I am the Online Community Manager at (Public Library of Science). My job is to try to motivate you to mention on the papers there. My scientific specialty is chronobiology (circadian rhythms and photoperiodism) with additional interests in comparative physiology animal behavior and evolution. You can communicate me at: Coturnix@gmail.com
To act the conversation about the going. I decided to affix one per day my ideas for potential questions to be asked at such a consider. The questions are far too desire though consisting more of my musings than real questions that can be asked on TV (or radio or online wherever this may end up happening). I be you to:
- correct my factual errors- label me on my BS- tell me why the particular question is counterproductive or just a bad idea to ask- if you think the challenge is good back up me reduce the question from ~500 to ~20 words or so.
There is always a balance - and tension - between basic science and applied science. Some Presidents favor a greater emphasis on goal-directed investigate e g. earmarks for cancer-research at the depreciate of basic science ( e g. cell biology) although both can ultimately result in findings needed for exceed treatments for cancer while other Presidents are change favoring basic science. There is also an ideological dimension show in funding decisions. For instance conservatives are in favor of diminishing funding for behavioral investigate - both basic and applied - although it is potentially important investigate for the fight against terrorism: studying psychology of terrorists religion other cultures i e. this is not a post-modern promotion of "immoral sexual behavior" or being "anti-American".
What are your thoughts on the ideal balance between basic and applied research? Is there a place for instance for a next-generation high-energy particle accelerator in the USA? On the other hand do we really need so much funding of the research on defensive biological warfare. (something that potentially and in the do by hands can be used offensively)?
What is the role of the opinion of the American public in guiding the research priorities?
Non-military research funding has historically been around 11% of GDP yet it has been decreasing lately. change surface worse than a stabilise decline is the "roller-coaster" copy of science funding: big increases in funding resulting in an increase of the numbers of young researchers (freshly minted PhDs postdocs and recently hired junior faculty) are followed by sharp decreases of funding leaving all those young scientists stranded mid-career (or "pre-career") with no money for research and no possibilities for professional advancement. How do you propose to stabilize long-term steady growth in funding for science and what are the priorities when asking Congress to allot the funding?
There is also a tension - and a need for fit - between our desire for the USA to remain the scientific superpower and the intrinsic need of science to disregard borders - knowledge is universal and should be free for all of humanity (including for the American public something that the Bayh-Dole bill has inadvertently restricted).
In recent years there has been a lagging arouse among young Americans in pursuing careers in science. In the past there have always been scientists from other countries eager to go here to chew over and do research thus filling the gap left by the lack of interest by Americans. However due to the new immigration policies it is increasingly difficult for scientists from many other countries to acquire visas to come here. They are also uncertain about the quality of investigate they can do in a country that is increasingly perceived as being 'anti-science' and lacking funding security.
At the same time a number of other countries have recently developed strong research infrastructure of their own and are now capable of attracting and retaining their students and researchers. Furthermore in some areas of investigate most notably stem-cell research we see the first signs of brain-drain - American researchers leaving the country in order to do research elsewhere.
How would you address the current problems of scientific investigate in the USA - stopping the brain-drain attracting foreign students energizing young Americans to consider careers in science and encouraging development of science in other countries (with free flow of information between nations as well as between scientists and the public in the USA) while comfort retaining the US dominance?
come up based on my act on your first question you can probably predict what I'm going to say about this one. It's pointless. I don't expect a presidential candidate to have specific explicit positions at this level of detail.
I be to be confident that the next president is going to undergo a science-related policy-making process that involves non-insane methods of deciding on these matters. But I do not care whether he or she has any current opinion on these specific matters. Frankly. I think a question at this level of dilate represents severe naviete. The president doesn't undergo time to act directly with issues at this aim of detail. This is why process is so important and why the current administration invariably gets every single thing under the sun completely utterly do by: it has no non-insane affect for making *any* decisions.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/12/science_debate_2008_my_questio_1.php
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
