The December '08 issue of symmetry magazine (http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/pdfs/200812/dec_2008.pdf) presents an interesting article about the benefits of particle physics research to society from an economic, social and education perspective.
The ripple effect of basic research in physics such as elementary particles has driven development of technologies as far ranging as grid computing, superconductivity, cancer therapies and of course the World-Wide-Web. Many of these breakthroughs might never have arisen under an incremental approach motivated purely by a corporate bottom line.
These types of arguments are critical in making the case for fundamental scientific research in physics and other areas that don't immediately lend themselves to public favor due to their perceived "ivory tower" nature. This is particularly urgent with the promise of a new administration and genuine government recognition of the economic, social and educational benefits of science particularly in the alternative and green energy areas.
Technologies we have come to love and rely upon in modern life that ultimately rely upon "academic" research abound. The GPS system and special and general relativity, air travel routes and geodesics, quantum tunneling, modern telecommunications and Shannon's theorem are but a few.
Comments
I maintain the issue is not more government funding for basic science but less. America's greatest science advancements were done when basic research funding by the private sector was much higher - the perception that corporations do not do basic research is somewhat accurate, but that's because it would be stupid to spend money on basic research if the government will do it for you.
If the government stopped, industry would do it again and budgets and expenditures would actually be a lot more predictable, since they don't rely on taxes to get funding.
Obviously that's a contrarian view on a site full of scientists who work in academia but I've never been at a company where less 50% of the expenditure was R&D - and only one time in 10 years was any of that DARPA money, because it was too big a hassle.
If the government stopped, industry would do it again and budgets and expenditures would actually be a lot more predictable, since they don't rely on taxes to get funding.
Obviously that's a contrarian view on a site full of scientists who work in academia but I've never been at a company where less 50% of the expenditure was R&D - and only one time in 10 years was any of that DARPA money, because it was too big a hassle.
Hank Campbell | 02/06/09 | 14:44 PM
Bente Lilja Bye | 02/06/09 | 15:53 PM
The free market approach to funding scientific research fails on edge cases - namely those where the perceived economic benefits of the research are too indefinite either substantively or in terms of the time horizon. Elementary particle research and theoretical condensed matter research are two such instances. Alternative energy may be another. In these edge cases, the only hope is some type of government initiative to propel these endeavors.
Jon Lederman | 02/07/09 | 10:18 AM












I've heard people argue against doing hard science because they want to do something for people. What would modern medicine be without maths and physics, I ask?
Particle physics serves society just as much as any other field of science, perhaps even more! :-))