Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those proposed standards are three-fold, requiring the NSF’s director to certify that all accepted research proposals are: “in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science; the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies.” The draft bill also requires that the NSF director report to Congress how the same criteria can be applied to “other Federal science agencies.”
"To secure the national defense" --- that's the phrase that scares me. Since when should scientific research, unless it's done expressly for the DOD be about national defense? Talk about serving the industrial military complex....
Also of note, the sequestration cuts are cutting about 1 billion dollars from medical research funded by the NIH, research on things like cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes. How short-sighted all of this truly is...sigh.
Since when should scientific research, unless it's done expressly for the DOD be about national defense? .
That's not what it's saying. It's referring only to publicly (tax) funded research. If you want to do research on Chinese prostitution and alcohol, nobody is stopping you. But if research is publicly-funded, it should have a public purpose. National defense is not the only public purpose, but it is certainly one of the most basic.
That's not what it's saying. It's referring only to publicly (tax) funded research. If you want to do research on Chinese prostitution and alcohol, nobody is stopping you. But if research is publicly-funded, it should have a public purpose. National defense is not the only public purpose, but it is certainly one of the most basic.
Yes but the history of science shows that true scientific breakthroughs often arise out of experimental research that initially has no "public good" application whatsoever.
The last thing I want is a bunch of ignorant politicians or bureaucrats judging which projects should get funding. Leave science to the scientists---science is based on peer-review.
Yes but the history of science shows that true scientific breakthroughs often arise out of experimental research that initially has no "public good" application whatsoever.
The last thing I want is a bunch of ignorant politicians or bureaucrats judging which projects should get funding. Leave science to the scientists---science is based on peer-review.
That's fine--nobody is stopping anybody from doing experimental research. Nobody is stopping anyone from seeking private funding to do whatever research they wish. But if they want tax funding, they're going to have congressional oversight. See article I, section 8 of the US Constitution.
Two UA researchers are looking to find out what happens when young love ends.
...working on a study to understand how young adults cope with a breakup...In 2005, Sbarra completed a study that looked at how continued contact with an ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend can stall the individual’s emotional progress....
Changing a relationship status on Facebook also plays a role for someone getting over a breakup.
“Once my relationship status went to ‘single’ my phone blew up,†said Tracy Reyes, a sociology junior.
...Funded by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health, Sbarra and Lee intend to publish the results once the study is closed in December 2012.
"To secure the national defense" --- that's the phrase that scares me. Since when should scientific research, unless it's done expressly for the DOD be about national defense? Talk about serving the industrial military complex....
Also of note, the sequestration cuts are cutting about 1 billion dollars from medical research funded by the NIH, research on things like cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes. How short-sighted all of this truly is...sigh.
Watch global warming be considered under "national defense".
Al Gore must be dusting off his speeches right about now.
Truth is, my biggest fear with Republicans having any power is their insistence on this emphasis on religion as a force for good and their distrust of science.
They believe that a man raised the dead, walked on water, multiplied fish, and gave sight to a blind man. But at the same time they find the concept of man-made Global Warming to be intolerable.
How can one know beforehand what research will lead to what discoveries?
Funding a study on Facebook status entries over a broken relationship.
Somehow I doubt that will lead to some earth shattering new scientific discovery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
