Scientists argue that they can save the economy, as long as politicians leave their budgets alone

CB500 wrote:
Mar 9th 2010 6:49 GMT

As difficult as it is, everybody needs to tighten their belts.

True, but unffortunateley, the world is never quite so simple.
It is very unlikely the next "laser" discovery will be made in a garden shed by a science teacher from Basingstoke. Britain cannot compete globally with cheap manufacturing labour from the likes of China, or service sector outsourcing from India, for example. So unless us Brits are content to pass quietly into obscurity, and give up our position as a world power (some would say we already have), we need to think long term. The answer? High tech industry, and for that to be even remotely possible we need researchers on the edge of scientific discovery, with the funds at their disposal to create the next "Teflon" or "microwave" or indeed, laser.
so for everyone's sake, look to the future, not just the next election, or we may not even have a country worth leading.

Not just science, but include the entire R&D category, and the argument becomes clearer. Science is good, but there must be many items on the budgetary list to go before science spending gets its share. Cutting 10% off every budget item or department might be necessary, but you would scarcely save more than a few hundred million from science. That sacrifice will do little to save Britain from the stagnation its banks have bequeathed its citizenry.
Try another idea; revisit banking industry bonuses.

As difficult as it is, everybody needs to tighten their belts. The "eating the seed corn" analogy can be appied to each valuable service funded by the public. Of course each can give good reasons why they should be spared, but if no one tightens their belt, there is no corn, period. Yes, we need scientific research and the next "lasor" discovery can not happen with out it, but ALL need to share in the belt tightening, period. Get over it, move on, and do the best you can, like everybody else.

Perhaps the mighty scientists shall start to work on the science of ensuring funding. Where are the laws of attracting funding, Mr Einstein and Mr Newton?

This is simply special pleading by vested interests - we will see this right across the 'client state'. There's no reason to believe that science funding can't be provided by the private sector in a truly free market. 'Curiousity' driven research can be provided through philanthropic funding, for instance. There's also no evidence that the government supports such research - in the UK there is an increasing demand to prove the 'usefulness' of research. Of course, usefulness is driven by how a bureaucratic institution defines it - which is almost certainly wrong because such institutions do not possess good foresight. A much better option would be to set the universities free of government and give them much greater control over their research, and allow the market/civil society to fund science - and most other things for that matter!

I should start by declaring my vested interest as a scientist in the early days of a career. It is absolutely true that science (both pure and applied) is fundamental to a healthy economy - without research science now, there will certainly have to be cuts in NHS, schools and police budget in the future; and that the purest of science costs very little and can benefit many a great deal. Science funding should be cut - I also think that NHS, police and school budgets should be cut from their current state of extraordinarily wasteful - but the measures by which the success of science is judged must also be changed in response. For example, currently research 'excellence' is partially judged on 'research expenditure' - a scale by which the Victorian number theory that underpins the workings of computers would have been considered worthless. Scientists must be given the freedom to research subjects that are interesting for them, without the need for constant justification - this will lead to a significantly more enlightened research workforce, and a considerably more efficient sector.

A symptom of the current state is the depressing the number of students coming through who just want to tick the required boxes to get a degree, with very little enthusiasm for deep knowledge or a desire to understand. But how can this be surprising when scientists themselves are not judged on their quality, but on arbitrary measures of success formulated by a government that seems to have no respect for either knowledge or understanding.

Methinks Otto Hahn was the first to split an atom.