However, Senator Ron Johnson (R - WI) had an opposing view: «I'd love to talk about spending more
money on basic research.
The debate about whether the federal government should spend
money on basic research instead of giving more to applied research is an old one, said Melinda Baldwin, a lecturer in the history of science at Harvard University.
Not exact matches
They are, therefore, reluctant to spend
money on something as
basic as keyword
research.
University lobbyists object to the changes in the set - asides for these programs, arguing that the
money would be better spent
on funding more
basic research.
We need to increase the levels of spending
on basic science, creating new knowledge, and make certain that the
money is maximized, both in the direct costs of funding
research and the indirect costs of the infrastructure, such as buildings and equipment.
The debate over targeted
research versus
basic research came to a head earlier this month when the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report advising the army
on how to spend the
money.
was based upon my impressions of a declining quality of modern science, large wastage of time by researchers struggling to get more and more
research grants, conversion of university
research into a business entity where
money is everything, de-emphasis
on basic research and corresponding increased emphasis
on applied
research, and, increasing corruption by professional scientists.
But every billion - dollar carbon - capture project, in the meantime, is raiding
money that might otherwise go into
basic research and development aimed at advancing solar technology or large - scale energy storage or other fields where breakthroughs could help lay the groundwork for a post-fossil global energy system — instead of providing a dicey Band - Aid to keep societies stuck
on the coal rung of the heat ladder a while longer.
Gates hammered
on points reported here for many years: that without a big, and sustained, boost in spending
on basic research and development
on energy frontiers, the chances of triggering an energy revolution are nil; that while the private sector and venture capital investors are vital for transforming breakthroughs into marketable products or services, they will not invest in the long - haul inquiry that's required to generate game - changing breakthroughs; that a 1 or 2 percent tax
on carbon - emitting fuels could generate a large, steady stream of
money for invigorating the innovation pipeline; that a declining emissions cap and credit trading system --- if it could survive America's polarized politics --- would have to raise energy costs far beyond what would be politically tenable to generate a similar scale of transformational activity.
Here, once again, is the dribble of federal
money for
basic research and development work
on energy frontiers (yes, I have mantras, too):
President Bush plans to use a Rose Garden speech
on global warming policy today to propose several ways to improve the situation, government officials say, including an increase in
money for
basic climate
research and an effort to coordinate American climate - modeling efforts with those abroad.
They simply think that science has utterly failed to produce the correct answer
on everything from
basic thermodynamics to analysis of temperature station data, that scientists chase
research grant
money by producing answers useful for the expansion of government power, that every single mechanism intended to prevent corruption and fraud has failed and of course that scientists are individually and collectively involved in a conscious effort to lie to the public.
The hopes and fears promoted
basic research on climate change by raising large sums of government
money and a few provocative ideas.
Residents who want to save
money on insurance around Union Township can do some
basic research, including looking at the New Jersey tiered auto system for high risk drivers and considering different home policy options.