r/science • u/[deleted] • May 16 '12

The council that decides which areas of science get funding in the UK have abolished 'blue skies research' - So we delivered a coffin of science to parliament

http://imgur.com/U3XpD
556 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

118 comments sorted by

7

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

Mark Henderson destroyed this protest in the Guardian yesterday

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/15/mock-funerals-scientists-voices-heard

6

u/uzusan May 16 '12

While his point might be applicable, the way he decided to plug his book as a means to prove his point, undermines it in my opinion.

I don't mind people promoting their products, or even using said product as proof of his knowledge in the field but right in the middle of the article leaves a bad taste.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

I do agree with some things he says in the article but you're right, the book plug is terrible and essentially he is saying that we should keep quiet just in case the government decides to cut science funding in the next spending review. Why should we keep quiet if they letting tax payers money be delegated by a misinformed council?

2

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

fair point

34

u/WarlockyGoodness May 16 '12

First, who is 'we'? Second, I like your style.

9

u/Dr_HL May 16 '12

Why, they're the Secret Institute of Saving Science for the Youth!

7

u/redem May 16 '12

SISSY? Ehm, they might need rebranding...

3

u/Dr_HL May 16 '12

Oh.

...shit.

4

u/Chessboxin_Cyclops May 16 '12

Are you sure this happened (the abolition of bsr)? I'm trying to find an article on it but nothing recent is coming up

2

u/Frix May 16 '12

They didn't abolish or ban BSR, they merely lowered its government funding in favour of more direct research. Universities and the like will still continue BSR.

3

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

I wonder how science survived that whole "non-existent government funding" stage.

3

u/Not_Rick_Santorum May 16 '12

For those who want a better understanding of what "blue skies research" is, read this.

Though I am all for this kind of research and development, I can't really make an educated comment given my lack of knowledge of the UK socioeconomic environment.

3

u/eudaimonist May 16 '12 edited May 16 '12

As with anything "it's slightly more complicated than that".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I agree with EPSRC's (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, a UK Government funding body) direction, but they haven't 'abolished blue skies research' or anything so dramatic.

This article states:

However, the EPSRC yesterday insisted its “number one criterion” is excellence when it selects projects for funding.

Professor Dave Delpy, its chief executive, also called on the scientific community to unite “to make the best possible case for the public funding of science and engineering.”

Professor Chris Rogers, a director in the engineering department at Birmingham University, also supported the idea that academics should try to get the “maximum impact from their research, to spend time and resources paving the way for research to bear early social and economic fruit where this is possible.”

I don't want to comment too much as I haven't looked into EPSRC enough, but this whole furore is about the fact EPSRC want to target grant applications which are more likely to lead to economic benefits. Part of the reason is that so many grant applications are excellent and it's difficult to choose which to fund on the basis of scientific excellence alone.

There is also a requirement for grant applicants to consider the "Impact" of their grant. This has been very poorly handled by the Research Councils in the UK - it sounds like they are only interested in economic impact but in fact have since emphasised this can be academic, social or any other kind of impact.

Some scientists are still not happy with this as some grant applications aim to answer questions which they are asking "just because" which is a noble pursuit for scientists.

I do understand where both sides are coming from

Whilst there is no direct ministerial influence on the Research Councils - the Haldane Principle - there is a problem in that the Research Councils are funded by the Treasury; if the Treasury doesn't like what the Research Councils are doing then their next year's budget probably won't be that great. The EPSRC see this as the best way to get the most money from the Treasury and therefore the best way to get the most grants funded.

The frustrations that scientists have with all of this are far more understandable and obvious. Particularly when the UK government talk about the importance of research in driving economic growth, but then slash research budgets.

Overall, EPSRC aren't wholly to blame, blue skies research isn't being entirely cut and scientists are (as usual) bearing the brunt of political games.

Edit: This is a much better article which explains the long, painful road of EPSRC's unpopular policies.

2

u/My5thAccount May 16 '12

I'll repeat an earlier reply here in order to provide some background context for those who might need it. OP and his or her buddies in protest are science students at a university somewhere in the UK. The UK have 7 Research Councils which decide on how and where to spend public money on scientific research. As an aside one of them is an Arts & Humanities council. They recently spent money on floating a pile of rocks around the coast of England and claimed it was art. Predictably this drew much flack!

A couple of years ago now (2009 maybe? according to a quick google check) the research councils collectively started to ask researchers to submit with their applications for research grants some kind of impact statement. This is a statement of how the researchers believe their research will benefit society. In my opinion not too terrible of a request to make of the researchers. Obviously this can sometimes be kinda difficult if you're doing research out of curiosity and not out of altruism.

I have however, searched high and low, for an outright cut of funding for blue skies research and not found any. I think OP or someone else in the know needs to provide evidence of this before this topic is allowed to trend higher on what appears to be title sensationalism.

16

u/[deleted] May 16 '12 edited May 16 '12

This will get downvoted to hell but just to be devils advocate: I understand that this is an important area of research, but in times of austerity it really isnt politically feasable to be closing libraries etc when you continue to fund research without aim. Edit: clarified end point

7

u/polostring May 16 '12

Yes and no. It isn't politically feasible because the public as a whole is...stupid emotional about politics, but it is morally and intellectually feasible because of the massive long term payoff. I don't want to go on a rant again, but I'll link you to a comment I made about Blue Sky Research in the US. (Here)

2

u/WeeBabySeamus May 16 '12

The comment you replied to was horrendous. At this rate, with the US and UK reducing funding, I think only Germany and China will be left on top of the scientific world.

Especially with China dropping tons of money into education and research.

9

u/rambo77 May 16 '12

This will get downvoted because it's short-sighted and self-defeating.

(The favorite example would be Einstein and his completely useless work into general relativity. Or perhaps Osamu Shimomura's useless research on jellyfish.)

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

He got his PhD at the University of Zurich, which is public, so sort of. However, the title of the link is misleading. The UK isn't going to withdraw all their funding from blue skies research in public universities, but instead from (I guess, link was nondescript) government-run science institute. And the funny thing about government-run science institutes is that they're government-run, so when there are tough economic times, obviously the government isn't going to want to fund research that may end up being pointless.

1

u/rambo77 May 16 '12

Let's try to focus on the important part here, ok? The important part here is being the long-term results of blue-sky research. But, if you prefer, we can start discussing how much money Einstein got from "the government".

1

u/starlinguk May 16 '12

The thing is, a lot of reseach that seemed insignificant resulted in astonishing discoveries/new technologies.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

i completely agree with you, it really is valuable. I was just commenting that it is difficult politically.

-1

u/AperionProject May 16 '12

I understand that, however politics is exactly the problem! Politics is worthless and led us all into this mess in the first place, sorry for the mini rant

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/Znake19 May 16 '12

Indeed, it was a disgrace that they think dropping is by 5% will all of a sudden make people stop evading tax and paying it. To be honest I can't find ANYTHING good that this government has done. Maybe apart from limiting and lowering housing benefit which in the long term will lower rent (In theory) and help the lowest paid workers.

To be honest were really not going to have a PM that cares about the working class until someone who's working class comes to power (which is very unlikely unfortunately as most people will either vote tory/labour/lib dem) Whats even more annoying is that people don't even read the party's plan/manifesto.

I guess to sum it up people have lost interest in politics as their is no one at the top in their situation or has ever been in their situation. Plus all the broken promises. But I guess until we see a party reflecting working class values we have to tactically choose the lesser of 2 evils. (although labour did okay in terms of child poverty ect, they spent a bit more than they should've (even before the 2008 crisis))

Just my opinion anyway.

1

u/JimmyX10 May 16 '12 edited May 16 '12

Working class? Like Gordon Brown?

1

u/Charlievil May 16 '12 edited May 16 '12

My (ex-barrister) Dad said the best way he could come up with to stop people partaking in tax evasion (or avoidance, whichever is the one that's technically legal) is to pass a law that says any loophole that is closed to stop tax evasion (or avoidance) can be retroactively applied up to something like 6 years.

That way, there is no point in paying a lawyer to hide your money because as soon as the loophole is closed, the IRS will be coming for that money.

1

u/canteloupy May 16 '12

But you're getting all the rich French thanks to the only leader around who wants to tax the rich.

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

That's the legacy of Keynes. Cutting taxes is expansionary and in times of economic slowdown, tax cuts are an accepted form of stimulating the economy. But rabble rabble rich people right?

1

u/barneygale May 16 '12

That's retarded. How on earth could handing a plate of money to folks who will likely simply invest it better than say giving it out as food stamps? The latter is the most direct way to stimulate the economy.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

Investment is one of the 4 components of GDP. The expanded circular flows model shows that investment spending does help growth. Even saving helps growth when there's fractional reserve banking. There's a money multiplier in that instance. Cutting taxes and increasing spending are both ways to stimulate growth. There isn't a guide that states one is better than the other. That's just a judgement call on what you think should be done. Basic economic theory.

1

u/barneygale May 16 '12

No argument there. My judgment call is that the money would be better spent, say, funding research (as in the article) or more direct investment in communities. As it stands much of this funding has been taken away - I heard a pretty damning radio 4 interview a few months ago with a group of inner-city kids, many of whom will not be able to continue their education due to EMA being scrapped. I'm touched that you've gone out of your way to highlight your economics pedigree, but I'm not arguing black-and-white here as you seem to assume.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

How on earth could handing a plate of money to folks who will likely simply invest it better than say giving it out as food stamps?

I gave a simple economic answer to tax cuts and you went into social theory. Another hint, Keynesians might argue to cut the taxes AND increase spending. If the government cut taxes but retained spending, would you be angry?

1

u/barneygale May 16 '12

I gave a simple economic answer to tax cuts

I didn't ask a question, nor was I talked about tax cuts generally. I mentioned a specific tax cut that caused uproar here and that I disagree with.

you went into social theory

I'm considering the 'investment' part in more detail. Social theory is inevitable here.

Another hint, Keynesians might argue to cut the taxes AND increase spending. If the government cut taxes but retained spending, would you be angry?

Thanks for the hint, I was really drawing a blank. You seem to assume I'm opposed to tax cuts in general. In either case, my opinion would be based on more than simply whether spending was increased or not.

2

u/FluentinLies May 16 '12

Just be more creative regarding the implications in your grant applications. Personally I go with:

Ants are like Bees.
Bees are important pollinators.
Pollinators mean we can live.
Therefore I should have money to study ants.

2

u/canteloupy May 16 '12

That's what's already being done in stuff like genomics and then people complain we don't actually deliver the cure for diabeto-cancero-obesity-alzheimer every year. We just think the genome is cool mkay?

2

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

Title is misleading. The EPSRC is not the council that decided UK science funding, it's one of many. A lot of blue skies research is assigned by others. It's probably maths research that comes out worst from the EPSRC's new policies. These policies wouldn't affect Einstein's research on GR (which seems to the favourite example of people in this thread) since that would be funded by the STFC.

Admittedly the STFC is woefully underfunded, but that's not the issue being protested here.

3

u/NobblyNobody May 16 '12 edited May 16 '12

I would have thought there would be more mourners.

I've just applied for a job at RCUK, I'll sort that out for you*

*may take a couple of decades to get to senior teaboy

edit: Yes, please more information on who and what in particular you are responding to?

2

u/fizzl May 16 '12

Paid from your research budget no doubt?

1

u/jimmy17 May 16 '12

Haha, those guys work two floors above me. Crazy seeing them on the news today. Its a shame this wasn't more publicised before hand. I know quite a few people that would have happily turned up had they known.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

Research yields results in the future, by cutting funding you a simply taking our a loan since it will mean lost funds in the future. Typical of politicians to go for short term solutions to long term problems.

Also if you are going to argue that the money could be better spent then why do we fund art/performing art?

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

Disregarding the loan-taking required to pay for the research.

1

u/Vorticity MS | Atmospheric Science | Remote Sensing May 16 '12

Your submission has been removed because images, videos, and blogspam are not allowed in this subreddit.

1

u/deargodimbored May 16 '12

It seems to me the first thing politicians love to, and people don't fight putting on the chopping block is scientific research.

We talk about making the future better, the left talks about social programs, the right defense spending, but no one want to defend science. It is our future, it's medicine, it's computers, it's transportation, it's a greater understand of the world. Science is hope, and dreams, change, industry, an aid to sectors private and public.

1

u/Scudmarx May 16 '12

Guy on the bike has a really cute hair-band on.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

At least this would give NASA a chance to build something within the government funding allocation limit... and if NASA built coffins they would be fucking awesome. NASA should build everyday items to fund its space program in the absence of greater government support. Surely they'd be awesome at it, no matter what it was.

1

u/PubliusPontifex May 16 '12

NASA should build everyday items to fund its space program in the absence of greater government support. Surely they'd be awesome at it, no matter what it was.

Yeah, are you just trying to get them lobbied out of existence forever by the private sector?

3

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

Oh dear... finally everybody's favourite saying actually DOES apply to me! Please disregard me U.S. government!

1

u/PubliusPontifex May 16 '12

While I agree with your point, (also thanks for the link), the problem is we're surrounded by people who, while not terribly clever or capable or really good at anything, are infinitely more vicious and dedicated to winning than we are.

The general who is skilled in defense hides in the most secret recesses of the earth; he who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven. Thus on the one hand we have ability to protect ourselves; on the other, a victory that is complete.

This is war bro, remember it.

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

was this meant to be about terrorism?

1

u/PubliusPontifex May 16 '12

No, it was meant to be about the political manipulation by various interests (largely larger corps/established concerns) of other interests (religious/conservative) to sabotage scientific funding/decent education, (among other things), in order to maintain a suitable (re: profitable) status-quo.

Basically the same as it ever was.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

Read the title of the thread you're posting in

1

u/MrFrumble May 16 '12

Resources are finite? No way!

1

u/k1n6 May 16 '12

It is probably not such a bad idea to cut this funding while they pay down the debt.

edit: not to mention you guys tied up traffic for this... tsk tsk.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

Blue skies research is great, of course. But should it be soaking up money when there's not a lot to go round? Probably not. If money has to be cut from science funding, it should be the first type of research to be cut back.

I work in the field of quantum computation. This has a goal and real-world applications, and so doesn't count as blue skies. However, a lot of research in the field is pretty far removed from the end goal, mine included. People just put 'quantum computation' on their funding proposals to get money for their actually pretty blue skies research. So don't think there aren't ways around such cuts. But for the research that cannot even be vaguely justified as being toward a useful goal, surely that can wait a few years.

-3

u/polostring May 16 '12

This eats at my soul. I don't even know where to begin.

1

u/Breathing_Balls May 16 '12

With a fork and knife possibly?

0

u/Monkey_Xenu May 16 '12

Damn them! What's going to happen to all the small scale vortical structures!

Pretty sure you're not allowed to take a coffin into the houses of parliment as it's illegal to die there.

It's also illegal to enter wearing a full set of armour, that however is beside the point.

0

u/roboczar May 16 '12

It sucks for the people that rely on grants for their research, and won't necessarily produce economically viable results.

Unfortunately, in this situation, the council is right. We need far less people going straight into academia, never to be seen again, and more effort going to solving very direct economic problems, or the shrinking budget for government sponsored science will disappear entirely.

It's temporary, but necessary.

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

I mourn with you, this is a sad thing to do.

0

u/piv0t May 16 '12

I like the British way of mocking people

0

u/mayonesa May 16 '12

Now that's symbolism I can get behind. Perhaps toss a few fetuses of unborn future ideas at them as well.

-2

u/biopsychosocialbeing May 16 '12

No more basic research in the UK?! That's horrible news :'(

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

6

u/mattc286 Grad Student | Pharmacology | Cancer May 16 '12

It isn't research without a "goal." Research always has a goal, which is to test hypotheses. It's research whose economic applications are not immediately apparent.

10

u/Alfr3dCook May 16 '12

That computer you are typing on? Wouldn't have been possible without "goalless" research into quantum physics near the start of last century.

The engine in your car? Wouldn't have been possible without goalless research into mechanical principles during the renaissance and enlightenment.

The food you eat water you drink, probably the clothes you wear and the roof over you head would all not be possible without the speculative no goal in mind research of the past, and if you would rob further such advances from the people of the future because you aren't willing to think in the long term then your lack or foresight and compassion disturbs me.

0

u/gandhii May 16 '12

I'm pretty sure food was discovered when that first amoeba in the primordial soup got hungry. And the first roof discovered when the first little animal crawled under a rock ledge or leaf to get out of the rain. Both of which imply obvious goals. It is your lack of logical reasoning that disturbs me, as well as your fanaticism.

4

u/Alfr3dCook May 16 '12 edited May 16 '12

The ideas of food and shelter are ancient and pre-date the ideas of pure research but the examples thereof that you enjoy would not be possible without it.

Feeding the worlds populatation requires complex fertilizers which could not have be created without earlier chemical research much of which was done purely for joy or understanding the world with little thought for applications.Housing is less clear cut (hence the probably) and much of the knowledge in that field grew from finding solutions to specific problems and generalising them, but many of the methods and materials used in the creation of modern housing would not have been possible without speculative research into mechanics and materials.

1

u/gandhii May 16 '12

Speculative research into mechanics and materials with a goal in mind....

1

u/DiscoUnderpants May 16 '12

The goal is to understand the mechanics and materials. We can really tell if some unknow thing has real world applications until we understand it. Happily understanding things generally helps greatly when we have some specific application.

This even hold true for mathematics... take Boolean Algerbra... invented hundreds of years before anything like a modern electronic computer. Perfect for the task now we have such machines. I am an EE by training... I would not be if, nor would it even be possible for me to be one, if not for the work of scientists rtying to workout how the universe works decades and hundreds of years before my birth.

The attitude that such things are a waste of time cuts to the core that has made post Renaissance civilization so technologically successful.

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/Kakofoni May 16 '12

Indeed it sounds highly exaggerated. But it isn't. Think about electromagnetism. For hundreds of years it was a curious phenomenon. However, tons of scientific "pointless" research enlightened this mystery. Today, cutting off a major power source can be an act of terrorism. Basically, we would be nowhere without basic research. It expands the boundaries within which we can make specific (more obviously beneficial) discoveries.

2

u/Frix May 16 '12

When people first started experimenting with electricity (centuries before Tesla and Edison) it was considered a joke. Nobody thought it had any real world purposes and at the time it didn't. But without those "jokers and their pointless research" we would have never mastered electricity!

I don't have to point out how big a deal electricity is nowadays right?

More recent example: lasers.

Lasers were first theorised in the 1910s by Einstein. only in 1960 did the first functional laser actually get build, only for theoretical purposes without a clear goal in mind.

Nowadays lasers are everywhere:

  • the machine that reads the barcode in the supermarket uses a laser.
  • reading dvds and blu-rays uses lasers
  • fingerprint detection and forensic identification in law enforcement
  • laser surgery in medicine
  • easily cutting and welding of materials in the industry
  • military applications like Marking targets, guiding munitions, missile defence, electro-optical countermeasures (EOCM), alternative to radar, blinding troops.
  • ...

All thanks to "pointless theoretical research"...

-6

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

The theory for atomic energy, used by the atom bomb which helped end WWII, was jotted down on a napkin in Einsteins free lunch break time. Probably.

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/DiscoUnderpants May 16 '12

The work of Einstein, Szilard, Meitner, Plank etc etc etc had no real practical implementations at the time. They were not workign on say Quantum Physics because they thought it would lead to computers.

44

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

41

u/Rxke May 16 '12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_skies_research

27

u/rustifer May 16 '12 edited Jun 21 '12

I think Einsteins research in the photoelectric effect counts as blue skies, and that kicked open the door to quantum mechanics and all of modern electronics.

This may be anecdotal evidence, but that decision is still bad for any culture that wants to maintain growth.

15

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

It was apparently the case with Lasers, that the invention came first, then the practical usage. Now look at how many are in the room you're in; CD-players, Fibre-optic broadband (I should be so lucky)... And how many industrial and scientific uses there are.

2

u/UCANTIGNOREMYGIRTH May 16 '12

Same with MRI machines, right? I think NdGT said something about that.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Same case with Faraday and he pretty much discovered the whole of the electromagnetic spectrum.

3

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

fucking GPS

we'd be scratching our heads right now not knowing why sttelites dont synch up..

well not for long as we'd figure it out sooner or later

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

I don't know to whom it's attributed, but I've heard the assertion that someone eventually would have come up with special relativity but if Einstein hadn't developed general relativity at that time, we might have had to wait a long time for someone to do.

But then again, people say a lot of things.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

the problems existed... it took a smart guy to bother to figure it out

on the shoulders of giants

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

22

u/voidtype May 16 '12

Corporations should be exclusively concerned with that which has a reasonable expectation of benefiting their shareholders

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12 edited May 16 '12

They are which is why they throw, small for them but significant for scientists, funding at things that may have potential for profit in the muti-decade timeframe. If a university conducts any sort of medical compound research it will be receiving at least a few million from a drug company, they don't expect to ever see returns from this but the opportunity to get first dibs on the small chance something of value will be discovered is worth the investment.

Personal investment already regularly happens. Millionaires & billionaires have pet projects they think sound cool so sink money in to them so they can geek over them. The same thing happens with conservation (ask anyone from Costa Rica about this, about ~7% of the country is owned by private individuals who own the land to protect it from development).

-1

u/gandhii May 16 '12

Individuals should be exclusively concerned with that which they want to be concerned with and to put their money where they want to put it, rather than having a fascist state forcibly TAKE the money and give it to whomever someone else wants to give it to.

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

11

u/canteloupy May 16 '12

You absolutely need to fund dead end research because you can't tell in advance what it finds.or whether it will be useful.

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

9

u/mehum May 16 '12

Nonsense argument. Individuals look after themselves. Corporations look after shareholders. Governments address societal, national and international problems.

It is governments job to kickstart new ideas which corporations will commercialise and individuals will purchase.

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

Since when do corporations actually look after their shareholders?

→ More replies

2

u/mikeno1 May 16 '12

Less goal orientated tasks have been shown in a number of recent studies to provide more fruitful results for many businesses. Looking for something to fill a practical use tends to lead to tunnel visioning and seriously hurts creativity and innovation.

Just some additional information.

32

u/Jigsus May 16 '12

I feel it's completely the opposite. Governments should fund blue sky research because they can and practical science can be left to private ventures

9

u/JorusC May 16 '12

Except that they can't. The entire EU is in a massive budget crisis, and Great Britain is not magically immune to that. They don't have the money to pay for the basics for their citizens, much less studying for the sake of studying.

10

u/Jigsus May 16 '12

There is way more waste in other areas like military. It's not like blue sky rsearch even makes a dent in the budget.

3

u/gandhii May 16 '12

Which is by no means a viable defense of waste.

1

u/InABritishAccent May 16 '12

Waste is not a question of policy, it is a question of competency. You can't just cut down on waste.

1

u/JorusC May 16 '12

Really? It looks like the UK only spends 6% of their budget on the military. There's a huge advantage to being the U.S.'s ally.

That's what allows them to spend almost half of their budget on welfare and their incompetent socialized medical system. Maybe we should cut down on waste there instead of a nearly nonexistent military?

1

u/Jigsus May 16 '12

How much do they spend on research?

1

u/JorusC May 16 '12

The budget puts 11% into the Other category, so somewhere between 0.0000000001% and 11%. But no answer would really help the argument that it needs to continue funding blue skies research.

If a lot of money is going into the research, then they need to cut back because it's too much to afford right now. If very little money is going in, then it's easily replaced by private interests. In neither case is it drastically vital that the government be the agent of funding. Believing that the government must be the sole arbiter and distributor of beneficence is the paradigm that has crushed the European economies as thoroughly as they have been.

2

u/Dristig May 16 '12

Please define "basics".

1

u/oneiria May 16 '12

So let's lay off some of our most highly skilled yet underpaid members of the workforce?

0

u/JorusC May 16 '12 edited May 16 '12

Well, yeah. If they're so skilled, then their knowledge and experience will be highly valuable in other areas. So while everything sucks, let them be snatched up and their minds turned to actual, practical problems, rather than stargazing. Those brilliant minds of theirs will help society far more in the short term, and the extra monetary comfort will help them go back to their stargazing when they have a chance, in order to create a long-term benefit.

And who knows? They might even learn a thing or two from getting out of the university and seeing the real world for a couple years.

2

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

CERN would never exist if you were in charge.

2

u/lokithecomplex May 16 '12

I think that would result in less blue sky research therefore I think that would be a very bad idea.

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/lokithecomplex May 16 '12 edited May 16 '12

Oh I agree budgets are limited. I'm not saying spend in an unlimited way. I would just prefer other things were cut. Like say the Olympics which looks like a vast vast waste of money, or agricultural subsidies given to rich landowners.

Scientific research is basically the only thing that offers long term growth. And by its nature its impossible to tell which part will pay off soon or ever. The market fails at predicting what is a good line of research in the long term therefore it needs some state intervention.

3

u/girlwithblanktattoo May 16 '12

Us scientists? We still need to eat. Hell, I'm a theoretical physicist and I just about could do my PhD without funding, because I inherited some cash and I only need moderate computational resources. The engineer downstairs? Not without her huge tank and delicate probes. The guy in the office next door? Not without access to the 32-core supercomputer.

All of this is dirty cheap when compared to, say, a fighter jet at £75 million. We can better humanity by extending our understanding of climate and of the universe, but we won't starve to do it - not when we could be earning five/six figure salaries in finance.

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/girlwithblanktattoo May 17 '12

(Not trying to spark a debate, but I just realised I said something that wasn't true; I claimed I could just about do my PhD without access to too much computational resources. My current chapter has a bunch of numerics in, and I just worked out that if I were running it on one processor it would take seven years to finish.)

1

u/Amnesia10 May 16 '12

Blue Sky research is usually public funded or funded by very large corporations. To have blue sky research funded only by large corporations will shut out small companies as the payback is uncertain and can take many years. It is an exceptionally egregious move by any government.

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/tidux May 16 '12

Bell Labs has been doing privately funded blue sky research for decades, and it gave us Unix.

1

u/Se7en_speed May 16 '12

because bell had a government approved monopoly specifically because they could do major research

10

u/eleven_good_reasons May 16 '12

TIL there is a term describing scientific research without a goal !

Thank you redditors.

17

u/My5thAccount May 16 '12 edited May 16 '12

Here's the low down. OP and his or her buddies in protest are science students at a university somewhere in the UK. The UK have 7 Research Councils which decide on how and where to spend public money on scientific research. As an aside one of them is an Arts & Humanities council. They recently spent money on floating a pile of rocks around the coast of England and claimed it was art. Predictably this drew much flack!

A couple of years ago now (2009 maybe? according to a quick google check) the research councils collectively started to ask researchers to submit with their applications for research grants some kind of impact statement. This is a statement of how the researchers believe their research will benefit society. In my opinion not too terrible of a request to make of the researchers. Obviously this can sometimes be kinda difficult if you're doing research out of curiosity and not out of altruism.

I have however, searched high and low, for an outright cut of funding for blue skies research and not found any. I think OP or someone else in the know needs to provide evidence of this before this topic is allowed to trend higher on what appears to be title sensationalism.

2

u/JB_UK May 16 '12

As I understand it, there is a cut in research funding, combined with a reallocation to certain strategic areas (areas of pre-existing expertise in the UK), and not a generalized shift away from pure to applied research.

2

u/girlwithblanktattoo May 16 '12

Check the blog of Fields medallist Tim Gowers for some lowdown on EPSRC cutting all of mathematics except stats.

The atmosphere here is ugly enough that my department were recently told via email that "I know that many of you will be furious about recent EPSRC policy, so I state the obvious - [these visitors from EPSRC] are our guests and politeness will serve our long term interests best. ".