Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The problem is that the gigantic federal bureaucracy ain't got a freaking clue and there is little accountability for the money bureaucrats spend on anything much less R&D. The best R&D is financed by the private sector.
Rankings Of Countries In Math And Science - Business Insideryou are greatly mistakenI am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.
In terms of a black box operation, where a student enters the school is educated by the school and leaves the school, the school system is the US is top notch. I believe it is only Shanghai and Finland which post better results.
No, I'm not.
And for the record, I do feel like I am getting a little off topic focusing solely on defense. We should be forward thinking as a country, and in order to do that we need to invest in research. We never know what applicability those investments will yield, but it has worked out for us thus far.
And for the record, I do feel like I am getting a little off topic focusing solely on defense. We should be forward thinking as a country, and in order to do that we need to invest in research. We never know what applicability those investments will yield, but it has worked out for us thus far.
Then change the US Constitution. Until then it's not legal or Constitutional and I will not support it.
That R&D should be done by private companies.... Oh that's right we're running them out if the US at an alarming rate with our corporate tax rate.
Well, after a very quick google search, the NSF is supported by the Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 8, conjoined with broader goals of the federal government to promote health and prosperity. It's legal after all.
Rankings Of Countries In Math And Science - Business Insideryou are greatly mistakenI am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.
In terms of a black box operation, where a student enters the school is educated by the school and leaves the school, the school system is the US is top notch. I believe it is only Shanghai and Finland which post better results.
No, I'm not.
Best Education In The World Finland South Korea Top Country Rankings U.S. Rated Average
yea you are
The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.
The total Federal Budget outlays for R&D amount to 3.4% of the budget. On top of this there are private arrangements between corporations and universities, there is corporate research as well which doesn't intersect with government spending.
To get a handle on this do you have any international statistics which compares total R&D funding from all sources. You claim that what we spend is overwhelmingly low. I ask by what standard are you making this judgment?
I'm also curious how on your position for funding to social sciences. Are you opposed to such funding because it doesn't translate well into innovation and technology or should it be funded, and if so, then how do you justify shortchanging the sciences in order to fund the social sciences?
Well, to cite one publication, in the Gathering Storm Revisited report published in 2010 argues that the standard of living and opportunities in the U.S. will see a steady decline over the next couple of generations if we don't invest more in research, education, and recruitment into STEM. The authors call for some pretty drastic changes, including doubling total R&D funding over the next ten years
There is no coherent policy at work here and there are problems.
1.) Already mentioned above - we're deep into annual deficit funding.
2.) Not only R&D but all government functions are declining as a share of GDP due to crowding out effect from entitlements. To get a better handle on this we need to know how R&D funding is faring against the Forestry Service, against Border Patrol, against the State Department Budget, etc. If the Budget/GDP is increasing because of out of control entitlements, that doesn't tell us much about what's happening with the spending on traditional government functions.
3.) If you want to rebalance the spending priorities then which entitlement programs are you proposing be cut?
4.) We have no recruitment problem with STEM. Employers are importing immigrant talent in order to drive down wages for domestic STEM talent and there is now a surplus of STEM talent in the labor force. It's idiocy to develop plans to increase the talent pipeline when no talent will sign up for the programs because their career prospects in the US are so dim due to both low salaries and the constant threat of being replaced by an imported visa STEM worker.
Ultimately, what we invest should be higher. If you look at the figures for R&D as percentage of GDP, it has been declining. Here is some data looking at 1976-2015. Sure, we are investing more numerically, but the percentage is decreasing.
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/RDGDP_0.jpg
If you click the button to the right of the happy face, you can imbed images.
What this graph illustrates is that the decrease in R&D spending is principally coming from Defense R&D reductions. The non-Defense R&D spending is looking fairly stable. Your concern in this thread seems to be on non-Defense R&D so aren't you undercutting your own argument here? The big reduction in non-Defense R&D happened before 1982 .
As for funding social sciences, I think it is equally as important. We are seeing an increase in diversity, our urban centers have steadily growing population, we are looking at environmental factors that could potentially affect the production of adequate food to sustain our population, etc etc. We would be stupid not to invest money in the social sciences because that would lead to poorly informed policy decisions.
But that spending doesn't spin-off the benefits you highlighted for scientific R&D.
Look, there are always opportunity costs involved with spending decisions, so which programs are you going to shank in order to free up coin to go to social science R&D? What's the payback from social science versus STEM research?
Federal funding has been declining. According to an NSF report published last september, US funding for R&D dropped by 9% in 2011 alone and hasn't recovered (report is titled 'Federal Funding for Research Drops by 9% in FY 2011' by Michael Yamaner). So there is that
This is less about how our spending is in comparison with the rest of the world and more about the decline in percentage of GDP going towards research signifies that the US government doesn't take it as seriously as it could be. Obviously there are other sources of funding. You point out there are connections between research institutions and industry. While I think these are important, we also need to be suspicious of how industry funding guides research agendas and narrows the focus of what problems are being addressed. While this concern could be raised about any funding (obviously researchers need money so stipulations by funders plays a coercive role in the research process), the federal government has in the past funded a more representative sample of all fields rather than simply funding what could have marketable returns, which is industry's strategy.
There are plenty of things that could be cut in order to increase the funding of R&D. A good way to start would be to increase taxes on coorporations making large profits off of research funded by the U.S. government. I forget the author that put it this way, but the US socializes the risk of investing money in research that may yield no return, but then when that reserach becomes profitable, the US doesn't benefit from that.
We don't have an issue recruiting into STEM. At the same time, our schools underperform, which ultimately impacts the quality of student selecting to go into STEM in the first place.
You will see a more marketable return on investment in "hard" sciences, but that doesn't mean the social sciences aren't equally necessary to the proper functioning of our country.
Most recent government sponsored adventures into R&D have resulted in bankruptcy, Solyndra being the most notable. The government has it's hands full issuing patents or permits to manufacture drugs that keep legal firms in business. Government just isn't good at distributing money. Leave it to the experts.
Most recent government sponsored adventures into R&D have resulted in bankruptcy, Solyndra being the most notable. The government has it's hands full issuing patents or permits to manufacture drugs that keep legal firms in business. Government just isn't good at distributing money. Leave it to the experts.
Yes, but Obama's buddies made out like bandits
I'm tired of giving my money to bunch of elected people to do with as they wish.
I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.
The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.
The reality of the situation is our economy is quickly becoming a knowledge economy dependent on things like technological transfer, R&D, knowledge production, etc. The amount we invest in research is actually quite small vis-a-vis other developed nations. In order to stay competative we should be investing more in research, as well as increasing the amount of funding for education to ensure our citizens are knowledgeable about contemporary science and skilled in the state-of-the-art technology our economy is increasingly fueled by.
This is straight copy-pasted from the other thread, sorry if it's a little rigid.
You remain wilfully ignorant & clueless. I don't read nor believe in the bible.I'm a born and raised "Bigot redneck Christian" I'm fully aware of your perspective. The Bible is the breeding ground for bigotry. The adam and eve soReally? Do you have ANY idea who I was referring to? Likely not. Just a typical moron trying to fit in but ultimately cluelessSo you know the word infrastructure but don't know Matthew was just a man telling stories in hopes for a better tomorrow before TV.Matthew is that you? You forgot infrastructure. ....
I don't watch the comedy channel. That shit is targeted at stupid kids and dumbass adults.Your quote attacks many but your responses are always bias and partisan. Perhaps you should learn more about the people you hate before hating them. Watch some Daily Show, I CHALLENGE YOU TO. If you graduate that, I'll let you watch some Colbert.Matthew is that you? You forgot infrastructure. ....
The Left knows way more about the Right than the Right knows about the Left. The Right thinks the leftists are all a bunch of morons unable to think hoping to be poor. I'm embarrassed for so many people in America today.
Fitting you find it so "informing"
I'm fully aware you don't watch the Comedy Channel. But you unknowlingly provide so much of their script.
The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.
The total Federal Budget outlays for R&D amount to 3.4% of the budget. On top of this there are private arrangements between corporations and universities, there is corporate research as well which doesn't intersect with government spending.
To get a handle on this do you have any international statistics which compares total R&D funding from all sources. You claim that what we spend is overwhelmingly low. I ask by what standard are you making this judgment?
I'm also curious how on your position for funding to social sciences. Are you opposed to such funding because it doesn't translate well into innovation and technology or should it be funded, and if so, then how do you justify shortchanging the sciences in order to fund the social sciences?
The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.
The total Federal Budget outlays for R&D amount to 3.4% of the budget. On top of this there are private arrangements between corporations and universities, there is corporate research as well which doesn't intersect with government spending.
To get a handle on this do you have any international statistics which compares total R&D funding from all sources. You claim that what we spend is overwhelmingly low. I ask by what standard are you making this judgment?
I'm also curious how on your position for funding to social sciences. Are you opposed to such funding because it doesn't translate well into innovation and technology or should it be funded, and if so, then how do you justify shortchanging the sciences in order to fund the social sciences?
I wonder how much this R&D cost and if it was really necessary.
The U.S. Forest Service on Friday published a nearly 700-word article on how to safely roast marshmallows, all in preparation for Saturday, which is National Roasted Marshmallow Day.
