To fund or not to fund - Are some science projects worth pursuing?

I don't have much to offer up, but I thought I'd give this topic a launching. Of course, there are also a lot of non-science projects of questionable worth for government funding, but let's now focus on science projects.In the not too distant past, funding for a super-collider project in Texas was killed after a lot of money ($1 billion plus?) was already spent, and a lot of construction done. To me, this was a good thing, as the project should never have been started in the first place. The cost/benefit analysis is poor.Another still living example is the space station project. Again, I think a project of this magnitude should never have been started. But once started, it's tough to kill.In general, I think a lot of NASA projects have a poor cost/benefit analysis. The new information may be "neat", but can't the money be better spent?The above said, I'm inclined to think that the Hubble space telescope was worth funding and doing, and probably worth further funding for its maintenance and continued use.Moose

To touch upon art briefly - It is not for the government to select an artist and say "Here's a million dollars - Paint us a masterpiece". I'm not totally against government support of the arts, but it should be something that benefits a large part of the population. But all this is off-topic. Certainly, this is good research about the old home planet. It's not something concerning the distant cosmos or in a way, the equally distant "world" of subatomic particles. The second paragraph, of which the above is part, seems to be along the lines of buying a lottery ticket. Invest the money - There's some chance, however slim, that something wonderful will come out of it in the end.I say, spend the money to take care of the planet we live on. There are far more pressing needs for science funding, such as alternative energy sources, other than going cosmos or subatomic.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment."Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

I think that certain scientific projects, such as the super-collider and the space station, are merely subsets of the area of government "pork" spending.The smokescreen is that the huge sums of money are being spent because of the collective desire for the pursuit of knowledge. The reality is that the driving forces for the constructions of the above-cited examples are that certain parties can and are making a lot of money doing it. They are technology industry welfare programs.I think that often the constructions of the components are spread around to various locations in the country in order to "distribute the pork". I know I have heard of such happening in regards to military technology expenditures.Moose

I question the bang for the bucks. Spending too much money to get "a bit" of esoteric new data. The main benefactors were the contractors building the thing. I'm not totally adverse to NASA getting some funding for rather esoteric research. My impression, and things cosmos are not in my expertise or even interests, is that the Hubble bang for the bucks is favorable. Besides, it's already up there. My guess, and I could be wrong, is that the results to be gained would jusitify the costs of maintaining it.But it's for the cosmos people to decide - If they have a limited NASA budget, where is it best spent? I say Hubble over space station. What to do to salvage value from the white elephant space station? I don't know.Moose

As I said early on in the topic, I'm not totally against government funding of esoteric science. It's not even a matter of if the general public can understand the results of the study. It's a mater of if the public is funding it with large amounts of money, then the research should result in some real benefit or promice of benefit to the public.It may be interesting to probe the origins of the universe, but I see no benefit or promice of benefit to the general public coming out of it.Moose

From message 3 of the new "Reaching the practical end of physics?" topic: This reminded me of this older topic I started. Might fgarb be interesting in commenting?Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

There are certainly other areas of government expenditures that should be questioned, the military (IMO) the greatest of the bunch*. I'm not anti-science, but I don't see that "we waste lots of money elsewhere" as reason to make science a sacred cow. Indeed, much military research and development can be filed under "science".How much did we blow on "Star Wars"? Sure, there probably was valuable knowledge to come out of "Star Wars", but was it an efficient way to go about the research?Send man to Mars? The cost/benefit analysis relative to unmanned would seem to be pretty dismal. I think we need to invest in maintaining our own planet much more (like non-fossil fuel energy sources).The LHC? I can get behind that, but I really don't think we need more than one of them.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Forgot to change subtitle.