"Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science" 
Author Message
 "Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science"

Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science
Americans have captured or shared in all three 2004 Nobel Prizes
awarded in scientific fields, a result that seems to contradict
complaints of declines in U.S. scientific research and science
education.
at http://www.***.com/


Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:46:42 GMT
 "Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science"

Quote:

> Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science
> Americans have captured or shared in all three 2004 Nobel Prizes
> awarded in scientific fields, a result that seems to contradict
> complaints of declines in U.S. scientific research and science
> education.
> at http://www.***.com/

Comment: The US is a big country with a lot of people, so you have to
factor that in. For example, the US leads in olympic medals, but if
you figure it per millions of population we come out about 8th.

In Nobels, if you figure it at prizes per million people of a country
per decade, I think the US is on top, but we've been declining since
our high, post WW II.  And THAT high was not just due to the change in
Federal science support after WW II, but also due to the influx of
educated Europeans fleeing Nazis (previous to WWII, *Germany* had led
in Nobels).  US science preeminance has ALWAYS been to some extend
dependent on us brain-draining the rest of the world. We have the best
resources, and the best class-mobility, so the world sends us all
their best minds. It combo is unbeatable. What worries me is that we
haven't lately been doing as well with that combo as we SHOULD be. We
SHOULD be TOTALLY kicking ass in science, instead of just barely.
That's bad. It means we're screwing up somewhere.

We still have the money. So my best guess is that we're doing
something to{*filter*}up the true meritocracy which underlies the best
science, in the name of political correctness. It's one thing to have
good class mobility. It's another to choose Americans of African or
Latin extraction for academic positions instead of (say) Chinese, in
order to just make the numbers come out. And that is happening.

SBH



Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:01:51 GMT
 "Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science"


Quote:
> Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science
> Americans have captured or shared in all three 2004 Nobel Prizes
> awarded in scientific fields, a result that seems to contradict
> complaints of declines in U.S. scientific research and science
> education.
> at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041008-123154-8663r.htm

The Noble prizes reward work that was done years ago (in the case of the
award for the discovery of uiquitin, over 20 years ago). So they reflect the
health of US science years ago in very limited  areas.

Jeff



Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:41:10 GMT
 "Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science"



Quote:
>> Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science
>> Americans have captured or shared in all three 2004 Nobel Prizes
>> awarded in scientific fields, a result that seems to contradict
>> complaints of declines in U.S. scientific research and science
>> education.
>> at http://www.***.com/

> Comment: The US is a big country with a lot of people, so you have to
> factor that in. For example, the US leads in olympic medals, but if
> you figure it per millions of population we come out about 8th.

> In Nobels, if you figure it at prizes per million people of a country
> per decade, I think the US is on top, but we've been declining since
> our high, post WW II.  And THAT high was not just due to the change in
> Federal science support after WW II, but also due to the influx of
> educated Europeans fleeing Nazis (previous to WWII, *Germany* had led
> in Nobels).  US science preeminance has ALWAYS been to some extend
> dependent on us brain-draining the rest of the world. We have the best
> resources, and the best class-mobility, so the world sends us all
> their best minds. It combo is unbeatable. What worries me is that we
> haven't lately been doing as well with that combo as we SHOULD be. We
> SHOULD be TOTALLY kicking ass in science, instead of just barely.
> That's bad. It means we're screwing up somewhere.

> We still have the money. So my best guess is that we're doing
> something to{*filter*}up the true meritocracy which underlies the best
> science, in the name of political correctness. It's one thing to have
> good class mobility. It's another to choose Americans of African or
> Latin extraction for academic positions instead of (say) Chinese, in
> order to just make the numbers come out. And that is happening.

> SBH

Steve,

You observations are correct as are your conclusions.  I remember when
scientists and engineers were the most revered and were labelled as heros.  
Now they are scorned, laughed at and labelled "geeks" at best.  The values
in this country is what is wrong and they have been wrong for quite some
time.  I could go on, but it is rather pointless.  Suffice to say the
social values are backwards.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.



Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:35:53 GMT
 "Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science"


Quote:


>> Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science
>> Americans have captured or shared in all three 2004 Nobel Prizes
>> awarded in scientific fields, a result that seems to contradict
>> complaints of declines in U.S. scientific research and science
>> education.
>> at http://www.***.com/

>Comment: The US is a big country with a lot of people, so you have to
>factor that in. For example, the US leads in olympic medals, but if
>you figure it per millions of population we come out about 8th.

>In Nobels, if you figure it at prizes per million people of a country
>per decade, I think the US is on top, but we've been declining since
>our high, post WW II.  And THAT high was not just due to the change in
>Federal science support after WW II, but also due to the influx of
>educated Europeans fleeing Nazis (previous to WWII, *Germany* had led
>in Nobels).  US science preeminance has ALWAYS been to some extend
>dependent on us brain-draining the rest of the world. We have the best
>resources, and the best class-mobility, so the world sends us all
>their best minds. It combo is unbeatable. What worries me is that we
>haven't lately been doing as well with that combo as we SHOULD be. We
>SHOULD be TOTALLY kicking ass in science, instead of just barely.
>That's bad. It means we're screwing up somewhere.

>We still have the money. So my best guess is that we're doing
>something to{*filter*}up the true meritocracy which underlies the best
>science, in the name of political correctness. It's one thing to have
>good class mobility. It's another to choose Americans of African or
>Latin extraction for academic positions instead of (say) Chinese, in
>order to just make the numbers come out. And that is happening.

As someone else pointed out, the effect is delayed because the Nobel's
are often awarded for work done decades earlier.

However, even though I'm sure it's fun for you to bash "political
correctness," I would suggest that another potential cause, and a more
likely one, is the increasing commercialization of research.  The free
flow of ideas gets a lot less free when each idea is being studied for
commercial viability.  If it looks like a moneymaker, it's not going
to be published until it's patented, or until the trade secret can't
be retained any longer.

  -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
     These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
       "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
           were standing on my shoulders."  (Hal Abelson, MIT)



Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:05:28 GMT
 "Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science"

Quote:

> As someone else pointed out, the effect is delayed because the Nobel's
> are often awarded for work done decades earlier.

> However, even though I'm sure it's fun for you to bash "political
> correctness," I would suggest that another potential cause, and a more
> likely one, is the increasing commercialization of research.  The free
> flow of ideas gets a lot less free when each idea is being studied for
> commercial viability.  If it looks like a moneymaker, it's not going
> to be published until it's patented, or until the trade secret can't
> be retained any longer.

COMMENT:

That's equally true in all countries. So what makes you think it's
differentially affecting US research?

If anything, the US should be relatively more immune to it. In the US
we have a larger fund for non-commercial research than anyplace else
on the planet. And we're STILL losing our science lead.



Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:32:25 GMT
 "Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science"


Quote:


>> As someone else pointed out, the effect is delayed because the Nobel's
>> are often awarded for work done decades earlier.

>> However, even though I'm sure it's fun for you to bash "political
>> correctness," I would suggest that another potential cause, and a more
>> likely one, is the increasing commercialization of research.  The free
>> flow of ideas gets a lot less free when each idea is being studied for
>> commercial viability.  If it looks like a moneymaker, it's not going
>> to be published until it's patented, or until the trade secret can't
>> be retained any longer.

>COMMENT:

>That's equally true in all countries. So what makes you think it's
>differentially affecting US research?

Ah, but *is* it equally true in all countries?  Potentially, yes, but
in actuality?

Quote:
>If anything, the US should be relatively more immune to it. In the US
>we have a larger fund for non-commercial research than anyplace else
>on the planet. And we're STILL losing our science lead.

But is the funding pool for basic research that deep?  Seems to me
it's been getting short shrift lately.

  -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
     These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
       "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
           were standing on my shoulders."  (Hal Abelson, MIT)



Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:10:11 GMT
 "Nobel Prizes boost U.S. science"

Quote:
> US science preeminance has ALWAYS been to some extend dependent on
> us brain-draining the rest of the world.  We have the best resources,
> and the best class-mobility, so the world sends us all their best
> minds.  It combo is unbeatable. What worries me is that we haven't
> lately been doing as well with that combo as we SHOULD be.

Also, this is likely to soon come to an end, since foreigners have
been made far less welcome in the past three years.

For instance a Canadian who was just passing through was deported
to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured.  He had never been
charged with any crime in any country, much less convicted.
--
Keith F. {*filter*} - http://keith{*filter*}.net/
Please see http://keith{*filter*}.net/email.html before emailing me.



Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:42:14 GMT
 
 [ 8 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Article: "Science, Semi-science, and Nonsense"

2. "Agency: Nobel Winners Transformed Mental Health "

3. "U.S. researchers confirm SARS virus"

4. "Chewing gum boosts memory"

5. "U.S. Intensifies Lyme Disease Prevention Efforts "

6. RUSSIA: """Lyme Disease Study Group, Russian Academy of Medical Science""""

7. Torture "Widespread" under U.S. Custody: Amnesty

8. "dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government"- Paul Craig Roberts

9. "Chewing gum boosts memory"

10. US Senate Approves Money to Boost Supplement Enforcement and Science


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software