From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Supercollider "For" or "Against"
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:48:03 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul30.010429.12997@dscomsf.desy.de> Poser@vxdsyc.desy.de writes:
>In article <Bs61Lt.Ft5@apollo.hp.com>, 
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>|>   I'm not suggesting basic science be totally eliminated.   If the
>|>   world had half as many high energy physicists, astronomers, etc
>|>   as it has today, and the total money spent in these fields were
>|>   half what it is today, we wouldn't return to a Dark Ages of
>|>   science; things would just happen a lot slower and on a smaller
>|>   scale than now.  
>
>Another question: if You reduce the scientifc research efforts, what
>will keep the highly qualified and motivated personnell, which is both 
>an enormous investment and a capital, to look for greener pastures? In 
>short, how do You deal with the brain drain?

  A brain drain only matters if it's in an area that matters for future
  economic success.   If there is a domestic economic demand for high
  energy physicists then there won't be a brain drain.   If there isn't
  then it's no big loss.   

  Also note that other governments find it hard to come up with this 
  kind of money, too.   There has never been a major brain drain going
  out of the US.  All the high energy phsyicists won't leave on the same 
  day.  It would be a long term trend and if that proved to be a problem
  we could change our policies.


>How will You provide for its rejuvenation and replacement? What is
>the quorum You need for a selfsustaing research establishment beyond
>the necessity of supplying qualified personnell for the commercial
>sector?

  Why do we need one "beyond the necessity of supplying qualified
  personnell for the commercial sector"?  Again, my point is that
  if research is not demonstrably and practically useful (in which 
  case someone, somewhere will try to make some money from it) 
  then you need an awfully strong argument to still justify it.
  I'm not suggesting that we close down the NSF or NIH (US gov't
  agencies which dispense research money) -- I'm just saying that
  money is tight so we have to slow down on things that don't have
  an immediate payoff.  What difference does it make if we break
  down some subatomic particle into even smaller pieces in the 
  year 2050 instead of 2010?

 
    
> You are talking about the world. Do You think other nations
>follow Your line of reasoning? Do You bank of global scientific 
>collaboration and completely free interchange of data and developments?

  (I can't parse the above)   If other nations' taxpayers want to spend
  their money for this I'm not preventing them.  That's the advantage
  of democracy.  Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, France, England,
  etc, are all democratic.    They can spend their money as they wish.
  As a US taxpayer, I would take this $8 thousand million and split it up:

  3   Reduce the budget deficit
  1   back to NSF to fund other basic research   
  4   R&D tax credits to private industry


>Bear in mind that quite a bit of, even abstract, research in the US is 
>slightly clandestine. 

  So?


---peter



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc