Inside Higher Ed today features an opinion piece calling for more basic research funding:
For the first time since we won the Cold War, other nations are mounting an aggressive challenge to the United States’ position as a world leader in science. China and India combined produce more than twice as many engineers each year than the United States. Both have exceeded our rate of economic growth over the past decade and, although they’re starting from a much lower base, both have increased funding for basic research more quickly than we have.
This presents a challenge because we’re currently under-investing in basic research. Although the level of overall federal scientific spending sits at an all-time high in real dollar terms, as a percentage of GDP it remains smaller than it was during the Apollo program years of the late 1960s. Distressingly, furthermore, some recent scientific policies shifted our own priorities away from basic research. While I have nothing against applied research — as a doctor, I never did any other kind — we ultimately need to do more basic research if we want to retain our position as a world leader.
The author? Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.
Welcome to the party, Mr. Frist. Some of us have been saying that for a long time, but there’s a certain group whose priorities don’t really seem to include science. If I could just remember what they call themselves…. Starts with an “R,” I think? Something to do with elephants, maybe?
While I agree that more basic research funding is necessary, I think Frist is a little clueless in his supporting statements. China and India have more than three times the population of the United States. Why, then, is it surprising that, COMBINED no less, they produce more than twice the engineers than the US does. Gee, 2 BILLION people vs. 300 million and they produce 2x more of something? Shocking, to be sure. I’m floored. Even if you cut out the uneducated peasants from the China/India population, they would STILL outpopulate us by at least 2x. To top it all off, what does basic science research have to do with producing engineers? Last time I checked (which since I’m an engineer myself, wasn’t too long ago), engineers worked mostly with applied science, but I digress… we might be getting outinvested in basic research, but catching up probably isn’t going to help us train engineers, methinks.
Apropos of absolutely nothing:
String Theory in comic form
I find this comic( http://nedroid.com/showimage.html?Image=images/beartato-sciencenugget01.gif ) more accurate.