somebody wrote:
>> I never understand why people view science funding as a zero sum
>> system.
> 
> When budgets are made, for better or worse, spending on science is often
> taken as a unit. Yes, in that sense, if particle physics gets a
> disproportionately large sum, you can bet condensed matter will get less.

	Yes, and my question remains: Why don't you consider an alternative 
solution that makes the pie bigger? Why decide on infighting when it's 
actually easy to make a case to increase science funding, given the 
amount of waste in other parts of the government - both intentional and 
unintentional.

>> That's what science is: An investigation of the unknown. You can't plan
>> for results in it the way you plan for results in a company.
> 
> Yes we can. Conversely, if we cannot, gambling with such enourmous money on
> LHC is even more silly, is not it?

	Well, if you're not sympathetic to the goal of understanding nature, 
and you're only interested on returns on money spent, then you can have 
that viewpoint. I don't share it.

	Andrel actually had a very good point. Attempts at prioritizing 
research to get useful results are notoriously poor. The proportion of 
useful results they got was almost the same as it was before the 
prioritization.

>> If "hundreds" of universities and laboratories decided to contribute
>> parts of their research budget and get together and build this, where's
>> the problem? If the cancer research folks can't do this, it's their
>> failing.
> 
> It's humanity's failing, since as far as I can see from the responses from
> this group, people don't know what's good for them. I'm sure many of you,

	That sounds like a classic case of sour grapes. "No one agrees with me, 
so you're all wrong."

	You're now shifting the blame to humanity. When one scientific group 
actually *is* successful in securing resources for a large project, 
rather than ask why the others haven't been able to do it, you just 
assume that the money was procured by unfair means - by hinting that 
they misled society (without giving citations). You're simply dumping on 
a group that happened to be efficient, rather than be proactive and try 
to find ways to assist the groups *you're* more interested in.

> and possibly I, will develop a form of life threatening cancer at one point
> in the near future, within a few years or a decade. It's a certainity given
> a large enough population. Would you rather have all those universities
> spend their research budgets on an academic endavour that will benefit not a
> single human being, or one that could benefit many?

	We've been through this ad nauseum. I simply do not share your 
pessimism about the value of the results (even practical outcomes) 
coming out of the LHC. Because of that, your argument does not inspire 
sympathy.

> The very essence of existence goes through health. I cannot think of a
> single reason why medical research should not top all lists when it comes to
> resource allocations.

	Perhaps because byproducts of other research can help medicine? Do you 
think Roentgen had medicine in mind when he discovered X-rays? Do you 
think they had medicine in mind when they invented lasers? The 
transistor? And so much more? All these things either directly or 
indirectly contributed *very* heavily to medical work *and* research. 
You know, on the order of the discovery of penicillin.

>> Also, comparing it with the amount of money the US spends on annually
>> on some research is disingenuous. It's not as if we build an LHC every
>> year.
> 
> We build one every decade or two.

	And they all cost $10 billion?

>> And of course, I don't know where you got the 1 billion dollar figure
>> for cancer funding. The National Cancer Institute alone has a budget
>> exceeding 4 Billion Dollars:
>>
>> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding
> 
> I did not say "budget" in my OP, I said "annual spending". (Spending the
> entire budget in one year would mean closing doors the next year). Even so,

	No, that's their annual budget. They're to spend most of it that year. 
It's not part of a 5 or 10 year plan. It includes operational costs, etc.

	In '98, the US also allocated 13.6 billion dollars for overall medical 
research - for that year. Would like to get the current figures.

 > LHC costing more than twice the budget of NCI is telling.
	
	Not if you look at the cost over the number of years it is operational. 
If it lasts 20 years, then it will be 0.5 billion per year + operational 
costs. It's not really all that big a sum.

	Also, comparing the money with US funding is again disingenuous. It's 
not as if the US paid all of the money. I suspect a number of countries 
contributed, so we should tally up the money spent on cancer research 
for all those countries combined.

	I do find this whole discussion amusing given that Congress is 
considering a $700 Billion bailout for Wall Street. LHC is tiny on that 
scale.

	You know, I don't necessarily disagree with your point. At some level, 
someone or some agency has to prioritize funding. I haven't put much 
thought on what is too much for one project or not. I just fundamentally 
disagree with your assumptions and a lot of your analysis.

	And then implying others over here simply have mixed priorities will 
win you no sympathy. You're implying that you're trying to create a 
discussion and make people more aware of the issue, yet your tactics go 
quite counter to that goal. You've asked on numerous occasions for 
possible useful benefits to humanity that the LHC may have, yet you 
didn't bother citing *specific* benefits of neglected research on cancer 
or aging. Classic ranting, reactionary, behavior.

	So, to act just like yourself: Name a benefit of some specific possible 
cancer research that *isn't* receiving adequate funding, and make your 
case. Vague notions of "Well, we might find a cure for brain cancer" is 
highly unspecific, and devoid of any evidence that it is being 
underfunded. Moreover, using your type of argument, given how much money 
has been pumped into it without apparently coming *close* to a cure, I 
could make the case that brain cancer research is wasteful and funding 
for it should be reduced.

-- 
How many of you believe in telekinesis?  Raise MY hand!


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message