5 ms·
If there is funding, there is apparently a need for research. The solution is never for the individuals to induce change. This doesn't work for consumers (i.e.
by marta_morena_9 6y ago
If there is funding, there is apparently a need for research.
The solution is never for the individuals to induce change. This doesn't work for consumers (i.e. you can't say "If everyone stops buying plastic bags, we do something for the environment", because well, nobody cares... You have to make selling plastic bags either illegal or add a significant surcharge that causes consumers to avoid them for reasons that actually affect them, like "too expensive")
And it doesn't work for anything else either. As long as there is funding, this will go on. The "solution" is to stop funding, but apparently since funding is still flowing, someone still values the research. So what is even the problem?
No progress has been made? Well, if funding is still there, whoever funds this seems to be beyond happy with the progress. This is a non-issue.
- xapata 6y agoPerhaps the issue is that the funding agency is not sophisticated enough to realize that there's no value, or more value elsewhere?
- wadkar 6y agoOR perhaps the issue that the same people who are in the clique of the said field are also evaluating the research proposals. So the funding doesn’t run dry? Not that that’s a good or bad thing. You wouldn’t want a “non-expert” to evaluate the proposal. And perhaps a tapering of the funding is better indicator of interest/progress of the field?
- xapata 6y agoGenerally there's an outside source of funding that's not part of the field. Thus top scientists find themselves becoming "rainmakers" rather than doing research. You tell your staff to wear their white coats and glasses, lead a tour around the facility, point out how big the machines are, etc.
- isaacjoseph 6y agoWell, there _is_ quite a bit less funding for anything in Physics nowadays, at least compared to the Cold War era. Some professors have indeed been forcibly pushed out of Physics for this reason, but mostly it has an effect of making things more hopeless for younger folk (due to the cronyism problem mentioned above).
- wpietri 6y ago> If there is funding, there is apparently a need for research. This is very close to "There must be a pony in there somewhere". [1] If the question is whether the field is worth continuing to fund, the answer can't be, "Well since people are still funding it, it must be worth funding." By the same logic, we should just keep putting billions into WeWork. Research is hard to value, and fundamental research especially so. The logic of "if people buy it, it must be good" only patchily applies to normal commerce, where results are relatively easy to measure and feedback loops are short. It's wholly inadequate for feedback loops on the scale of decades. [1] https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=there+must+be+a+pony+in+there+somewhere https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=the...
- chrisweekly 6y ago+1 insightful; 100% agreed; well-put!
- rfurmani 6y agoSlashdot reference?
- chrisweekly 6y agoYep
- pfdietz 6y agoAnd when politicians are funding long term science, they aren't funding the actual long term benefits, they are funding the APPEARANCE of producing long term benefits (and the funneling of money to those who can provide kickbacks). As long as the pretense can be maintained, anything can be funded, regardless of its actual utility.
- bweitzman 6y agoThe logic is not "if people buy it, it must be good", but more "if people buy it, there must not be something else that they can buy that gets them what they want for less".