Thousands of years ago there was a breakthrough discovery that shaped humanity forever: living in society.
Do we need to explain that one of the perks of society is pushing others forward with a tacit expectation that it will come back for everyone eventually?
Correct that OP did not imply those things, but a lot of people will read it that way. There are implications behind the implications, and I think that DiffEq is referencing the latter. I'm not taking a side in this fight.
So you're saying that if we ignore what he wrote, close our eyes, and make stuff up, then we can pretend his post says whatever we want? Sounds like you should work for US government.
> You are implying a few things here; that it is the responsibility of others to fund your success and that there were not, or will not be, alternative means of such funding.
Yes, the government funds research, the benefit of which accrues to all of society. There is no credible alternative to government funding for public research; the scales are not the same. Private funding of basic research (internal R&D budgets) accrues benefits to the funders directly.
Knock-on effects to cutting the government funding include a decimation of future research leadership by the US by making it unattractive to study and do basic research here. Other countries are taking advantage of this (like any private sector company would if one of its competitors makes such a drastic mistake).
> Lastly you are implying that your graduate research was something that advanced some combination of science, humanity, the country...or maybe that the current work you do is of such value that the government should have paid your way to your current status.
You're overly indexing on the benefits any specific researcher gets from research funding. Research is currently done by humans; if we want more research done, then the people doing that research will necessarily get some of the benefits.
Also, since you're commenting on a software-focused web forum -- you should be aware that the compensation for government-funded researchers is a fraction of what these folks could make in the private sector. Framing it as some greedy theft of resources from the public is foolish and disingenuous to readers who don't know about how science funding works in the US.
When you speak in abstracts and generic terms about the value of government funding research, you are saying nothing meaningful in terms of knowing whether the government should spend more or less on research. If the OP's specific research was into The Changing Mating Habits of the Delta Smelt Due to Habitat Destruction, then probably it was money that could far better spent paying tuition for, say, medical students or even just letting tax payers keep their money and spend it in a way that directly benefits their family, their community, and themselves. Otherwise you are just handwaving and demanding everyone assume that all research is good and should be publicly funded.
In terms of cutting NSF budget, they have issued grants for things that explicitly violate Title IX of the Civil Rights act.[1] You can't justify all NSF spending by cherry picking successful past spending. We can evaluate the benefits of proposed research and whether it aligns with the intentions and values of society at large. We don't have to spend because someone incanted the words "Because SCIENCE!" over a bubbling beaker.
I did not stop reading right there, but I may as well have. Invoking this particular area of research has become a popular conservative trope, because casual news readers do not get the point of studying a tiny fish in general or its love life in particular, even though it's a useful indicator species for the overall health of the riparian ecosystem.
You seem you like an intelligent person. Why are you leaning on tropes that exploit and glorify ignorance and anti-intellectualism?
> If the OP's specific research was into The Changing Mating Habits of the Delta Smelt Due to Habit Destruction, then probably it was money that could far better spent paying tuition for, say, medical students or even just letting tax payers keep their money and spend it in a way that directly benefits their family, their community, and themselves.
The problem is it's very hard to know ahead of time which research directions will yield fruit. If we knew how to only fund good research, then science funding would be very easy. Unfortunately, that's not the case -- oftentimes things that are sure bets fail, and things that are rejected as "not promising" result in a breakthrough. So we have to fund a lot of stuff, some of which is not obviously going to yield a great ROI.
On the one hand, yes, funding science the way we do results in a lot of "wasted" funding. There are tons of inefficiencies. On the other hand, the way we fund science has been wildly successful in terms of the benefits we have reaped. Look around you, you can see them everywhere in every sector.
The danger is we pull back funding to things that are "sure bets" and they turn out to be duds while we miss out on other less sure opportunities. That would be a loss for everyone involved.
Is it your position, then, that the government should not fund research? What entity is prepared to take its place? Can you name a country with a successful research community that does not rely in part on government funding?
