[Closed] Science...

I guess it's like apprenticeships.
Industry, as a whole, benefits from new science or trained workers, but there's always a risk that the company that makes the investment won't be the one that sees the reward.

Tax religious organisations and put all of the money into science.

Industry does of course fund a lot of science. But they will only do it if there's a clear paypack opportunity (these days). It needs universities to do the head-in-clouds stuff, then they discover things that might be useful in a practical application. The scientists at big companies then do work derived from the stuff that unis do.

However there's a half way house, some companies fund a certain amount of head in clouds research AT universities, or at least chip in, for stuff that they think might be of use to them in the future.

To answer the OP - yes, the govt should. Top end science is one of the few things we still do here, let's hold onto it.

Oh - I like Oggles idea.

should the government try and find more money for science?

Yes but it should also stay well out of science. Look at America; the damage done to science by one creationist nutcase being in power for 8 years.

Might also help if science reporting was left to specialist departments rather than the wider media - only have to look at the MMR scandal to see the damage that one discredited scientist can cause with the right media scare stories.

I do like Oggles idea though. 🙂

Businesses fund research that will make them money or provide them with good PR opportunities. Those with an active R and D department take a long view and will fund things that have no immediate use but may do in the future.

R and D is expensive, for every new idea you see there are loads that fail for various reasons and never get heard of. IIRC for Pharma this is somewhere in the region of 90% of all discovered drugs don't make it to commercial viability, they do spend billions researching them before they realise this.

There is a good arguement for funding more basic science (like the videos) to get people interested as you need people to study various aspects of science so that businesses continue to fund research in the UK.

Tax religious organisations

I actually think it's about bloody time this happened. The Church of England is an extremely wealthy organisation that enjoys all kinds of tax breaks for it's 'staff', but is virtually socially redundant. I don't see why something which is essentially a lifestyle choice should give it's members an economic advantage over others. Why? I worked for one organisation which is a 'charity'; they basically provide a very minimal 'charitable' service (and even then it's arguable as to what actual benefit it really does provide), yet it's employees enjoy all sorts of benefits that people who work for other, actually far more beneficial services, don't. I don't know all the complex details of the tax arrangements, I admit, but suffice to say, there are several employees who enjoy pretty decent standards of living, but pay bugger all tax. Get cars, computers and stuff all 'tax-deductable'. Proper scam if you ask me.

Not to mention totally hypocritical...

I like Oggles idea too.

Tax religious organisations and put all of the money into science.

That.

I think the government cuts to research funding will come and 'bite us on the arse' in years to come.

the push we have seen in the last few years towards universities being profitable is a dangerous move imo. Engineering depts of universities are often ok, they can sell expertise to balance the books. It's the physics depts etc who by the nature of the blue sky work often have no saleable 'product'.

I think a lot of the general publics understanding can be summed up by a comment i read on the bbc website in response to the LHC being started

"why can't all these scientists focus on something important like stopping knife crime"

without a better understanding of what scientist do - and how this effects them the general publ;ic think it is boffins and microscopes. i think that attitudes are improving, brian cox has been doing amazing work, to show the interest of science, but how it makes average joe's life better is a difficult thing to package...

bit of a brain dump 😳

brian cox has been doing amazing work, to promote himself and further his career and increase his bank-balance...

FTFY.

thomthumb, I was on the verge of writing a very similar rant about media treatment of "science" and the wider public attitude but I just had to step away from the computer...

govt needs to do it as the market will only have a go at things where they can see a return. much research has no obvious method of making money from it so business does not care - the space race is a good example what commercial opportunities are there so big business wont invest IMHO
Did you see this link re shrodingers cat
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587 ]Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment
[/url]
Yes church as a charity my arse

Just been thinking as science seems to be getting more popular, and more accessible, and with projects just as the periodic videos filmed within Nottingham's chemistry department

Science, remarkably, wasn't getting more popular according to the last stats I saw about 12 months ago - it showed vast drops in numbers in science and engineering (as a percentage of total intake to unis). I'm not sure what the current stats are.

I think science and eng should be getting notably more funding for the simple reason that they're a pretty major part of the UK economy. We have, currently, world class teaching and research facilities in the UK. Cuts to funding of such things affect everyone negatively, not just students and uni staff. They're a foundation for major manufacturing and tech industries that run the world practically these days.

What I find funny is in the UK research in engineering and science has to prove it's commercial potential worth before it gets funding, one the whole, yet the arts get their funding pretty much without restriction. I realise the need for some way of discriminating between projects to pay for, but bearing in mind that most of the major developments in science and engineering in the last century came from ideas that, at the time, were considered farcical and useless by peers, why are we now preventing that exploration of the unknown? Researchers are, generally by definition and design, not very good at looking at the commercialisation of their work, yet they're pretty much expected to produce a business plan from the slightest idea they come up with.

yet the arts get their funding pretty much without restriction.

Really? I'd be interested to know some facts on this actually.

More government money for blue sky research? That would be great. The world needs more British science boffins. Especially now as universities might be laying off academics as they struggle to cover their costs.

As for '90% of putative drugs fail' - a big chunk of the cost of a drug pays for the R&D for the ones that didn't make it. Tufts university in the USA has done sequential research on the subject. Estimates vary somewhat, but I've seen suggestions that the cost of a new drug is something like $1,000,000,000 in R&D.

I suggest a tax on 'spine wizards', 'water magicians' and other 'alternative therapy' snake oil salesmen. Folks find solace in religion, but charlatans should be taxed to the limit.

elfinsafety- what was your point? I think we all do our jobs for the money and our careers, it just so happens that Brian Cox is also doing what thomthumb said.

Really? I'd be interested to know some facts on this actually.

Certainly basing that on annecdotal evidence chatting to those in that field, I don't know the details of the application processes, but there's no commercial pre-requisite as far as I'm aware (and rightly not).

Hmm, all I can see in those 'Amazing' programmes is quite a lot of scientific theory and hypothesis presented as facts, dressed up with some fancy exciting graphics, shot in gorgeous locations with a floppy-haired housewives' favourite.

Not a great deal of actual 'science'.

Dumbed down and sexed up. 'Science' for couch potatoes.

Especially now as universities might be laying off academics as they struggle to cover their costs.

Might be? You should see the numbers taking voluntary severance here. Whoe research groups decimated, whole [i]departments [/i]shed.

Dumbed down and sexed up. 'Science' for couch potatoes.

You'd be surprised at the average level of understanding of science and eng in the UK, it's pretty low, aiming higher would be utterly pointless.

Certainly basing that on annecdotal evidence...

Erm, I asked for facts. Not waffle. 🙄

Erm, I asked for facts. Not waffle.

but thats all it is meant to be, which is why it can be broadcast on BBC1 or 2. I dont think its a bad thing having someone so completely taken by physics like Brian Cox explaining simple things to the masses, as it creates a soft spot for science, in the people who have watched any of his documentaries.

Dumbed down and sexed up.

well he could try reading out a peer reviewed paper but i can't see it going down quite so well. 🙄

The Church of England is an extremely wealthy organisation that enjoys all kinds of tax breaks for it's 'staff', but is virtually socially redundant. I don't see why something which is essentially a lifestyle choice should give it's members an economic advantage over others.

Erm, I asked for facts. Not waffle.

So.... where's the evidence for C of E being "extremely wealthy" please? Or indeed any other mainstream denomination e.g. RC, Episcopal Church, Muslims, etc? Thanks in advance!

It has it's place.

On BBC 3, right after 'Pint of lager..'

is quite a lot of scientific theory and hypothesis presented as facts

It has it's place.

On BBC 3, right after 'Pint of lager..'

I think you're overly cynical and unaware (or purposefully under-rating) of the positive impact such shows have on the general population and their interest in science for effect here.

Still, you're entitled to your opinion.

I was reading an interesting article by Tim Harford commenting that in recent years patents and other innovations have come from much larger teams than in the past. Those teams are made up of more specialised people and those people are so specialised that they are unlikely to contribute to innovations in any other field.

That makes innovation much more expensive than it used to be, (he gives the example that the Spitfire was prototyped for roughly the price of a london house), you couldn't make similar comparisons now to the cost of developing any kind of vehicle, let alone a game changing one - and maybe as a result the rate of innovation is slowing.

His point was that we need to look at new ways to pay for innovation as the model we need is somewhere between government research programmes (which are might spend a lot of money but isn't keen on long odds) and the private sector (which doesn't mind long odds so long as they are comparatively cheap).

Instead we should look at something closer to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute - invest huge sums in highly speculative work, where the failure rate is high, but where success results in 'block busters' - massive innovations

And as for taxing the profits of the church - I don't know about the C of E but the church of Scotland is dying on its arse. Around 120 ministers retire every year and only 4 or 5 are recruited, even by they're own admission they think they'll be extinct in the near future.

So.... where's the evidence for C of E being "extremely wealthy" please?

Have a little Google. Plenty there. CofE is one of the largest landowners in Britain, with a property portfolio valued at several billion pounds. Makes shed loads from investments, property sales, home-made jam at church fetes and that.

[i]So.... where's the evidence for C of E being "extremely wealthy" please?[/i]

http://www.propertycommunity.com/property-in-the-uk/100-the-church-of-england-and-the-property-market-boom.html

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_050331cofe.shtml
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/morals.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/janet-street-porter/editoratlarge-thats-a-bit-rich-ndash-the-church-going-on-about-wealth-1206401.html

Thats more money than I've got.

http://boards.fool.co.uk/wealth-of-the-catholic-church-10962908.aspx?sort=postdate

...and the Pope can afford a new bike too.

Hmm.

What does the church do with the money made?

And having lots of land is not the same as being rich - ask a farmer.

Have a little Google. Plenty there. CofE is one of the largest landowners in Britain, with a property portfolio valued at several billion pounds. Makes shed loads from investments, property sales, home-made jam at church fetes and that.

Just spent 10 minutes finding absolutely nothing which tells me the spending power that CofE has. Their wealth is tied up in assets (i.e. church buildings, property) which do not generate capital for day-to-day financing. This relies upon funding from donations, which are in decline as church-going declines. So how on Earth can you tax the CofE on money they don't have?

They own stuff like this:

[img] [/img]

And this:

[img] [/img]

And get involved in things like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/25/church-loses-40m-in-new-york

Their wealth is tied up in assets

Still wealth though in't it?

So how on Earth can you tax the CofE on money they don't have?

They've got plenty. When was the last time you saw an Archbishop in LiDLs?

@coffeeking 'might be' was perhaps over-subtle.

In the diocese where my Mum goes to church, the priest there has to cover masses in 4 diocese in a day. The RC, at least in the UK, does not have the money to pay the meagre (in terms of hours worked, less than the minimum wage) wages of its clergy due to a drastic decline in church-going numbers.

The church/cathedral buildings which have been cited as assets are also financial liabilities given the required upkeep because of their age, community and historical importance. They are also notoriously expensive to heat and often aren't!

Ok so the Church of England is poor. Yeah, right. And the rest... 😉

Although, as a regular shopper at LiDLs, I have never seen an Archbishop in there. I did see a priest in Waitrose though, which kind of supports my argument somewhat.

It's the physics depts etc who by the nature of the blue sky work often have no saleable 'product'.

Try a maths department. The applied side can usually do ok by giving a theoretical link back to a vague engineering / climate / biological / financial application problem but pure can really struggle and that is the forge making the tools for virtually all hard science.

I don't see priests in any supermarket, or indeed anywhere, these days because either a) there aren't any left because the Church can't afford to provide for them since diocese donations have collapsed; or b) they're too busy praying for your soul 😉

Does anyone else think it's ironic that a thread entitled "Science" has degenerated into arguments about religions on the first page? 😕

Anyway. I think science deserves more cash. Yes, the government should stump up for it. It will pay us back great dividends in the long term. Perhaps hard science subjects should have much lower fees at university than easy arts subjects? (I say that as an easy arts subject graduate.)

RE: funding, government funding is needed, companies may back some long game investments but not the real blue sky out there stuff.

What if it's overcast?

b) they're too busy praying for your soul

Ah, that'll be it then.

Ah well, no rest for the wicked...

One other point is that wealth is created at it's source by creation / production of something.

Services between different companies is just moving money around, some value may be added but nothing is created. We do not have massive oil reserves like Canada, or a massive manufacturing sector like China what we (the UK) do have is the possibility to create ideas and "mine" them. This needs two things

1. Good new science, which itself require funding at a levels in all areas to create the new idea(s).

2. Good risk taking entrepreneurs to invest and push the final step.

We need more of both.

Elfinsafety - Member
What if it's overcast?

If you have ever worked in science you will know it's frequently overcast.

More funding is very much required, at a core level that enables us to keep our labs going, whilst concentrating most energy on really developing research ideas (not worrying about keeping the lights on).
It's hard to address this problem of absolute funding levels without concluding that we have too many departments (at least in my area). And you don't get a grip of that issue without totally turning our higher education system upside down.

The balance between top down and bottom up is way out of line, and symptomatic of the research councils themselves being pulled way over to the direction of the government. Top down, mandated research is a ridiculous approach reminiscent of a Soviet planned economy. Totally at odds with how ideas grow and develop. Yet that is what we are seeing in microcosm with the EPSRC trying to dictate what and how science is to be done.

Total bottom up research is also very wrong - you just end up with a bunch of scientists dicking around (the good ol days 🙂 ). But there is clearly a golden mean of directed, curiosity-driven research that we are losing sight of.

R&d needs lots of cash and time and no guarantee of a profit. I think the problems with pure private research is that only large companies can invest and they don't have a monopoly on good ideas - in fact they can be very stodgy; they will only invest where the profit is obvious because of public shareholdings; the public (government) get no benefit for any contributions.

Needs a better funding model. Perhaps SMEs should be able to apply for a large r&d grant where they end up with minority % IPR and a royalty over any useful commercial applications that later arise; the public/Govt profits from its investment.

As a scientist recently under the threat of redundancy at a major cancer institute (horizon are making one of those dumbed down documentaries about the place at the moment) the cuts are going to do serious long term damage to science and innovation in this country
The current economic climate means that charitable donations are well down and then come cuts to funding, combined with cuts to the NHS and the massive cuts to universities, where a lot of collaboration goes on and obviously training of future scientists.
The big pharma companies are already deserting the country, i think theyve seen whats coming.
One of the very few things britain leads the world in is science and engineering as a career option its been declining for years, I know a lot of very good scientists whove left the field because the salaries are so poor and the pressures to win a limited pool of funding so great.
In that respect you cant blame brian cox, physics funding is taking such a battering that he needs the extra work.
The rise in popular science is good and bad when the press release means more than the quality of the actual work you get disasters like the MMR lies so gleefuly spread by the worthless media in this country and failed again by politicians who have no understanding of what they are doing.

yet the arts get their funding pretty much without restriction

We work on with people on all sides of the science / arts / social science divides, people in our lab funded by epsrc, ahrc, arts council, I think possibly also esrc.

The non science people still have to do impact statements and all that stuff.

If you're working in art art (as opposed to arts academic subjects), you have to deal with arts council and other arts funders, who have similar things about public impact / community involvement etc.

Plus arts subject and art art funding amounts are teeny tiny amounts compared to our huge science grants.

buzz-lightyear - Member
R&d needs lots of cash and time and no guarantee of a profit. I think the problems with pure private research is that only large companies can invest and they don't have a monopoly on good ideas - in fact they can be very stodgy; they will only invest where the profit is obvious because of public shareholdings; the public (government) get no benefit for any contributions.

Needs a better funding model. Perhaps SMEs should be able to apply for a large r&d grant where they end up with minority % IPR and a royalty over any useful commercial applications that later arise; the public/Govt profits from its investment.

This really only deals with the funding of last stage of scientific development. There is much more ground work that has to come before hand to give scientist and engineers the the tools and knowledge to solve these final problems. The vast majority of science is of this type and can't really bee seen to have any direct payoff nor can there be IP on it. IP only happens at the final stage of development. We would not progress our knowledge in science very far if IP was rife.

Not completely OT, but if you are interested in how the media (mis)reports science, and like working yourself up into a tumescent rage, Bad Science is well worth a read.

Agreed excellent blog. The Gillian Mckeith entries a worth a read alone.

There is a book too, which I assume is a compilation of articles, and also excellent.

There is a book too, which I assume is a compilation of articles, and also excellent.

Nah, the Bad Science book is a proper book written from scratch, not just a collection of the columns. It has material from his articles and blog in there but it's all re-written and hangs together nicely. Excellent, as you say, and eye-opening, well worth a read.