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4Kick her out!
    • GunOfSod, on 06/16/2008, -4/+0I too am absolutely positive that all welfare beneficiaries are exactly the same as your flatmate. In exactly the way that I am sure that you are a totally judgemental prick.
  • camino262, on 06/16/2008, -0/+10Stephen Hawking is my hero.
  • AmonAmarth, on 06/16/2008, -0/+7Tell'em, Steve.
  • Starshope, on 06/16/2008, -0/+8That man is a comedic genius. Seriously listen to some of his speeches and lectures. Ive never heard better punch lines synthetic voice and all.
  • VegasKill, on 06/16/2008, -3/+4This calls for longcat
    • Skooma714, on 06/16/2008, -0/+9Stephen Hawking discovered the precise length of longcat.

      He calls it the Hawking length.
  • Skooma714, on 06/16/2008, -0/+19There is reason this man is still alive.

    He is still doing science and he's STILL ALIVE.
  • espoandy, on 06/16/2008, -1/+9When one of the smartest people in the world says ur ***** up, ur ***** up
  • LowFuel, on 06/16/2008, -1/+34E = MC Hawking.
  • gta3uzi, on 06/16/2008, -0/+6What can we say? The man knows numbers.
  • wingertank, on 06/16/2008, -15/+0Stephen Hawking is a douche. Thats about the only title that suits him like it or not.
  • Jamihabs, on 06/16/2008, -8/+1Apparently Stephan Hawking is not bright enough to understand socialism. The UK has to devote all of its resources to being a nanny state, and to help fund the anti-western Muslim subculture that will ultimately spell its demise (much like what the Democrats have planned for the US).
    • waydee, on 06/16/2008, -0/+6blah blah blah blah
    • breadfred, on 06/16/2008, -1/+4Obviously yo don't know what sociolism is either, otherwise you woul;d not be so afraid of it. Also, socio-democratic countries (like the UK) are doing pretty well. And instead of fear-mongering against foreigners with their strand food and weird habits we welcome them in our mids and learn from them.
  • FaithclubDotNet, on 06/16/2008, -0/+11Cutting science is so easy because you never see any tangible results from research. Sure you may cure diseases, discover warp travel, or whatever, but you can never tangibly say that the politician that funded you did it. Roads and bridges however, they can even be named after politicians.
    • Ramble, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3Bingo.
    • TheStrongForce, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3Well done. I will have to say this next time I get into a political debate and make some politicos look like assholes. Very insightful post.
  • tufftugg, on 06/16/2008, -1/+18 Just think, without technology from Science, Stephen Hawkins would be sitting in a corner somewhere. One of the greatest minds locked in a body, the opposite of conservatives with voices.
    • blackmesa, on 06/16/2008, -0/+6It's so unfair that people like Ann Coulter get a body and voice and someone like Stephen Hawking is crippled to the point that his work is severely impacted.

      If only he invented some kind of disability swapping machine....
      • bosssmiley, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3How about we swap Hawkings brain into Coulter's body? That would be good for a laugh.

        I'll get my toolkit...
  • Mohdoo, on 06/16/2008, -0/+10I do not see how it is so hard to understand the importance of Scientific research. It is an investment. It helps later. It profits. So many people invest in the stock market, yet seem completely unable to comprehend this basic concept...
  • alexkball, on 06/16/2008, -11/+1science is stupid.
    • breadfred, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5Go back to your cave. Give everything up for a week relating to science. Se how long you last. No tv-dinners. No bed. No computer. No water on tap/ from bottle. See ya!
  • DroogInPhoenix, on 06/16/2008, -0/+9From a spot in STTNG to voicing his head in Futurama, it's nice to see he's not some stuffy *****.
    • chadu, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2read A Brief History of Time, you'll see what a wit and sense of humor he has indeed.
  • wush, on 06/16/2008, -8/+1lolwheelchair, lolsynthesizedvoice
  • ButchersBoy, on 06/16/2008, -0/+7We prefer to spend our money on NHS tourists.
  • Tombo44, on 06/16/2008, -6/+0Stephen Who?
  • sap959, on 06/16/2008, -3/+2lol i bet when he rants on they just turn his volume down
  • uberduger, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1Yeah, they've asked to knight me a few times as well. Honestly. I just... erm.... turned them down.
    (Phew, nice one Steve, they bought it. Hey, wait, is this thing on?)
  • Austerist, on 06/16/2008, -5/+0Do we really want the government and science community to get together? Politicized Science isn't exactly my idea of a good thing.
    • TheStrongForce, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1It sucks but you need it in order to do the "big science" that began in the fifties.
      • Austerist, on 06/16/2008, -2/+1What exactly is "big science"? Missiles and nuclear weapons?
        • TheStrongForce, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Big Science is just a term given to science that isn't affordable by an individual or a group of individuals. You used to be able to do research in your own "home laboratory", but now it is too expensive.

          Mike Faraday in his personal Victorian Laboratory:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M_Faraday_Lab_H ...

          But now, all the small things have been discovered and it takes a bigger and bigger amount of money to fund big machines that do "big science."

          People in Comparison to the LHC:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Construction_of ...

          Someone inside a chamber where 192 lasers will collide:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NIF_target_cham ...


          It is quite literally big and requires external funding. Government usually gives a lot of it.

          Here's the wikipedia info on big science:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_science
        • Austerist, on 06/16/2008, -1/+0Basically it's science that is so useless to people that the government needs to fund it?
        • sk11, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Re: Austerist
          Ignorant people once felt the same way about electricity. Who knows where current research will lead, or what spin off technologies will emerge? Do you have some crystal ball that let's you know the future? Better understanding science will help us to develop new technologies, which could very well be useful.
      • TheStrongForce, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Some of it is, to people who have no urge to understand it all. I work at a big science facility which has a Neutron Source. We use it to probe thin magnetic films. Once we understand them, we make you a better hard drive. The government had to invest in the neutron source, but they get hard drives out of it.

        Other big science projects will make it so you can have energy for practically free, and avoid high gas prices.

        You don't have to understand it all, just don't be ignorant about it.
  • CataKlysmiC, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.nsf/hnames-nf/ ...
    lol my mistake..
  • l815, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2He's the man! It doesn't take a genius to figure cutting fund out of scientific research will harm us short and long term. But it does take a genius with courage to make it apparent to hard headed money bloated bastards.
  • parax, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3When our geniuses tell us where money should go, we should listen with rapt attention. I don't think we could even imagine where our world would be today if Tesla didn't have to struggle for every penny he needed to do his research. It's unfortunate that whenever the world has geniuses, we ignore them until they're dead and then wonder "what if..." and wish they could have done more for us, but while they're alive we're unwilling to follow their suggestions.

    If Stephen Hawking says Britain needs a bigger budget for science programs, quit babbling and release the floodgates of cash!
  • amightywind, on 06/16/2008, -7/+2Sorry for the UK. Welfare payments to muslims seem to be a higher priority. Imagine the damage to science that an Obama administration would cause. 70's still impotence and corruption will make a return.
    • Ramble, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3I think most of our welfare money goes to chavs, not the Muslims (where there are only a tiny, tiny amount).
    • TheStrongForce, on 06/16/2008, -3/+1Obama will not damage science, McCain will. Obama has science policy, unlike McCain, listed on his website. I think you're just judging Obama's science view from extreme nerds who release articles on Digg about how he wants to cut NASA.
  • Jeeum, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4Good for him!
    Or since he is in the UK,
    Good on him!
  • TheStrongForce, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3Hawking is so over-rated. Just because he is in a wheelchair and came up with one idea (Hawking Radiation), and a book that people believe to be mind blowing, he is suddenly the most famous British scientist. Faraday was the most famous scientist that the good ol' UK nurtured IMHO. Let's not even get into Newton, Cavendish, or Hooke. We can even leave Oliver Heaviside out of the equation even though the man created vectors. Also, forget Young being great at all. They weren't in wheelchairs.

    Now that I've vented, Hawking does have a point. The US, and apparently England now, are making huge government science cuts, causing massive lay offs and backpedaling in science. Everyone in the USA is complaining about gas prices like chickens with their head's cut off, but they aren't investing in the science that will propel them into the future. It really outrages me that the USA made cuts to ITER, the first breakeven and efficient fusion reactor expected to be completed in 2016 or so, which would give the world unlimited energy if mass produced.

    If any of you American's are smart you'll vote for Obama who actually has a science and technology plan listed on his website, unlike McCain. Without tax support to Basic and Advanced R&D your solution to gasoline, and other more mystical science problems will be halted everywhere, just as Hawking is freaking out about.
    • sk11, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Why leave out Dirac, Rutherford and Maxwell you bastard? ;P
      • TheStrongForce, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Because I'm assuming nobody else is a nerd! And that if they are, they already know these. Well done though!
  • AbsurdParadox, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2First of all, allow me to state I understand the value of pure (seemingly impractical at the time) research, and in no way do I think it should be ended.

    However, I believe it is not the government's job to pay for it. In a world with far less taxation, the market would be able control research both through profit-incentive of companies, and through charitable donations to research foundations. When the free market, and not government (or corporations through government lobbying and/or funding) controls anything, you get better results for less money. And, secondly, you are not requiring people to pay for research in areas they do not support (stem cell research for example).


    • rhodydog, on 06/16/2008, -2/+1You're right, with less money for research the country won't need so many PhDs which in turn will mean we can save more money by closing down some of the Universities since we won't need so many. We should also charge full cost to undergraduates who want to go to University, most of them don't need an education anyway, it would be better to only accept those who really want to go. To save even more money I would recommend companies outsource any research and development to china or India (they'll have to anyway since there will be few PhDs and undergraduates to hire, easier to hire in India and china than have to pay to educate one here), as you say "you get better results for less money". Outsourcing will also mean their profits will be higher which can be used to reduce taxes on ordinary uneducated people.

      Since you also mention that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for research they don't support (such as aids, stem cells, astronomy, etc) I would also like to take that further. There are a lot of things in government I don't support, eg the huge military complex we have, foreign aid (let them grow their own food), all government subsidies, social welfare (if peeple can't look after yourselves then why should the tax payer help?), education (we don't need much anyway since all the high value stuff won't be done in the US), environment (I should have the right to what ever I like to the land and sea, even if it means wrecking it), any kind of health care (if people ate better they wouldn't need health care anyway, in any case God decides who live or dies not the health care system!), transport (people can pay themselves if they want to use roads) and finally the federal government itself could be hugely trimmed down with out any loss to the country.

      These changes will allow us to return to the style of living we had in the 18th century, life was much better in those days, especially if you had money.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2The arguments you are trying to make through your satire are either absurd or simply not based on fact. Considering the level of your attempted mockery, I'm not going to bother.
    • sk11, on 06/16/2008, -2/+1Much of physics would not have been discovered and researched if it were under the control of the free market. It's not always possible to profit from physics research. Charities simply can not accomplish this. Who would donate money to research into physics and mathematics?

      Besides, if the west did what you suggest, China would overtake us by leaps and bounds within a lifetime and what if they used that technology against us?
      • AbsurdParadox, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2So, because you think something couldn't have been paid for through donations, it is alright to steal? And who would donate money to research into physics and mathematics, you ask? If I wasn't taxed at something like 50% of my total income (after you consider that taxation is passed on to customers, etc), I most certainly would.
      • sk11, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1"So, because you think something couldn't have been paid for through donations, it is alright to steal?"

        So, you consider taxation to be equivalent to stealing? You must be absolutely fuming at the thought of all the hundreds of billions of dollars squandered in Iraq? Why, the very mention of Halliburton must make your blood boil, surely?

        "And who would donate money to research into physics and mathematics, you ask? If I wasn't taxed at something like 50% of my total income (after you consider that taxation is passed on to customers, etc), I most certainly would."

        Some how I don't think so. You're delusional if you think people would give enough money to researchers to investigate esoteric topics with an unpredictable pay off. Biology might fare ok, but physics and maths: no way. People were ignorant and unimaginative enough to condemn research into electricity and magnetism in it's infancy, likening it to kids playing with expensive toys. The Chinese would outstrip us in a matter of decades.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.