G01 said:Well. I'm not leaving yet, but I think that ending this conversation with the US is fine now and let's not worry about it until later is like burying our heads in the sand. That is not good decision making especially when it affects your future.
For instance, am I going to want to make my future family move to a different country while my kids are young and in school? Much better if I try to find a place with the most stable job situation. Right now, that may be the US, but right now doesn't help me. I don't have a family now, but I may in the future, and where I settle and how stable my job is will affect us. So, do I make my decisions based off of the present, assuming that things won't change down the road?
Also, the attitude that the US will be on top, regardless of the policy decisions made is one of the reasons we have the current problems that we do.
DanP said:If it comes to the worst, just cut drastically on the H-1B visas to protect your native highly skilled worker pool. The mere existence of a large number of such visas means that there exist an excellent of highly specialized positions which are unlikely to be occupied by the native workforce.
DanP said:Science is not the end of all. I guess the weighted very well politically the implications of this proposal, and it's impact on the state and the social situation. It is unlikely to result in a "severe halt on all scientific programs". But yeah, it might affect job security of some ppl. In the end, it will be a political decision, and rightly so.
If sacrifices must be made, then regardless from where you cut as an executive, you will always make someone unhappy.
ZapperZ said:How come you don't insist on the military budget to be cut similarly? Isn't it rather hypocritical to tell everyone to share in the sacrifices, while the budget continues to feed into the "rich", in this case, the fat military budget that gets even fatter in this budget proposal?
There are NO even sacrifices here in the least bit!
Zz.
ZapperZ said:How come you don't insist on the military budget to be cut similarly? Isn't it rather hypocritical to tell everyone to share in the sacrifices, while the budget continues to feed into the "rich", in this case, the fat military budget that gets even fatter in this budget proposal?
There are NO even sacrifices here in the least bit!
Zz.
DanP said:Because it comes down to a simple political decision. Cut from the part(s) which are least important to the stability of the social system in the state and the security of the state.
I personally do not see why budget cuts should be even in all departments of the state. There is no hypocrisy in what I said here in this thread. (but then again, some hypocrisy might be necessary in the political rhetoric ).
That all has happened with the US DoE $26 billion budget, plus the two year $38 billion energy department share of stimulus, plus Defense R&D at ARL, NRL, DARPA, the NASA budget, the NIH budget, the R&D grants handed out by numerous other departments, and that's just the federal government's portion. Would you care to offer an opinion as to why the "reverse brain drain" has been occurring under those conditions?ZapperZ said:Actually, the "reverse brain drain" has already occurred. It used to be that many excellent scientists from China would be drawn to work in the US and eventually become US citizens. Not so anymore. I know of 5 Chinese scientists, whose work I'm very familiar of, that have been lured back to China with lucrative offers and large research grants. They all left University tenure-track positions or staff positions at various labs.
These things just didn't happen a few years ago. The US is no longer as attractive of a place to do science as it was before.
Zz.
See the update on the Yahoo article. The money for the engine was killed today (happily).ZapperZ said:P.S. What is also freaking annoying is that this spending bill included something that even the Military didn't want!
Yahoo said:The money for the engine was included in a $1.2 trillion spending bill that would make deep cuts while wrapping up the unfinished business lawmakers inherited after last year's collapse of the budget process.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_congress_spending;_ylt=AsAM9_zqjGsBp2NuemQ1RiESq594;_ylu=X3oDMTM4am91b2hzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMjE2L3VzX2NvbmdyZXNzX3NwZW5kaW5nBGNjb2RlA21wX2VjXzhfMTAEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDb2JhbWFnb3BidWRnMembers voted to cancel $450 million for a costly alternative engine for the Pentagon's next-generation F-35 warplane but then approved amendments by Democrats to ease cuts to economic development grants and popular grant programs for local fire departments and for hiring police officers.
ZapperZ said:If you are not aware of this yet, the proposed 2011 Budget by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives includes a 30-percent cut to the budget at the Dept. of Energy Office of Science. This is the office that is responsible for funding physical sciences and chemistry, and the running of all of the US National Laboratories. A 30% cut will be devastating not only to the workforce at these places, but also will put a severe halt on all scientific programs.
You may go to the APS website to see the http://www.aps.org/policy/tools/alerts/index.cfm" . If you are a US Citizen, the link will also provide you ways to contact your representatives to voice your opinion on this matter. Please know that each and every messages sent will make an impact.
Thank you for your corporation.
Zz.
D H said:I dunno. My representative just won the CPAC presidential straw poll, and his son recently proposed a rather more severe 100% reduction in the DOE budget. I doubt that my own pleas to overturn this proposal will fall on anything but deaf ears.
But other PF members, do give it a go.
BTW, Sen Paul's budget http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/detailed-look-rand-paul-spending-bill"Washington Examiner said:Don't like his proposal? Fine, says Paul—but he has two requests: One, if you think a program should be exempt from cuts, "I challenge you to find another place in the budget where the same amount can feasibly be cut."
mheslep said:That all has happened with the US DoE $26 billion budget, plus the two year $38 billion energy department share of stimulus, plus Defense R&D at ARL, NRL, DARPA, the NASA budget, the NIH budget, the R&D grants handed out by numerous other departments, and that's just the federal government's portion. Would you care to offer an opinion as to why the "reverse brain drain" has been occurring under those conditions?
Pengwuino said:The sad part is, I think once the baby boomers die off, we'll be in a better state of affairs. Kinda crumby deal huh?
Dwight D. Eisenhower via Wikipedia said:A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Yes, noted.ZapperZ said:You will note that the stimulus fund was a one-time windfall for science.
I see that DoE's budget has been relatively flat, but I don't know that a scientific 'hurricane' conclusion follows from only that fact. First, if the NIH budget has flourished, for instance, then this would indicate a change in emphasis from the physical sciences to the life sciences. This may not be to the liking of many, but the change still keeps many fine minds here in the US. Second, the funding-is-the-problem hypothesis depends on the assumption that funding is greater elsewhere. I don't know that this is so. Do you? Recognition of _any_ Chinese R&D would be expected to be notable now, given that it was relatively non-existent (in scale) thirty years ago. The anecdotal word I have from researchers that have moved here from overseas (yes a self selection) is that pure research spending is, relative to the US, tiny elsewhere in the world.Look at the funding for the physical sciences during the past 20 years. It is either flat, or with very little increase. When compared with funding for NIH, military, etc., one can see that the physical sciences has been the "neglected child" in getting such generous funding. It was why the "America Competes" Act came about - to double funding of physical sciences the way it was done for NIH. But that's not going to happen now.
So no, funding for the physical sciences has been a struggle for a very long time. The foundation has been cracking for a very long time, and this is going to be the hurricane that will be the beginning of the crumble. This brain drain is merely a consequence of this problem.
Zz.
D H said:It's good to remember that for now this is just a bill in just one legislative branch. To become real this has to also get through the Democratic Senate and then get signed into law by Obama. This could just be a case of Republicans kowtowing to their base and creating a bill that they know will never see the light of day.
On the other hand, that 12% slice of the federal budget is the easiest target to attack. This means that that 12% slice is still going to take a big hit given the immense budget pressures and the the unwillingness of the far left and the far right to attack the real problems (entitlements at ~57% of the budget, DoD at ~19%, tax receipts at ~57% of total spending). No matter how it is sliced, the legislative sausage that will come out in the end will be rather ugly.
mheslep said:Yes, noted.
I see that DoE's budget has been relatively flat, but I don't know that a scientific 'hurricane' conclusion follows from only that fact. First, if the NIH budget has flourished, for instance, then this would indicate a change in emphasis from the physical sciences to the life sciences. This may not be to the liking of many, but the change still keeps many fine minds here in the US. Second, the funding-is-the-problem hypothesis depends on the assumption that funding is greater elsewhere. I don't know that this is so. Do you? Recognition of _any_ Chinese R&D would be expected to be notable now, given that it was relatively non-existent (in scale) thirty years ago. The anecdotal word I have from researchers that have moved here from overseas (yes a self selection) is that pure research spending is, relative to the US, tiny elsewhere in the world.
Also, I see the US government lab system consists of some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy_National_Laboratories" , every one of them dating back to the cold war era of the 60's and beyond. And that list does not include all the numerous NASA laboratories scattered around the country. The Defense department routinely finds ways to consolidate redundant and outdated facilities (via BRAC). Can the US labs not find any redundancies or possibilities for consolidation? With a $1.6 trillion US deficit, and the remarkably recent illustration of financial collapse due to over spent governments like Greece and Ireland, would not suggestions along these lines gather more support for holding the sciences funding than grandiose claims of here began the 'decline of US civilization'?
Anecdotal evidence, interesting, but you also have researchers right here, and they probably have more researcher friends than you do. I intend to join a senior researcher overseas who left one the US national labs a few years ago because he was already getting tired of this broken system.mheslep said:The anecdotal word I have from researchers that have moved here from overseas (yes a self selection) is that pure research spending is, relative to the US, tiny elsewhere in the world.
I find it very sad how you describe things. The recent collapse of Greece was due to financial speculation. My personal interpretation is that there is too much power in the hands of and too little control over the financial institutions. The governments and Europe in particular should have initiated those reforms. They should also reform the financial system seriously. There is a lot of money to pump from there.mheslep said:With [...] the remarkably recent illustration of financial collapse due to over spent governments like Greece and Ireland [...] ?
nismaratwork said:I would classify that as depressing, but still wishful thinking. AFAIK this kind thing doesn't end well for nations; essentially Eisenhower tried to warn us, and we failed.
Bolding mine: How do we get that when we're failing in every concievable way to educate, and to even PRETEND to lead in sciences? Our citizenry has been out-paced, and out-manuevered, end of story.
Proton Soup said:well you see, US interests are corporate interests. and corporations are in it to make profit. right now, the most profit comes from doing things overseas.
it's ironic, isn't it? i think Chris Hodges' death of the liberal class is coming home to roost. one day you're making fun of disenfranchised tea partiers, and the next you find that your industry is being exported as well.
mheslep said:Yes, noted.
I see that DoE's budget has been relatively flat, but I don't know that a scientific 'hurricane' conclusion follows from only that fact. First, if the NIH budget has flourished, for instance, then this would indicate a change in emphasis from the physical sciences to the life sciences. This may not be to the liking of many, but the change still keeps many fine minds here in the US. Second, the funding-is-the-problem hypothesis depends on the assumption that funding is greater elsewhere. I don't know that this is so. Do you? Recognition of _any_ Chinese R&D would be expected to be notable now, given that it was relatively non-existent (in scale) thirty years ago. The anecdotal word I have from researchers that have moved here from overseas (yes a self selection) is that pure research spending is, relative to the US, tiny elsewhere in the world.
Also, I see the US government lab system consists of some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy_National_Laboratories" , every one of them dating back to the cold war era of the 60's and beyond. And that list does not include all the numerous NASA laboratories scattered around the country. The Defense department routinely finds ways to consolidate redundant and outdated facilities (via BRAC). Can the US labs not find any redundancies or possibilities for consolidation? With a $1.6 trillion US deficit, and the remarkably recent illustration of financial collapse due to over spent governments like Greece and Ireland, would not suggestions along these lines gather more support for holding the sciences funding than grandiose claims of here began the 'decline of US civilization'?
ZapperZ said:One only needs to see the number of peer-reviewed publication that originated outside of the US and the trend of that number for the past decade.
I also think you are missing my point. I'm NOT saying that the US still doesn't outspend other countries on science research. I'm saying that there is a clear trend that such spending is stagnant as far as the physical sciences is concerned, and that is in contract with many other countries, such as China and Korea, which has consistently increased their spending in this areas. It is why I said that I would not be surprised if history will look back and mark this as the turning point on where the decline starts. The physical sciences have been neglected for a very long time, and at some point, it will erode other sciences. Just look at all the facilities that biologists and other NIH-funded projects use. Where do people think the knowledge to build synchrotron facilities and FELs come from?
And consolidating? Consolidating what? Combine all of the synchrotron facilities at the various national labs into ONE? Are you out of your mind? Have you gone to, say the ALS and see how over subscribed that facility is? Or what about the NSLS where there's hardly any floor space left till they build the NSLS II! Consolidate what? It is highly irresponsible to make wild speculations like that without even thinking what it is that you're proposing.
The US budget deficit is destructive. No one is arguing that! It is a combination of overspending and a reduction in "income" for the govt. However, it boggles my mind that one would go to the area with such a small percentage of the total budget to bear the burden of the most severe cuts! And not only that, within that area, they would pick a sector that had, for the longest time, been deprived of any significant budget increase! It is as if it isn't sufficient that physical sciences have been denied any decent increase, but now, we're going to make it even worse. All this while the BIG BOYS of the military escaped unscathed and even get a modest increase!
And people tell me that "we all" have to make sacrifices? Puhleeze!
Zz.
dlgoff said:Having a daughter as an undergrad is disheartening.
Please, as you know, I did not say one, nor specify accelerators. Consolidation for the military did not mean they should use one base.ZapperZ said:And consolidating? Consolidating what? Combine all of the synchrotron facilities at the various national labs into ONE? ...
That is the question I pose to those charged with directing research at the fifteen labs.Have you gone to, say the ALS and see how over subscribed that facility is? Or what about the NSLS where there's hardly any floor space left till they build the NSLS II! Consolidate what?
We only know that discretionary is the first to be cut, not that it will be the most severe in the end. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/17/us-usa-budget-entitlements-idUSTRE71G69T20110217"...The US budget deficit is destructive. No one is arguing that! It is a combination of overspending and a reduction in "income" for the govt. However, it boggles my mind that one would go to the area with such a small percentage of the total budget to bear the burden of the most severe cuts!
Not completely deprived. There was the one time $37 billion stimulus just received at DoE.And not only that, within that area, they would pick a sector that had, for the longest time, been deprived of any significant budget increase!
I also favor defense cuts, even with the Afghan war ongoing. A hundred billion dollars of cuts in defense spending alone won't suffice to balance the budget.It is as if it isn't sufficient that physical sciences have been denied any decent increase, but now, we're going to make it even worse. All this while the BIG BOYS of the military escaped unscathed and even get a modest increase!
And people tell me that "we all" have to make sacrifices? Puhleeze!
Zz.
ZapperZ said:The US budget deficit is destructive. No one is arguing that!
ParticleGrl said:But why is the deficit so destructive? There is no US debt crisis, our government bond market is just fine. The dollar is the world reserve currency!
Pythagorean said:Both A and B really. It's hard to predict what science will do for us, but we're particularly sure that it's beneficial in the long run.
Personally, I don't care anymore about politics, even concerning science. I will adapt to whatever scenario results and I won't waste my time on voting and other group power games.
mheslep said:Not completely deprived. There was the one time $37 billion stimulus just received at DoE.
I also favor defense cuts, even with the Afghan war ongoing. A hundred billion dollars of cuts in defense spending alone won't suffice to balance the budget.
Helios said:When one's appendix ruptures, they must either go under the knife or die. Such is the condition of the USA. and these cutbacks will occur.
I believe keeping my money instead of having it go to most of these departments, programs, and grants does me more benefit. If only I could choose whom to give my money to by the benefit it does me.
I actually want to see the collapse of the Parasite Nation. If someone is getting rich or living a lavish lifestyle at the expense of taxpayers, then I want to see them get what's coming to them. I'm glad it's coming soon too.
ZapperZ said:So you essentially want the public to decide for themselves which ones they should support based on their knowledge of what is important to them? This is the same general public where barely half of them actually know that the Earth revolves around the sun, and that electrons are smaller than atoms[1]? THAT general public?
Zz.
[1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/start.htm"