Last year physicists commemorated the centennial of the discovery of the atomic nucleus. In experiments carried out in Ernest Rutherford’s laboratory at Manchester in 1911, a beam of electrically charged particles from the radioactive decay of radium was directed at a thin gold foil. It was generally believed at the time that the mass of an atom was spread out evenly, like a pudding. In that case, the heavy charged particles from radium should have passed through the gold foil, with very little deflection. To Rutherford’s surprise, some of these particles bounced nearly straight back from the foil, showing that they were being repelled by something small and heavy within gold atoms. Rutherford identified this as the nucleus of the atom, around which electrons revolve like planets around the sun.
This was great science, but not what one would call big science. Rutherford’s experimental team consisted of one postdoc and one undergraduate. Their work was supported by a grant of just £70 from the Royal Society of London. The most expensive thing used in the experiment was the sample of radium, but Rutherford did not have to pay for it—the radium was on loan from the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
. . .
The Crisis of Big Science
The Crisis of Big Science
NY Rev of Books | The Crisis of Big Science ~ S. Weinberg
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: The Crisis of Big Science
The crisis of big science is that it looks to the state for funding.It seems to me that what is really needed is not more special pleading for one or another particular public good, but for all the people who care about these things to unite in restoring higher and more progressive tax rates, especially on investment income. I am not an economist, but I talk to economists, and I gather that dollar for dollar, government spending stimulates the economy more than tax cuts. It is simply a fallacy to say that we cannot afford increased government spending. But given the anti-tax mania that seems to be gripping the public, views like these are political poison. This is the real crisis, and not just for science.
—from the article linked above
In 1936, as a consequence of an invitation to the USSR to give lectures for the Ministry of Heavy Industry, [Michael] Polanyi met Bukharin, who told him that in a socialist society there is no distinction between pure and applied science, because all scientific research is in accordance with the needs of the latest Five Year Plan. Polanyi noted what happened to the study of genetics in the Soviet Union once the doctrines of Trofim Lysenko gained the backing of the State. Demands in Britain, amongst people such as the Marxist John Desmond Bernal, for centrally planned scientific research, led Polanyi to argue that science is the product of a community of specialists whose conclusions are the outcome of free debate not central direction. Together with John Baker, he founded the influential Society for Freedom in Science to defend this view.
In a series of articles, re-published in The Contempt of Freedom (1940) and The Logic of Liberty (1951), Polanyi claimed that co-operation amongst scientists is analogous to the way in which agents co-ordinate themselves within a free market. Just as consumers in a free market determine the value of products, scientists validate theories by endorsing them as true. Whereas John Desmond Bernal argued that science should be directed by the State in the pursuit of practical ends, Polanyi declared that science is a spontaneous order generated by a commitment to truth. It flourishes when scientists have the freedom to pursue truth as an end in itself:
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi
- "[S]cientists, freely making their own choice of problems and pursuing them in the light of their own personal judgment, are in fact co-operating as members of a closely knit organization."
"Such self-co-ordination of independent initiatives leads to a joint result which is unpremeditated by any of those who bring it about."
"Any attempt to organize the group ... under a single authority would eliminate their independent initiatives and thus reduce their joint effectiveness to that of the single person directing them from the centre. It would, in effect, paralyse their cooperation."
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Re: The Crisis of Big Science
I don't see why and how the private sector could or should fund Big Science.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: The Crisis of Big Science
Why not? It's doing a hell of a job for the pharmaceuticals, medicine in general, energy extraction, and much, much more.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Re: The Crisis of Big Science
I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that it tells us it is. At any rate, what's the baseline? "hell of a job" compared to what?Marcus wrote:Why not? It's doing a hell of a job for the pharmaceuticals, medicine in general, energy extraction, and much, much more.
And what is private? Big corporations make best effort to get government money, just as they ought to. However, having gotten that money, how "private" are they really?
Re: The Crisis of Big Science
Most medical research and certainly basic biological research is govt funded.Marcus wrote:Why not? It's doing a hell of a job for the pharmaceuticals, medicine in general, energy extraction, and much, much more.
Why should private corporations invest billions in ventures where the potential payoff could be several decades or even centuries in the future.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: The Crisis of Big Science
Yes, Milo, all that you say is true and then some. But that is a whole 'nother can of worms. My point is, in theory, directed at the advisability of involving the state in science. There must be a better way to collectivize our efforts than by running them through the state.Milo wrote:I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that it tells us it is. At any rate, what's the baseline? "hell of a job" compared to what?Marcus wrote:Why not? It's doing a hell of a job for the pharmaceuticals, medicine in general, energy extraction, and much, much more.
And what is private? Big corporations make best effort to get government money, just as they ought to. However, having gotten that money, how "private" are they really?
And, yes, I am somewhat aware of how compromised the system is, how convoluted the inter-weavings between business and government. But then Eisenhower warned us, didn't he?
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
- monster_gardener
- Posts: 5334
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
- Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........
The CEO of the First Private Anti-Meteor Squad.......
Thank Very Much for your post, Marcus.Marcus wrote:Yes, Milo, all that you say is true and then some. But that is a whole 'nother can of worms. My point is, in theory, directed at the advisability of involving the state in science. There must be a better way to collectivize our efforts than by running them through the state.Milo wrote:I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that it tells us it is. At any rate, what's the baseline? "hell of a job" compared to what?Marcus wrote:Why not? It's doing a hell of a job for the pharmaceuticals, medicine in general, energy extraction, and much, much more.
And what is private? Big corporations make best effort to get government money, just as they ought to. However, having gotten that money, how "private" are they really?
And, yes, I am somewhat aware of how compromised the system is, how convoluted the inter-weavings between business and government. But then Eisenhower warned us, didn't he?
What could be the proper title for the CEO of the first private anti-meteor squad in Space presuming it was the first and only and effective..........My point is, in theory, directed at the advisability of involving the state in science.
Perhaps "Your Grace" maybe even "Your Majesty" ........ King......
Mind you, better than almost nothing at all like we have now.............
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
- Zack Morris
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
- Location: Bayside High School
Re: The Crisis of Big Science
To cultivate excellent personnel? The vast majority of PhD students in the hard sciences and engineering aren't doing anything that requires academic involvement. It would be far more efficient to have the private sector administer its own education through work experience.Typhoon wrote:Most medical research and certainly basic biological research is govt funded.Marcus wrote:Why not? It's doing a hell of a job for the pharmaceuticals, medicine in general, energy extraction, and much, much more.
Why should private corporations invest billions in ventures where the potential payoff could be several decades or even centuries in the future.
- Zack Morris
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
- Location: Bayside High School
Re: The Crisis of Big Science
To be fair, Eisenhower never warned of a "scientific-industrial complex", and even if such a thing exists, it is miniscule and harmless.Marcus wrote: And, yes, I am somewhat aware of how compromised the system is, how convoluted the inter-weavings between business and government. But then Eisenhower warned us, didn't he?
Re: The Crisis of Big Science
Ah, you mean the traditional Japanese method?Zack Morris wrote:To cultivate excellent personnel? The vast majority of PhD students in the hard sciences and engineering aren't doing anything that requires academic involvement. It would be far more efficient to have the private sector administer its own education through work experience.Typhoon wrote:Most medical research and certainly basic biological research is govt funded.Marcus wrote:Why not? It's doing a hell of a job for the pharmaceuticals, medicine in general, energy extraction, and much, much more.
Why should private corporations invest billions in ventures where the potential payoff could be several decades or even centuries in the future.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.