3 ms·
How does it get fixed though? From the article: >What is relevant is how the public perceives these methods. So much of the problem seems about political risk
by bumby 5y ago
How does it get fixed though?
From the article:
>What is relevant is how the public perceives these methods.
So much of the problem seems about political risk, but that seems to be a feature and not a bug of publicly funded programs. We generally want the public to have a say in how their tax dollars get spent and we want there to be transparency in the process. And yet those two factors combine to create many of the problems in the article.
Is it a misalignment of researchers and the general public in terms of priorities? Is it an issue of educating the public about the intent of fundamental research? Something else?
- landemva 5y agoThis is likely to persist as long as the federal government can sustain deficit spending. Until the money printer stops, there will not be political will to reduce spending.
- bumby 5y agoMaybe you can explain further, but that seems to be a slightly different problem. The central issue in the article seems to be what the money is spent on, not necessarily the amount of money spent. Given the amount of waste cited, it seems like there is ample money, it's just being funneled away from fundamental research because it's politically more palatable to fund applied research.