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

somebody wrote:
> What if jumping from a bridge will cause you to fly?
> 
> You don't try random things and hope that you'll get fantastic results.

	I sincerely hope that the LHC was not built to do random things.


-- 
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

somebody wrote:
>> Yep. And they do. Complaining that the scientists are spending money is
>> the wrong way to do it.
> 
> You may see it as pointless complaining, 

I didn't say that. I just said it wasn't the scientists you should be 
complaining about. "Science" doesn't need the conscience, because 
"science" isn't what's taking your money against your will.

The scientists are spending their money, not yours. It's the politicians 
spending *your* money.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> But 10 years is a perfectly valid timeframe for many a medical research to
> give fruits.

Only after the fundamental work has been done by scientists.

>> How long between the invention of  relativity and the launching of GPS
> satellites?
> 
> Einstein did not get a $10 billion grant to follow a wild goose chase. He
> explained an existing problem.

And you don't think there's any existing problem in fundamental physics 
the LHC is trying to gather evidence to solve? Like, where does mass 
come from? Why does inertia match gravity?

> Not all science is wasteful, I make no such claim. Just the opposite, I
> claim that the worthiness of scientific research needs to be examined on a
> case by case basis. High energy physics research, amongst all branches of
> science, is the least useful of sciences.

Because, you know, all those nuclear energy plants that France is 
building aren't at all useful.

 > In fact, it has zero application, past, present or foreseeble future.

Do you have a citation for this? Or is this argument from ignorance? 
Because, like, you keep saying this, and it seems to be the center of 
your argument, but I've seen nothing except your statements that the 
research is and must be useless.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

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

	BTW, the NIH now invests $28 billion annually on funding medical 
research. In the US alone. Now add up the amounts for the other 
countries who contributed to the LHC...

-- 
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


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

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> so we should tally up the money spent on cancer 
> research for all those countries combined.

And don't forget the private investments, and the amount of money that 
will be spent on cancer cures even after they're invented, as in paying 
for the drugs etc.

>     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.

It's not $700 billion. It's $700 billion at one time. Once you sell off 
for $10 billion the stuff you bought for $700 billion, you can buy 
another $700 billion.

> 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.

Plus, there actually is an upper limit on how much you can spend on that 
research, and it isn't obvious to me that we've not come close to that 
limit. Once all competent researchers are sufficiently funded and all 
patients are already engaged in studies, pouring more money into it is 
just wasteful. Not that I think we're there, but I'd like to see 
something about what percentage of people doing cancer research don't 
have enough funding to continue.

And why not talk about funding AIDS research? Merely because *you* don't 
have AIDS?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48db0b08$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > But 10 years is a perfectly valid timeframe for many a medical research
to
> > give fruits.

> Only after the fundamental work has been done by scientists.

I don't know what that means. Of course work has been done, we are not
starting from the stone age each time but build on top of existing
knowledge. 10 years is a perfectly fine timeframe to expect results from
applied sciences for most any project starting today.

> And you don't think there's any existing problem in fundamental physics
> the LHC is trying to gather evidence to solve? Like, where does mass
> come from? Why does inertia match gravity?

If it comes from Higgs, we won't be in better shape than we are now. We
already assume that. If it doesn't, we will be in worse shape. In any case,
beyond the discovery of Higgs, there's very little that LHC can give us that
Fermilab did not. But besides that, the real issue is, it's all academic. No
application, no benefit.

> > Not all science is wasteful, I make no such claim. Just the opposite, I
> > claim that the worthiness of scientific research needs to be examined on
a
> > case by case basis. High energy physics research, amongst all branches
of
> > science, is the least useful of sciences.

> Because, you know, all those nuclear energy plants that France is
> building aren't at all useful.

HEP at TeV scales has *nothing* to do with nuclear fission (nor fusion).
That's a gross but common misconception. Physics today is highly
specialized, which laymen do not appreciate the different domains. I suggest
reading the "purpose" section of the Wiki page on LHC.

>  > In fact, it has zero application, past, present or foreseeble future.

> Do you have a citation for this? Or is this argument from ignorance?
> Because, like, you keep saying this, and it seems to be the center of
> your argument, but I've seen nothing except your statements that the
> research is and must be useless.

Please provide an application, if you can. I cannot cite for something that
doesn't exist.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48db0962$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > 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?

That's much harder than to better divide an existing pie. Pies don't grow on
trees.

> > 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,

> 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.

Education and discussion is one way to raise awareness.

> > 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.

Optimism, unfortunately, doesn't put food on the table, or cure ailments.
How exactly do you personally think you will benefit from LHC (maybe beyond
reading an interesting article in Popular Science at some point)? If people
don't ask themselves similar questions, they do not know or care about their
own well-being. We don't properly exercise our selfishness, if you will.

> > 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?

Not always. And there's always economics. HEP is an immensely wasteful way
for its byproducts to help medicine, if even possible.

> >> 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?

No,of course not. Next one will cost more.

> 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.

True. On the other hand, that $700 billion will merely exchange hands (or be
printed), it doesn't represent actual consumption of resources. You can
waste money without wasting resources (or the opposite, you can make money
without increasing value) - our monetary system is truly odd that way. The
most important resources being "wasted" at LHC are brainpower and time, and
then services, raw materials and energy.

> 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.

I don't see why I have to. Medical research has proven itself over the years
as benefiting humanity. I don't think anyone here can honestly question if
medicine is a worthy science to spend money on. And even if one believes
medical research budgets are saturated (!), surely the 40 million or so
uninsured in America, or the 14 million who died in Africa from AIDS alone
since 2000 would have appreciate a little money spent on their health care
needs.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> m_a_r_c wrote:
> |
> | Besides finding at last Milliway's Restaurant at the End of the Universe
> | adress !
> |
> | Marc
> |
>
> I ate there only next week :-)
> The food's not as good as it's going to be
>
> John

They do a good bread made from ground bones under that bridge ;)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> Yes, and my question remains: Why don't you consider an alternative
>> solution that makes the pie bigger?
> 
> That's much harder than to better divide an existing pie. Pies don't grow on
> trees.

	I'd argue the opposite. When people are being even more wasteful with 
money than the physicists, it's easier to argue that some of their money 
should be diverted to <insert cause>.

	Now your argument is "Take money from them because it's easier"?

> Optimism, unfortunately, doesn't put food on the table, or cure ailments.
> How exactly do you personally think you will benefit from LHC (maybe beyond

	Why on Earth should I be thinking of personal benefits?

	If the benefits arrive hundreds of years later, the money may have been 
really well spent.

>> Perhaps because byproducts of other research can help medicine?
> 
> Not always. And there's always economics. HEP is an immensely wasteful way
 > for its byproducts to help medicine, if even possible.

	And not always is medical research fruitful.

>> 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.
> 
> True. On the other hand, that $700 billion will merely exchange hands (or be
> printed), it doesn't represent actual consumption of resources. You can
> waste money without wasting resources (or the opposite, you can make money
> without increasing value) - our monetary system is truly odd that way. The

	Now you're shifting your argument to resources and missing the point. 
If they have $700 billion, ask them to reduce it to $690 billion and put 
$10 billion more in medical research.

	It seems a lot of people are upset at a number of proposals that either 
Bush or Congress on the whole rejected in the last few years (e.g. the 
"small" amount needed to make all children insured) because they were 
deemed too expensive (yet much, much smaller than $700 billion). If the 
politicians really wanted them, this is the best opportunity they'll 
have to get them.

 > most important resources being "wasted" at LHC are brainpower and 
  > time, and then services, raw materials and energy.

	As for resources, I don't see how you can easily shift those to medical 
research. Brain power? You want the physicists to become medical 
researchers? What "time" have they been deprived of? Ditto for raw 
materials and energy. Do we now not have enough materials to build a 
medical center?

> I don't see why I have to. Medical research has proven itself over the years
> as benefiting humanity. I don't think anyone here can honestly question if
> medicine is a worthy science to spend money on. And even if one believes

	Specific areas may, some others may not. Just as with physics. Physics 
research has been immensely useful. But some subprojects may not have 
been. I'd been letting the LHC vs medical research/cancer/aging aspect 
slide (i.e. comparing one project to a whole industry), but the real 
comparison in that case would be physics vs medical research.

> medical research budgets are saturated (!), surely the 40 million or so
> uninsured in America, or the 14 million who died in Africa from AIDS alone
> since 2000 would have appreciate a little money spent on their health care
> needs.

	Woah! I thought you wanted to limit this to science (hence the whole 
restricting to the science research pie and take money from physicists 
angle). Now you're talking about taking money away from science! If 
you're willing to discuss that, then go back to the government waste and 
deal with that.

	I still don't get it. 28 billion in this country annually alone for 
medical research. And I later found out that does *not* include money 
used to come up with actual medicines. The pharmaceutical industry 
spends a comparable amount on that. You said earlier that you wanted 
medical research to always get the largest slice of that pie.

	What makes you think they don't? I honestly don't know, but have *you* 
researched into it?

	Let me ask you a question:

	How much money *does* medical research have to get annually for you to 
say it's OK to spend $10 billion for the LHC? Assuming, of course, the 
current amount of wealth in the world is the same (no inflation games, 
sudden oil discoveries, etc).

	Look, if you simply think the LHC's not worth $10 billion - 
*regardless* of how much other areas of science get, that's fine with 
me, because it is an opinion, and not a fact. Getting upset that others 
don't see it your way seems silly.

	

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse


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

Post a reply to this message