I knew that the big-name schools with phd programs and professors who primarily or exclusively conduct research had considerably higher tuition than my own institution, and — since my alma mater has been consistently named as the best undergrad engineering program in the country every year for almost a decade — they must be doing something with all that extra cash other than simply improving their educational quality.

But then I’ve only seen the student side of universities firsthand, so I wouldn’t know.

BTW, why do you feel the need to be so rude and condescending?

I hate to tell you, son, but Universities will give a professor an office and (if he’s an experimentalist), lab space. But they don’t fund his research. That’s why professors spend so much time writing grant proposals.

Did you honestly think your tuition dollars went towards buying lab equipment for your professors’ research?

Heck, your tuition dollars don’t even pay for the lab space. (Universities take ~50% off the top of every research grant for “overhead.”)

Did Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Vanderbilt, and Rice Universities (to name a few) all just disappear last night without me hearing about it?

Why should the government be funding something that is of no practical value to anyone?

1. To advance human knowledge?

2. Because without the reservoir of knowledge that basic research provides, applied research (i.e., the stuff that is of practical value) will wither?

3. Because no one can anticipate when some piece of basic scientific research might turn out to have practical applications after all?

4. Because no one else will fund it?

Some examples:

Superconductivity was discovered in 1911. It took over half a century before the first practical superconducting device (the SQUID) was invented. And that required a number of important developments (both theoretical and experimental) before anyone could even conceive of the possiblity of constructing such a device.

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance was discovered by my old professor, Ed Purcell, in 1946. It took over 30 years, before this led to the development of the MRI Scanner.

These are just off the top of my head.

I’m sure we could make quite a game of finding examples of the longest delay between some “completely useless” bit of scientific research and the discovery of a practical application.

But the real answer, in my opinion, is 1 and 4. If I have to explain why I think that, then I doubt there’s any chance you will appreciate my answer.

Why should the government be funding something that is of no practical value to anyone?

No. I think that SCIENTIFIC RESULTS should be the arbiter of what receives funding. It’s a fairly simple question and it doesn’t take an expert to answer it.

Considering your statements about the relative merits of adult versus embryonic stem cell research, I don’t see why we should take your judgements about those “SCIENTIFIC RESULTS” seriously.

I think I’d rather trust the judgement of the scientists who actually know something about the subject (hence my preference for scientific peer-review to decide these matters).

Can you prove (with experimental results) that X might be able to accomplish something useful?

The issue under discussion is who’s going to pay for those experiments in the first place.

Would you please provide me with an example of an area of science that ought to be publicly funded and yet has no promise of being commercially viable?

You’re kidding, right?

Lessee:

All of Astronomy
All of Particle Physics (my field)
Most of contemporary Nuclear Physics
Large swaths of contemporary Condensed Matter Physics
All of Zoology (well, maybe excepting some Entomology)
Most of Botany
Paleontology
Almost all of contemporary Mathematics
.
.
.

I could go on, but what would be the point?

Do you think the NSF should be disbanded along with the NIH?

Putting a man on the moon? Exploring the other planets in the solar system?

Because Peter was talking about what a libertarian would support.

“Do you seriously want to argue that you, Aaron, should be the arbiter of which avenues of research (embryonic stem cells vs adult stem cells vs whatever) hold scientific promise and should be funded?”

No. I think that SCIENTIFIC RESULTS should be the arbiter of what receives funding. It’s a fairly simple question and it doesn’t take an expert to answer it. Can you prove (with experimental results) that X might be able to accomplish something useful? If not, then come back when you have proof and we’ll talk about funds.

“Finally, let me emphasize a distinction that you seem hell-bent on eliding, though doing so makes it very hard to have a rational discussion on this sort of topic. Not every avenue of research, which has scientific promise, has the promise of practical commercial viability. Private industry cares only about the latter, which is why we have the Government fund the former.”

I thought we were talking about embryonic stem cell research. Are you suggesting that people would not pay to have Diabetes or Alzheimer’s cured? So I don’t see how I’m leaving out any distinction here.

Would you please provide me with an example of an area of science that ought to be publicly funded and yet has no promise of being commercially viable? I’m not denying that this exists. I just can’t think of any area to which this might apply. I can think of several areas that are commercially viable and several that aren’t because they’re completely useless.

From the quote to which you refer with this, I was referring to a hypothetical individual who supports minimizing the government, not myself…

Then why bring it up, if it’s not a position you actually believe in?

I do support the federal funding for adult stem cell research, which has actually yielded results.

Do you seriously want to argue that you, Aaron, should be the arbiter of which avenues of research (embryonic stem cells vs adult stem cells vs whatever) hold scientific promise and should be funded? Thats. Just. Crazy.

The only rational approach is the one Ryan alluded to: allocate money to the funding agencies (in this case, to the NIH), and let the experts decide (through a process called scientific peer-review) how those funds should best be allocated among the approaches showing the most scientific merit.

Finally, let me emphasize a distinction that you seem hell-bent on eliding, though doing so makes it very hard to have a rational discussion on this sort of topic. Not every avenue of research, which has scientific promise, has the promise of practical commercial viability. Private industry cares only about the latter, which is why we have the Government fund the former.

For instance someone who both believes in a free market and in legalizing marijuana ought to place greater emphasis on the market as it will benefit the most people, not just make a (relatively) small number of people happy.

Thus, I would hope that such an individual would be willing to vote for a pro-market, anti-weed candidate more readily than an anti-market pro-weed candidate.