▲ 296 points
back
124 comments
I highly recommend folks watch Particle Fever (for a variety of reasons, and it's on Netflix), but one section particularly stuck out, when the documentary addresses the original LHC location in Texas being de-funded. It shows members of congress arguing how "discovering the origins of the universe" should not be a priority.
I think it's easy to make a very public argument against budgeting research, as the general public doesn't necessarily understand the larger implications of these experiments (at a cursory glance, I rarely see it myself, but I generally give research the benefit of the doubt). Particle Fever addresses this point blank with the discovery of Radio Waves, how nobody really knew what this discovery meant until years/decades later when it became a massive step forward in communication.
My dad is a bit old fashioned, and if you told him in a soundbite that congress was spending money on shrimp treadmills, with no other context he'd immediately make his snap judgement that the government is once again wasting his money. Hard thing to overcome, no matter how important the research might end up being.
When the government needs to make cuts, science, education, and technology R&D should be the last to go.
Solyndra is another great example of how they demonized a R&D program designed to encourage energy independence. Instead of losing the planned $10 billion, the program has turned a profit for the government.
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-...
This is actually a very fascinating part of my childhood. I was in middle school in Midlothian, TX during the time the "super collider" was being build in Waxahatchee. I was a kid, i was fascinated about this. The schools took it upon themselves to start teaching physics to 6th graders. The whole town knew it was a big deal. Then one day, it wasn't.
I'd moved away, and heard it was turned into place to grow mushrooms. I never understood when i was young, why they wouldn't want to build something so important. To be honest, i still don't really understand why we didn't build it aside from simply "Republicans." I'll check out the film.
The SSC was killed in the 103rd Congress by a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate and a Democratic president.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h526 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr2445/text
The project was originally championed by Republicans (and Democrats from Texas.)
"Reagan Calls Super Collider 'Doorway to New World'" March 31, 1988|Associated Press
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-03-31/news/mn-896_1_super-c...
George Bush: Remarks at the Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory in Waxahachie, Texas July 30, 1992
"Now, the super collider. The super collider is one of the greatest scientific projects in the entire world. This place attracts scientific genius the way our U.S. basketball players attract autograph seekers over there in Barcelona. So for me it is an incredible honor to be among you and to hear of your dreams and accomplishments."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21280
But I wouldn't want actual facts to cloud your worldview. You want to know why it was cancelled? Try Google.
When these topics, concerning the general disinterestedness and the indifference of the voting populace toward science and technology come up, one is left to wonder how it is even arithmetically possible in 2014, that there isn't yet a financially lofty interest-group apparatus in Washington, advancing policies that collectively foster the cause of basic research in science & tech.
Where are the think tanks?
Where are the high powered K-street lobbyists?
( I'm discounting the nascent and newfangled lobby groups, here.[1] )
We could not even help elect a single legislator in our own backyard.[2]
Surely, it certainly isn't for the lack of war-chests.
What is it then?
Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3]
I know images of a bleak and soulless future rings more bells at the box office than visions of a verdant tech-enabled one.
Nonetheless, tens of millions of people watch these movies to nurture their already well-developed dislike for science & rational thought on one side and their embrace of religious dogma and superstition on the other.
[1] Tech Firms and Lobbyists: Now Intertwined, but Not Eager to Reveal It
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-lobb...
[2] Tech Industry Flexes Muscle in California Race
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-industry-...
[3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809...
> Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3]
> [3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review
Can you explain this one? I don’t understand why journalists should be “rebutting” SF movies from the early 80s.
I have never heard someone use the plot of Blade Runner as any kind of policy advice... which makes sense because we’re not living in the aftermath of a nuclear war, and we don’t have to deal with escaped androids from off-world colonies. Most of the Blade Runner fans (and fans of the Dick novel) I’ve met are bullish on technology.
I understood your BR reference but I'd counter that the dystopian future films are what the public likes even if they aren't what they initially want as the box office receipts show they lap these films up.
The problem with why you're getting so many comments about your BR reference is you made it way too obscure and it even comes off as a little hipster-ish. Also, (the rest of this response is in reference to your replies to said comments) perhaps instead of trying to land the flaming plane, you should have just bailed out instead.
As someone who works in the film industry, Hollywood makes movies that reflects the public's hopes and fears. It doesn't do dystopia for its own sake, any more than it does mindless techno-optimism. Picking out the re-release of Blade Runner as an example of what Hollywood churns out 'like clockwork' seems self-contradictory to say the least.
On the larger question of why we don't have a lobby to fund basic research, I don't know - perhaps because nobody wants to expend political capital on research that might not be patentable or commercially exploitable, plus you could argue that private capital is already performing effectively in that area. I think it's absurd to pin the blame on Hollywood and think it's more to do with the limitations of our geographically representative form of government, which makes alternative electoral structures like party lists impossible. Probably the best hope for blue-sky scientific research is a new cold war, sadly :-(
Regarding [2]: the incumbent in CA-17 is a popular liberal Democrat, who like most liberal Democrats supports funding for science and technology. He had as much support from the tech industry as a whole as his primary opponent, who was funded in great measure by extremely wealthy Silicon Valley executives and investors. Said opponent ran a campaign to the right of the incumbent, littered with gibberish like "disruptive" and "Government 2.0".
I don't identify with the "we" that tried to elect that guy. To me, it looks like a handful of tech billionaires trying and failing to buy a seat in Congress. If they really want to support science and technology, there's a lot of districts in the R+5 range where diligence and money could help elect centrist technocrats (with any letter after their name) rather than yet another good ol' boy.
>I know images of a bleak and soulless future rings more bells at the box office than visions of a verdant tech-enabled one.
Interstellar, I'm hoping, re-inspires some of us to dream about science once again.
>one is left to wonder how it is even arithmetically possible in 2014, that there isn't yet a financially lofty interest-group apparatus in Washington, advancing policies that collectively foster the cause of basic research in science & tech.
Not really. People who are interested in actually contributing to the world by scientific research and technological innovation have zero interest in a field that is overwhelmingly useless and idiotic: Politics.
Great documentary, I really enjoyed it.
You'll notice that the member of congress mentions that Europe will build it anyway, so why waste US taxpayer money?
Europe did indeed build the LHC, and whatever value there is in discovering the origins of the universe is now enjoyed by the entire world. So what exactly was wrong with his argument?
> It shows members of congress arguing how "discovering the origins of the universe" should not be a priority.
If that sentence ended with "for government", then I agree with those members of congress.
If that sentence ended with "for humanity", then I disagree. It's time to accept that in the modern internet connected world people can pool their abilities and resources with others anywhere on the planet for common goals all without the government.
Particle Fever is damn good. It hit me right in the feels when Peter Higgs is shown crying.
That darn machine is so complex.
Has the LHC ever produced any benefit to humanity? Serious question.
First off, let's start with Benjamin Franklin's "What good is a newborn baby?" quote, when asked what good electricity could ever do. Primary research leads to unknown and unknowable benefits, because it is impossible to know what will come of it.
As an example, let's consider the magnetic moment of the proton. It's a rather esoteric measurement. The proton acts as a tiny magnet, and some researchers wanted to know exactly how strong of a magnet. So, they set up a strong magnetic field and looked to see how the proton behaved. They ended up finding two different values.
As it turned out, those two different values were the result of electrons getting in the way of the measurement. As it turned out, there were two different chemical environments in the molecule being studied, and that caused the two different values. The chemists loved it, because then they could directly measure the electron density.
Then the doctors realized that the chemists had an awesome tool. They could use it to measure the concentration of water inside a patient's body. Bam, MRI.
All this from esoteric primary research.
It's probably going to take some time for knowledge of this kind of seep into our day to day lives, but for a lark:
It's confirming evidence of the Standard Model. It's kind of like checking for your chair for a thumb tack, when you work in an office of pranksters -- if there isn't a thumb tack, was there any benefit to checking? Maybe, but you probably wouldn't say that if there was. If the standard model fell, there would be implications that we could probably engineer around up to and including utilizing nonlinear aspects of particle interactions to build computers with. But alas, it confirmed the model.
Also the standard model has implications on the nature of dark matter and dark energy, which in turn have implications on the likelihood that we get clobbered by a random piece of space rock. Of course even if we did know this to a better degree...it's unclear whether that's a benefit or not. I'm assuming for the purposes of this comment however that knowing our degree of mortality is a benefit, but ymmv.
In general, the more tangible benefits of lhc are probably going to come from stuff related to anything in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Mo..., and nanoengineering efforts yet to come.
Not yet, but similar fundamental scientific research has led to the inventions of extremely beneficial technologies like TV, GPS, CAT scans and nuclear energy.
All of these technologies based directly on fundamental research came years or decades after the discoveries. Science is often a game of patience.
Yes, humans now have a better understanding on how the fundamental building blocks of the universe work. Has this directly affected your quality of life, no. Do you derive enjoyment from knowing that your fellow man now has a better understanding of the inner workings of every atom that make up the mass around you? I do. Could it possibly benefit you in the future, that is unknown.
I'm not sure which come directly from the LHC, and which predate it (but probably still benefit from the research) but a lot of medical techniques rely on particle interactions and acceleration which benefit from the research such as PET-scans, and particle-therapy.
There is also research being performed at cern into new superconductors and new ways of coating various materials with thin layers.(as a direct resut of building the LHC).
You could ask that of any basic scientific discovery in the history of humanity, with the answer of "eventually".
Add it to the list along with the million dollar space pen[0]. Oversimplifying things like that seems to be pretty common in politics. When you say something like "the government spent millions of dollars on a shrimp treadmill!!", the desired reaction is achieved well before any well-reasoned rebuttal can be made. And by the time that the truth comes out -- if it ever does -- it's too late to correct the audience's idea that the government is wasting money.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes"
Very few people will see this truth.
I've pretty much stopped talking, with actual words through actual speech, politics with people around me. What usually happens is "damn, did you hear about the stupid shrimp treadmill." Right as I go to inhale[0], whomever said the first sentence will inevitably cut me off with "yeah, yeah, I'm sure it's not that bad and there is some reasonable explanation that I'm not gonna get, but shit, man, shrimp treadmills, what the fuck?!"
0 - I freely admit that I can also be a little overenthusiastic about political matters, mostly because I'm really starting to dislike the sigh-and-keep-quiet approach.
Wouldn't it work to discredit enough of these stories coming from the same sources - that way, after a certain period, claims coming from the source can be discarded by default, and only assumed true if they can be verified via some other means. Ad hominem, basically.
It's of course that politicians are only speaking what the electorate wants to hear. Anti-science language wouldn't fly if it didn't result in votes. The sentiment against science in large tracts of the country is frankly scary. When you see that the Department of Biology at Baylor University, a respectable institution associated with the Baptist Church, feels compelled to make a statement in favour of evolution (http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=77368) you know it's time to emigrate.
> It's of course that politicians are only speaking what the electorate wants to hear. Anti-science language wouldn't fly if it didn't result in votes
It's not anti-science language, per se. It's a "hey, look at this wasteful stuff your tax dollars are getting spent on," which only incidentally plays on anti-intellectual/anti-scientific sentiments in the electorate. It's hard to explain why something like this is actually a valuable use of resources, and doubly so when it's easy to characterize as a ridiculous thing.
I've heard same thing happened in Europe to a research of mechanism of flea jumping.
Which, as you can imagine, is very important in both tackling flea-borne infections in animals and, potentially, in jumping mechanisms.
The truth is, further a person is removed from productive activity, more fierce they become towards "wasting on needless research" or whatever. Politicians are a good example
Reminds me of the research into French fruit flies that Palin tried to make the same political point with - http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2008/10/french-fruit-fly-f...
I wonder if they just find it icky and are then rationalizing the politics afterwards.
Palin shares her hatred of Fruit Fly research with Stalinist Soviet Russia[0]
And her hatred about France (at the time) too.
What about three times as much on a video game nobody's heard of?
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-10-million-on-a-vide...
Does it lead to kids changing their dietary habits? I would have to guess not. If it did, would it be justifiable? The effectiveness of the product should be discussed first then the cost effectiveness of the product can be considered. There is no point of waving and screaming look at all of this money being spent on this thing, unless you also examine the thing which the money is being spent on.
I saw discussion about this on reddit. The top comment noted that kids sit on the couch (and do not need move) while playing this video game - so it's not clear how this video game helps.
I guess it's a very bad idea that also was poorly planned and managed.
Before. Ask this question I must issue a disclaimer: We waste more money giving religious groups all kinds of priviledges (tax exemptions for TV evangelists!!!) than university researchers will ever waste. Every dollar invested in science is a dollar well spent.
That said, scientists are not beyond wasting resources. I think it is absolutely proper and important to hold scientific research accountable to the degree it is possible.
I am not making a comment about the shrimp treadmill, this is more of a general observation.
> Mike Huckabee linked the National Science Foundation’s funding of shrimp-treadmill studies to limited military spending
How the fuck did he manage that? How many hours would $300m last the military?
According to Wikipedia, US military spending is about $643 billion. So, $300m would last about 4 hours.
Those shrimp really are stealing a lot from the military. </sarcasm>
What I don't understand is that this sort of thing happens between other sectors - for example, 'defense dollars could be used to provide healthcare', or 'subsidies could be used to pay teachers more and improve schools'.
In these cases, the sectors each have their own lobby, and they are able to fight back with publicity and ads.
But scientists are defenseless. Where is the pro-scientist lobby? Should universities just get together and throw some dollars at hiring a lobbying firm?
EDIT: the scientist lobby could release an ad that said this: "politicians are spending millions on armament that was never used and rusted away...do YOU want bacteria in your seafood? do YOU want cheap shrimp buffets? If so, say YES to NSF!" The "say yes to nsf" actually rhymes haha.
I can't deal with politics since about five years ago, it just makes me feel stressed-out and sad. Living in DC made me hate it, all of it. (I moved.)
Look, this happens for every facet of government spending and both parties know exactly how to phrase their soundbite to make it worse. Anyone taking government funding for any project better be ready to deal with an out of context soundbite in a professional and calm manner. It is the nature of the beast. You are using someone else's money for something and the someone else gets a bit peeved that s/he had to give up the money in the first place.
The common refrain that Republicans don't understand science or Democrats don't understand business is not true and not your friend. JackFr's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8611038 points out some of the good lines that contradict the tried and true arguments.
The proper way to deal with these type of things is learn that you are taking money, its not your right, and show how you are actually being innovative and saving the taxpayers money or show what family members you are saving with your activity.
I've seen enough people doing amazing work on the taxpayers dime that really saved the taxpayers money in the long run (early childhood screenings for example) that knew how to properly phrase their work to make both parties their champion.
tldr: you take the taxpayer's money then be ready to do PR
That's a great explanation - for an audience willing to take the time to read it. But your arsenal of political weapons needs to include soundbites for an audience not willing to take the time to read. Here's how I would summarize the content more quotably:
"Actually it cost fifty dollars, and we were trying to figure out how to stop people dying of food poisoning. Is your life worth fifty dollars?"
I don't have a problem with the $3M, shrimp on a tread mill, or $3M for shrimp on a tread mill. The problem I have is I still don't know what this guy was trying to discover even after I read the article. If your going to ask tax payers for $3M do us all a favor and spend a couple of hundred explaining in layman's terms why!
This reminds me a bit of when Sarah Palin derided worm research (C elegans), ignorant of the fact that such research was the backbone of genetics and neurobiology research.
War on Science in US is astounding. It is amazing how US still manages to be ahead in most areas of science and technology.
It's not just the US. Just today the UK press made the lead scientist of the Rosetta mission cry by attacking his SHIRT instead of celebrating his achievements.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-mi...
The thing to remember is that the War on Science is really a lot of little battles. Science says a lot of things that people take offense to, inside or outside the US. For instance:
* Releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere has significant, negative consequences.
* Most complementary & alternative medicines are ineffective
in most cases.
* Contraceptions are not abortifacients.
* Tobacco use causes cancer.
* There is no compelling evidence that ESP or any other
psychic powers exist.
* Cuts to government spending during a downturn can weaken
the economy.
* Oswald, acting alone and for his own reasons, killed
Kennedy.
* Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth,
including humans.
See European freakouts about GMOs for evidence that it's not just the US.