3 ms·
But I never commented on India doing science. I commented on them spending on specific high-cost projects that are unlikely to have a positive economic impact.
by quonn 12y ago
But I never commented on India doing science. I commented on them spending on specific high-cost projects that are unlikely to have a positive economic impact.
- jogjayr 12y agoSo it's OK for India to do science as long as it's cheap? Define cheap. How much should it cost for you to be OK with it? How high-cost is too high? How much impact is necessary in order to greenlight a project, according to you? Your objections are particularly nonsensical because the article doesn't mention the cost of the project anywhere. You've reflexively decided that it's $BIG_NUMBER and it's wasteful. With practically no information. (It will cost in the region of $250m, FYI) How do you even know it will be costly (relative to the magnitude of the project)? We did launch the Mars mission pretty cheap you know :-) (yes, I know it's easier to launch cheaper when you pay Indian salaries, so don't bring that up) EDIT: Big scientific discoveries haven't happened by the balance of probability. Many new advances come from unexpected places, by obscure scientists doing crazy-sounding things. No expert can declare with 100% certainty that something is "unlikely to yield a positive economic impact". This is my last comment on the topic. It sounds like you've pretty much made up your mind and nothing can convince you to see the other side. Good luck.