QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaQuoteOriginally posted by: UltravioletQuoteOriginally posted by: GamalThe money creates wrong sort of incentives? C'mon, there are no monks anymore, those few who left are isolated, forgotten and have nothing to do with science. These days there are only two incentives in the society: money and power and money is the one which corrupts less.Even more - the money is the main (in Europe) or only (in America) evaluation tool for human beings: If I make 100 grand PA and you only 50 grand, I am twice better than you.Do we want a decent science? Let's pay scientists decent wages.I say pay according to the work done... oh wait, do we really need more crappy publications.We should limit the number of publications allowed per year per researcher. E.g. maximum 2.I think it's a bad idea :-)I like the idea of a public, collaborative peer-review process.BTW, it's not true that scientists are paid so little. They are better set up than many of you.

QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaSix excellent pointsSeems ironic that the points in the article (that there are crappy bs studies) are supported by crappy bs studies.

QuoteOriginally posted by: UltravioletIMHO, the "Many Scientists Still Don't Understand Math" (and statistics) and "It's All About the Money" are the biggest problems. Science is dominated by mediocrity and quacks, who are interested only in draining money from naive tax payers. They wouldn't get this much in any other industry, which requires some genuine skills (second thoughts, some of them could actually try as prostitutes). Science is driven by the few outliers and a group of those who haven't realized yet that it isn't what they imagined it was and there's no way it will ever be.Why is understanding math important? Math creep in social sciences already corrupted more than a few disciplines.

Especially, the 20th century, non-constructive variety.

QuoteBob Wilson, who was head of the laboratory there at Cornell, called me in to see him. He said, in a serious tone, "Feynman, you're teaching your classes well; you're doinga good job, and we're very satisfied. Any other expectations we might have are a matter of luck. When we hire a professor, we're taking all the risks. If it comes out good, all right. If it doesn't, too bad. But you shouldn't worry about what you're doing or not doing." He said it much better than that, and it released me from the feeling of guilt.....The diagrams and the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate.From Part IV of Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman

What is wrong? THISThe focus on the money spent of was it worth it is not the point. Humans are driven by their quest for knowledge, and this has led to advances in our civilisation. If you need 1.6bn to do a programme it is not like hiring a Grad to do research into Klingon. The research into Klingon is probably of very little utility, but for 50k USD a year - so what. The 1.6 bn would have had enough people looking over it that is probably is worth doing from a scientific pov.

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxWhat is wrong? Quote://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment- ... 1">THISThe focus on the money spent of was it worth it is not the point. Humans are driven by their quest for knowledge, and this has led to advances in our civilisation. If you need 1.6bn to do a programme it is not like hiring a Grad to do research into Klingon. The research into Klingon is probably of very little utility, but for 50k USD a year - so what. The 1.6 bn would have had enough people looking over it that is probably is worth doing from a scientific pov.I suspect very few people questioned the basic mission (landing on a comet) so your claim "The 1.6 bn would have had enough people looking over it that is probably is worth doing from a scientific pov" is probably untrueQuoteIn the period since the mission was agreed, the Rosetta mission has created hundreds of jobs.let's say 500 jobs1.6bn/500 =3.2mn per job.to play devil's advocate, if the point is scientific knowledge, why not outsource these missions to India or China which would do it for a fraction of the cost ?

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxWhat is wrong? Quote://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment- ... 1">THISThe focus on the money spent of was it worth it is not the point. Humans are driven by their quest for knowledge, and this has led to advances in our civilisation. If you need 1.6bn to do a programme it is not like hiring a Grad to do research into Klingon. The research into Klingon is probably of very little utility, but for 50k USD a year - so what. The 1.6 bn would have had enough people looking over it that is probably is worth doing from a scientific pov.I suspect very few people questioned the basic mission (landing on a comet) so your claim "The 1.6 bn would have had enough people looking over it that is probably is worth doing from a scientific pov" is probably untrueQuoteIn the period since the mission was agreed, the Rosetta mission has created hundreds of jobs.let's say 500 jobs1.6bn/500 =3.2mn per job.to play devil's advocate, if the point is scientific knowledge, why not outsource these missions to India or China which would do it for a fraction of the cost ?What people lose sight of is that the money never leaves the planet. It's all spent right here on Earth. And it's not like we've flung the resulting assets off into space even if it seems like it. Most of the real assets (in the form of high-technology manufacturing capacity, innovations in product design, and human engineering and scientific skills) stay here. I might agree that a piece of paper with the comet data (delivered by outsourcing) is not worth the money. But all the activities, skills, technologies, and knowledge created to create that piece of paper with the comet data are worth the money.It's really a kind of redistribution of wealth from the taxpayers of the EU (probably most of the money came from the wealthiest of taxpayers) and given to a group of scientists, engineers, and technology companies (probably also mostly in the EU). Sure, you could take that 1.6 bn and given everyone in the EU a beer which would also create some jobs. But handing out free beer would not create the kinds of advancements in engineering and science that this mission did.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperI suspect very few people questioned the basic mission (landing on a comet) so your claim "The 1.6 bn would have had enough people looking over it that is probably is worth doing from a scientific pov" is probably untrueWhere do you work where there is no looking at budget, research grants etc? If you can rock-up and ask for 1.6bn and there is no control over how and why that money is being spent then we have an issue. How do we know that they shouldn't have spent 1.8 bn and landed it on the comet correctly? Or perhaps we could have got the same result with only spending 1bn. Please give me 2bn to develop a asteroid defense system. Look forward to the cheque in the post.QuoteQuoteIn the period since the mission was agreed, the Rosetta mission has created hundreds of jobs.let's say 500 jobs1.6bn/500 =3.2mn per job.to play devil's advocate, if the point is scientific knowledge, why not outsource these missions to India or China which would do it for a fraction of the cost ?Easier for me to write : What T4A said rather than think about this one...

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperI suspect very few people questioned the basic mission (landing on a comet) so your claim "The 1.6 bn would have had enough people looking over it that is probably is worth doing from a scientific pov" is probably untrueWhere do you work where there is no looking at budget, research grants etc? If you can rock-up and ask for 1.6bn and there is no control over how and why that money is being spent then we have an issue. How do we know that they shouldn't have spent 1.8 bn and landed it on the comet correctly? Or perhaps we could have got the same result with only spending 1bn. Please give me 2bn to develop a asteroid defense system. Look forward to the cheque in the post.it was a "cornerstone mission" of the European Space Agency.They were both the funding agency and the agency that performed the mission.And I repeat that I suspect very few people questioned the basic mission (landing on a comet).They seem to have felt the need for a "flagship project" and any science that comes out of this is a bonus

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxWhat is wrong? Quote://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment- ... 1">THISThe focus on the money spent of was it worth it is not the point. Humans are driven by their quest for knowledge, and this has led to advances in our civilisation. If you need 1.6bn to do a programme it is not like hiring a Grad to do research into Klingon. The research into Klingon is probably of very little utility, but for 50k USD a year - so what. The 1.6 bn would have had enough people looking over it that is probably is worth doing from a scientific pov.I suspect very few people questioned the basic mission (landing on a comet) so your claim "The 1.6 bn would have had enough people looking over it that is probably is worth doing from a scientific pov" is probably untrueQuoteIn the period since the mission was agreed, the Rosetta mission has created hundreds of jobs.let's say 500 jobs1.6bn/500 =3.2mn per job.to play devil's advocate, if the point is scientific knowledge, why not outsource these missions to India or China which would do it for a fraction of the cost ?What people lose sight of is that the money never leaves the planet. It's all spent right here on Earth. And it's not like we've flung the resulting assets off into space even if it seems like it. Most of the real assets (in the form of high-technology manufacturing capacity, innovations in product design, and human engineering and scientific skills) stay here. I might agree that a piece of paper with the comet data (delivered by outsourcing) is not worth the money. But all the activities, skills, technologies, and knowledge created to create that piece of paper with the comet data are worth the money.It's really a kind of redistribution of wealth from the taxpayers of the EU (probably most of the money came from the wealthiest of taxpayers) and given to a group of scientists, engineers, and technology companies (probably also mostly in the EU). Sure, you could take that 1.6 bn and given everyone in the EU a beer which would also create some jobs. But handing out free beer would not create the kinds of advancements in engineering and science that this mission did.so we agree that it is welfare for space scientistsAnd I'm not sure what "advancements in engineering and science" this mission createdHow Budget Cuts Canceled NASA?s Own Comet Landing Mission