Blow Everyone else's Dough

[stepford]

Back during the first few years of my career, when I was still calling myself a physicist and writing lots of journal papers, the whole Superconducting Super Collider controversy happened. I was at that time (and still am) a fan of small scale science that can be done by an individual or small team in a lab - feeling that the money that could pay for one SSC could fund maybe 1000 solid small scale labs. I believe that is a more effective way of generating new and useful scientific knowledge.

So I was one of many in the physics community who, while not actively opposing the SSC, was not particularly supportive either. And then the project was cancelled and the funds disappeared into the great congressional void from which they had sprung. And the joke was on me. The money never magically reappeared to fund lots of worthwhile small scale projects. It just vanished and all science was poorer for it.

I remain skeptical of the utility of some of the larger particle accelerators, and of many of the developments in fundamental physics over the last few decades (for reasons similar to those discussed in the article referenced by the OP). Still I have come to realize that Science needs big projects to get a bunch of top talent focused on big questions. Such large projects can maintain their own momentum over many years and tend to generate a cascade of useful subsidiary research - even if the big picture questions driving the original project remain unanswered. This may not be the perfect way to fund science, but it's better than not funding it at all.

 

[cho oyu]

I don't think it is ever completely clear how and when large scale science experiments will pay off. One could question whether money spent on the LHC would have been better spent on some other fundamental endeavor, but I do think that we, as a global people, have and will reap significant benefits. So here are some thoughts on why I think the money is in fact well-spent.



Negative results may not be as glamorous as positive results (e.g. Higgs boson), but they are important. Multiple theories (which tend to lead experiment by decades in physics and mathematics) get thrown out or refined and allow the next step in discovery and understanding. In a similar way, Einstein's 1913 cosmological constant in the general theory of relativity took 85 years of experiments to show that it actually had meaning - and fundamentally changed how we had to think about how the universe works. There were a lot of 'negative' results in astronomy along that tortuous path.


Significant spin-off technology also comes out of these massive science challenges; most of the engineering has not been completed before. As an example with the LHC, there are new methods of cooling, new sensors and sensor technologies, new methods of handling high vacuum. Many of these do get utilized in other industries; just that many are not glamorous implementations. I am more familiar with spinoff technologies from fusion research (both theoretical and practical); as an example, our semiconductor industry as it is known today would not exist without that still far-off goal.



These types of large-scale goals employ and train a huge number of people with specialized knowledge. Most of the PhD and post-docs who work with the LHC end up in other fields, well trained, and with engineering or science knowledge that can then be applied either in industry or other research areas. In every probability, one of the engineers who worked on detection systems at the LHC then went on to manage a lab doing work in artificial photosynthesis, which then leads to more efficient solar implentation.



And last, I think mankind needs some way to explore dreams and curiousity. Maybe it is space exploration, maybe it is how biology and brains function, and maybe it is understanding where and how the universe comes from. From the earliest stories, both written and oral, we have always had dreams, and I do not wish to imagine a day when that stops and when we as a people find it to be unimportant.

 

[flintnational]

Back during the first few years of my career, when I was still calling myself a physicist and writing lots of journal papers, the whole Superconducting Super Collider controversy happened. I was at that time (and still am) a fan of small scale science that can be done by an individual or small team in a lab - feeling that the money that could pay for one SSC could fund maybe 1000 solid small scale labs. I believe that is a more effective way of generating new and useful scientific knowledge...............

Re the bolded part - Nice point. One of the advantages of the market over central planning is its approach to innovation. Thousands of ideas are tested and very few succeed. We are the beneficiaries of the successes. It makes sense to do the same with publicly funded research.

 

[stepford]

To briefly revive this thread. It seems that recent research has validated the claim that "small science" is generally more innovative and disruptive than large.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/science/science-research-psychology.html

 

[HI Bill]

As a scuba diver, and wannabe marine biologist, I would chime-in here, and whine that we haven't been back to the deepest part of the ocean (Challenger Deep, Marianas Trench) on a scientific expedition, since the first dive in 1960, in the Bathyscaphe Trieste. James Cameron did return in 2012, and it looks like there's a new Triton sub that will try soon, though!

Space, astronomy, and high-energy particle physics seem to get all the glory and funding, while the world's oceans go largely unexplored and uninvestigated. Same goes for geology in the US (Russia is another matter)!

 

[kgtest]

As a scuba diver, and wannabe marine biologist, I would chime-in here, and whine that we haven't been back to the deepest part of the ocean (Challenger Deep, Marianas Trench) on a scientific expedition, since the first dive in 1960, in the Bathyscaphe Trieste. James Cameron did return in 2012, and it looks like there's a new Triton sub that will try soon, though!

Space, astronomy, and high-energy particle physics seem to get all the glory and funding, while the world's oceans go largely unexplored and uninvestigated. Same goes for geology in the US (Russia is another matter)!

Maybe it's a hope-based glorification... where perceptually there is little hope for the ocean, there might be more perceived hope for space, or nuclear?


Waterworld Man! If the ocean's are rising, live in the ocean!

 

[Mdlerth]

Time to go watch reruns of Jonny Quest

As a scuba diver, and wannabe marine biologist, I would chime-in here, and whine that we haven't been back to the deepest part of the ocean (Challenger Deep, Marianas Trench) on a scientific expedition, since the first dive in 1960, in the Bathyscaphe Trieste. James Cameron did return in 2012, and it looks like there's a new Triton sub that will try soon, though!

Space, astronomy, and high-energy particle physics seem to get all the glory and funding, while the world's oceans go largely unexplored and uninvestigated. Same goes for geology in the US (Russia is another matter)!

As a lifelong science geek, I've always been enthralled by its adventurous side. Whether it was a moon shot or a deep dive, the romance of Big Science captured my imagination and never let go. Jacques Cousteau was as much a hero to me as Neil Armstrong. I read everything I could by William Beebe and Eugenie Clark.

If I were king, I'd be delighted to choke off crown support of about 95% of what the kingdom subsidizes today so I could bankroll exploration of both Outer space and Inner.

But I'm not king. I'm just an ordinary mensch whose opinions get diluted into insignificance by millions of voters. Sigh...