5 ms·
This is not accurate. There is no fixed annual amounts for anything the US Congress passes, notwithstanding the fact that the LHC is an international project.
by wslack 4y ago
This is not accurate. There is no fixed annual amounts for anything the US Congress passes, notwithstanding the fact that the LHC is an international project.
- dekhn 4y agoCongress decides the fixed amount and it gets partitioned after allocations.
- interstice 4y agoIs this a case of America != The World
- dekhn 4y agoNo, all countries with large science programs use similar processes for total fund size and suballocations (dunno about zh but jp and eu are quite similar, with some non important details)
- fauigerzigerk 4y agoWhat you're ignoring is the reasoning and the process behind that decision. Of course it matters what it is that needs funding and how effectively the people requesting the funds are making their case. If it was a competition between english literature and greek philosophy you can be absolutely certain that the fixed amount would be a tiny fraction of what it is now. Curing cancer, infinite amounts of cheap energy, staying competitive, winning against China both economically and militarily, you really think the size of the pie would be the same without these things?
- dr_dshiv 4y agoInteresting point. So, hopefully the science of environmental stewardship gets a name like “Environmental Engineering” or “Resilience Engineering” from the NSF and grows the pie. Because the costs of not adapting to climate-related environmental change will be astronomical. I mean, would you say climate adaptation is on par with the importance and urgency of curing cancer? The arguments would be interesting.