4 ms·

Science/$ is something of a "new invented benchmark", but I think it's useful to a point. I fully agree that "put ourselves in space" was the prime driver for

Science/$ is something of a "new invented benchmark", but I think it's useful to a point. I fully agree that "put ourselves in space" was the prime driver for NASA up through Apollo, and has certainly played a role since, but NASA as a driver of scientific discovery has become, I think, the main NASA thing.

mlindner 5y ago
"Science" isn't even a fungible unit, so you can't even say "science/$". Even a specific type of science, say "Earth Science", isn't even a fungible unit. So it doesn't make much sense to talk about "Science/$".
- yummypaint 5y ago
  This can be true when trying to compare science A against science B. However, there is no controversy when comparing a program designed to deliver an instrument package with one designed to build a brand. Also, there are frameworks for evaluating science output per dollar. This is what funding agencies do when creating and managing grants. There is alot of subjectivity involved which is why DOE program managers, for example, are pulled from practicing experts in the relevant field and tend not to serve very long in those positions before circulating back.
  - nexuist 5y ago
    My only reference to something like this is Kerbal Space Program, which uses science as a pseudo-currency to unlock new items etc. I figured it was just a video game thing and did not reflect real life at all. This is strange to think about. Are these valuations public? Can science be traded between government agencies or other countries? Does science that gets made become devalued over time? Is there like venture capital where VCs deploy science instead of dollars? Has the value stabilized yet such that we can predict how much science we'd get with an arbitrary amount of money or vice versa? Genuinely interested in learning more since it feels like if we can properly tie "science" to $, we can predict the future by looking at budgets, no?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

mlindner 5y ago

"Science" isn't even a fungible unit, so you can't even say "science/$". Even a specific type of science, say "Earth Science", isn't even a fungible unit. So it doesn't make much sense to talk about "Science/$".

yummypaint 5y ago
This can be true when trying to compare science A against science B. However, there is no controversy when comparing a program designed to deliver an instrument package with one designed to build a brand. Also, there are frameworks for evaluating science output per dollar. This is what funding agencies do when creating and managing grants. There is alot of subjectivity involved which is why DOE program managers, for example, are pulled from practicing experts in the relevant field and tend not to serve very long in those positions before circulating back.
- nexuist 5y ago
  My only reference to something like this is Kerbal Space Program, which uses science as a pseudo-currency to unlock new items etc. I figured it was just a video game thing and did not reflect real life at all. This is strange to think about. Are these valuations public? Can science be traded between government agencies or other countries? Does science that gets made become devalued over time? Is there like venture capital where VCs deploy science instead of dollars? Has the value stabilized yet such that we can predict how much science we'd get with an arbitrary amount of money or vice versa? Genuinely interested in learning more since it feels like if we can properly tie "science" to $, we can predict the future by looking at budgets, no?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]