Long term solution to our economic woes

[Use Psychology]

the technologies/discoverires have come from scientists funded by the research councils, not the research councils themselves. the research councils exist to dole out the money to scientists, decisions are normally made by panels of other scientists who review and rank applications.

as for things that were funded by research councils in the UK:


well let's see.

erm

MRI for one, which has had a massive impact on medicine. (in the 1970s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mansfield)



the discovery of graphene, a new alloptrope of carbon - a sheet of carbon one atom thick was funded by the EPSRC. The nobel prize was won for this discovery last year. The material is already being used to new prototype technologies (e.g. touchscreens).

CERN (you know what CERN is) is part funded by the UK/EPSRC. the world wide web was invented there by a british physicist

Watson and Crick (and franklin) discovered the structure of DNA in the UK, funded by taxpayer. They wouldn't have been funded by biotechnology companies to do this - biotechnology didn't exist then. It's a pretty established and lucrative area now, I'd say.

and more general examples of fundamental science finding applications:

vulcanised rubber, an essental enabling technology for the motor car (for tyres), was discovered 80 years before the car was invented.

general relativity - well, an understanding of this 100 years ago gives us accurate GPS today.

Edited by Use Psychology on Tuesday 10th July 19:56

[EliseNick]

AJS- said:

So what great, economically productive technologies have come out of these research councils?

Also, here are some smaller examples;

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/publications/impac...

Wikipedia thinks that tech spinouts from Cambridge alone were valued at $6bn in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_fen

[XCP]

wow.

[Steffan]

Use Psychology said:

the technologies/discoverires have come from scientists funded by the research councils, not the research councils themselves. the research councils exist to dole out the money to scientists, decisions are normally made by panels of other scientists who review and rank applications.

as for things that were funded by research councils in the UK:


well let's see.

erm

MRI for one, which has had a massive impact on medicine. (in the 1970s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mansfield)



the discovery of graphene, a new alloptrope of carbon - a sheet of carbon one atom thick was funded by the EPSRC. The nobel prize was won for this discovery last year. The material is already being used to new prototype technologies (e.g. touchscreens).

CERN (you know what CERN is) is part funded by the UK/EPSRC. the world wide web was invented there by a british physicist

Watson and Crick (and franklin) discovered the structure of DNA in the UK, funded by taxpayer. They wouldn't have been funded by biotechnology companies to do this - biotechnology didn't exist then. It's a pretty established and lucrative area now, I'd say.

and more general examples of fundamental science finding applications:

vulcanised rubber, an essental enabling technology for the motor car (for tyres), was discovered 80 years before the car was invented.

general relativity - well, an understanding of this 100 years ago gives us accurate GPS today.

Edited by Use Psychology on Tuesday 10th July 19:56

I think the point is made and made well. There are so many advantages and devices that exist, only because of scientific advances, that I would be surprised if any informed individual would not recognise the truth of the benefits scientific research has produced for mankind,.

I am not personally, a fan on Professor Brian Cox, but I agreed with his comment on scientific research being very worthwhile in This Week recently. One of the areas I do think a long term solution to our economies woes may be found. A lot more chance than the banks gambling their way to success, now that is a fact.

[steveT350C]

AJS- said:

So how would you actually go about investing in "science"?

A really good question AJS.

The government has our money.

Out of the 650 MPs we have, just one has a had a career in science, two others have PhDs.

The vast majority of the public who vote, end up voting for lawyers or financiers because lawyers or financiers are all that are on offer from the blues, reds or yellows.

This needs to change.

Edited by steveT350C on Tuesday 10th July 20:52

[Use Psychology]

Steffan said:

I think the point is made and made well. There are so many advantages and devices that exist, only because of scientific advances, that I would be surprised if any informed individual would not recognise the truth of the benefits scientific research has produced for mankind,.

I am not personally, a fan on Professor Brian Cox, but I agreed with his comment on scientific research being very worthwhile in This Week recently. One of the areas I do think a long term solution to our economies woes may be found. A lot more chance than the banks gambling their way to success, now that is a fact.

and if the banks lose, we lose the money.

if some of the money that's spent on science doesn't result in any 'useful' discoveries then we've still:

found out something interesting in its own right.
trained some young people
advanced the knowledge of the human race

[steveT350C]

EliseNick said:

Also, here are some smaller examples;

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/publications/impac...

Wikipedia thinks that tech spinouts from Cambridge alone were valued at $6bn in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_fen

Excellent links, thank you EliseNick.

Whilst I have every respect for the regular contributors on PH who discuss the financial troubles that face us, mostly the EZ, and whether the UK should be in the EU, there is a lack of positivity.

We do need to address the current issues of national deficit and debt, but equally we must invest in areas that will build long term prosperity for us.

Edited by steveT350C on Tuesday 10th July 21:27

[anonymous-user]

steveT350C said:

The vast majority of the public who vote, end up voting for lawyers or financiers because lawyers or financiers are all that are on offer from the blues, reds or yellows.

This needs to change.

interesting point
http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/file/Who-Governs...
page 6
mp's prior professions
24% politics - wtf! includes towel folding
19% business including "consulting"
15% finance including accounting
14% law - failed barristers
11% pr/marketing aka bullshit
10% media

its pretty depressing the lack of engineers, scientists, doctors etc... but then i guess most bright people are not attracted to such a cesspool of stupidity

[Use Psychology]

in france and china, two examples, it's much more common to have engineers and scientists (or scientifically trained people) in politics.

of course, if we really wanted, scientists could stand for parliament. but I guess most of us might say we've got more interesting things to do.

[speedy_thrills]

fbrs said:

i'd introduce a minimum age of 45 for mp's so we can see how these chimps did in real jobs

Average age of an MP is 50ish already, only 20% are under 40. I'd look into electoral reform, it does seem like the right direction especially for the right wing parties that get plenty of votes but not in specific geographical locations.

Committing large scale funding to science is a pipe dream, when you look at most important research of this century it's been low budget or military. Of a total £682bn government budget the actual Science Budget was £4.7bn, less than 0.7% of all spending.

It's too difficult to justify something that has little immediate bread-on-the-table value and an intellectual asset doesn't really get measured on balance sheets.

[Use Psychology]

we don't need big projects, massive spending plans, we just need more grants awarded to more scientists. Double the science spending and it's still a small cost.

it's not hard to justify at all, look at the examples I provided above.

sometimes the things you can't measure or quantify are the most valuable.

in the past 500 years science has transformed our lives and our way of living unrecognisably. we live and work today in ways that were almost inconceivable 50 years ago and completely unforeseeable 100 years ago. organised, professional, science backed up by a capitalist system for commercialising technology, derived from science, is the reason for this. to not see the benefits and to shirk the responsibility to fund it properly is unforgivable. political parties are for getting elected, but government is for looking after the country the best you can - so what if it is 'electorally neutral', any government should be piling money into science,

Edited by Use Psychology on Wednesday 11th July 07:00

Edited by Use Psychology on Wednesday 11th July 07:00

[The Don of Croy]

Use Psychology said:

I'm being naughty, but if you substituted 'arts' for your use of 'science' in the above piece the argument could be the same, no?

[BigBen]

speedy_thrills said:

It's too difficult to justify something that has little immediate bread-on-the-table value and an intellectual asset doesn't really get measured on balance sheets.

Which is why it needs to be the preserve of government as companies with share holders are not interested in the long term payback (or not) of investment in fundamental science.

It would be a disgrace if Britain fails to capitalise on the discovery of Graphine, yet I keep seeing articles about its exploitation by overseas companies. Perhaps this is an example of where we do well at funding early stage research and badly at successfully commercialising said research.

Ben

[AJS-]

Use Psychology said:

in france and china, two examples, it's much more common to have engineers and scientists (or scientifically trained people) in politics.

of course, if we really wanted, scientists could stand for parliament. but I guess most of us might say we've got more interesting things to do.

Are you sure they're great examples?

What are you looking to achieve by spending more money on "science"?

[Use Psychology]

The Don of Croy said:

Use Psychology said:

I'm being naughty, but if you substituted 'arts' for your use of 'science' in the above piece the argument could be the same, no?

which bit?

[Use Psychology]

AJS- said:

Are you sure they're great examples?

What are you looking to achieve by spending more money on "science"?

1. UK does new science and gains expertise in certain fields.
2. field becomes applicable to a new technology.
3. UK is in a good position to capitalise on basic expertise to grow expertise in new technology. KNowledge base and expertise is in the UK for industry to exploit.
4. UK becomes world leader in new technology.
5. Technology is exported.
6. UK gains economically.

well done on ignoring the part of my post where I demonstrated taxpayer funded science leading to life-changing technologies.

[The Don of Croy]

To come back to the OP, does anybody else worry about the 'nature' of our economy? Not the BS about balancing between banking vs everything else, but the simply staggering amount of money the UK (amongst others) finds to spend on 'time filling activities';

Like browsing PH.

Facebooking.

Playing video games (an industry now bigger than Hollywood).

Texting.

There was a time when these were 'leisure' activities, pursued after (or before) your day job making widgets, but now everyone seems to be doing these more and more during 'worktime'. Including me. But then I am my own boss.

Should we worry? Yes, because there are not enough widget makers to keep all the others busy on their new pads or phones or action games. Does anyone listen?

[speedy_thrills]

BigBen said:

Perhaps this is an example of where we do well at funding early stage research and badly at successfully commercialising said research.

For which you need industry like manufacturing.

Tough luck really, why don't you just speed up the process of handing sovereignty over to countries that make things people want to buy? Embrace your new Germanic socialist and Chinese communist overlords. Free market capitalism isn't a match and the UK is too stubborn try another approach.

[AJS-]

Not ignoring it, it was a genuine question more than a challenge. Just reading a bit about MRI and it's a bit of a stretch to say its development was funded by the tax payer. Mansfield's part in it yes, but only because pretty much the entirely UK university system is nationalised anyway. Significant parts of the work were done in the US too.


So anyway, long term economic stability by throwing money at university science departments and hoping they invent something? Is that right?

I think the point about art was that you could equally throw money at millions of artists and one of them will turn out to be a Da Vinci, a Mozart or a John Lennon and the investment will pay off. It's hardly a recipe for long term economic stability though.

[speedy_thrills]

To be fair AJS science has a bit of a track record of delivering in the long term.

Most of us have pretty luxury caves, have more than enough food and these metal boxes definitely beat walking. Human ingenuity is the well that never seems to run dry.