Funding for R&D in the US

@spruce112358 said
Tax dollars are raised by government. Government should be spending that revenue to protect all our rights equally. 😆

Defense, justice, maintaining public space, education in the law, last resort charity - all these expenditures can be traced back to rights that we recognize and want to see protected.

I'm open to arguments that funding basic R&D research protects our rights. So let's hear them. 😆

An excellent post in the spirit of debate. I forgot and am now returning to answer...

The culture began as part of wartime efforts, but for a long time it has been well-accepted that federally-funded R&D benefits the public good broadly. While most R&D in the US is privately funded, federal funding is particularly important in emerging scientific areas with broad potential benefit for society but little commercial incentive for private enterprises. Think about CRISPR gene editing technology that was developed based on a curiosity how bacterial immunity work and is now curing human genetic disease. Also, this includes efforts to measure how well health care systems operate, train scientists, and conduct basic, fundamental science that cannot be tied to short-term production of a new medicine. Leaps can break open areas of medicine, resulting in orders of magnitude return-on-investment for the American taxpayer.

Here's a very good break-down (I think) from the Brookings Institute. Worth a read...

... there are problems with the bulk of R&D coming from the business community. First, vital national interests may get overlooked... Second, profitable consumer products likely will get advantaged over unprofitable societal innovations, even if the latter are important for public health and national security. Third, innovations that need to get financed in order to promote longterm public goods may receive short shrift over items that promise a quick payoff.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rd-for-the-public-good-ways-to-strengthen-societal-innovation-in-the-united-states/

@Lundos said
Scientists are leaving the US in fairly big numbers after funding has been left uncertain. Positions in Denmark and Switzerland (and in other places, I'm sure) are having record applications and are filled very fast these days. What I'm hearing is that no one trusts their funding even if they still have it after the latest Trump cuts.

The EU will have a huge upside from th ...[text shortened]... to come but, of course, most Trump faithful will be dead when the bigger effects hit the US society.

My bigger concern is the decreased training opportunities for kids straight outta college who might be interested in science but completely turned away by the lack of funding for graduate and postdoctoral work.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
its right there in the article

"and recognize that basic research isn’t a federal handout to help sustain academia. "

I think you completely misunderstand what this comment is.

Basic research isn't a federal handout. There are very clear, tangible deliverables. The Trump administration is treating it like one, though.

@Ponderable said
So criminals have to be persecuted.

A no-brainer.
R&D money is for R&D, and results of state-sponsored research should not be privatized.

A really good point. But for anyone who has played a war game or seen how history works over the millenia, innovative superiority is a very good defense tactic.

@spruce112358 said
It says: “Tax dollars are raised by government. Government should be spending that revenue to protect all our rights equally.”

Absolutely brilliant prose. So clear. 😆 😆 😆

Spending to protect our rights equally is necessary.

Whether it is sufficient is up to the People; they may well find that other spending is desirable to achieve societal goals the majority feel make the country better.

@wildgrass said
From a Republican senator:
[quote]We should follow two steps: One, policymakers must sufficiently fund federal investment in basic and applied science research as part of the annual congressional appropriations process. The United States’ biotechnology innovators, our electronics wizards and our military leaders uniformly point to the importance of a strong science-and-tec ...[text shortened]...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/24/research-development-china-national-security/

There is good funding and bad funding. You need to examine the difference instead of supporting ALL funding.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/05/17/watch-bioengineered-ticks-make-you-allergic-to-red-meat-to-fight-climate-change/

@no1marauder said
Spending to protect our rights equally is necessary.

Whether it is sufficient is up to the People; they may well find that other spending is desirable to achieve societal goals the majority feel make the country better.

Spending in the USA is determined by a minority of wealthy people. We live in a plutocracy.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/05/17/watch-bioengineered-ticks-make-you-allergic-to-red-meat-to-fight-climate-change/

@no1marauder said
Spending to protect our rights equally is necessary.

Whether it is sufficient is up to the People; they may well find that other spending is desirable to achieve societal goals the majority feel make the country better.

The majority can and should vote to spend tax dollars protecting the rights of any sized minority - even just one person. Rights are things we have agreed on in a super-majority fashion. Much more than a majority agree on what our rights are, and we all accept the obligation (not choice; obligation) to help protect one another's rights. That's what makes us a civilized nation and different from a country of warlords and anarchists. Rights are sacrosanct.

But should a 51% majority vote to spend tax dollars to achieve a 'desireable social goal?' Especially one that 49% say is 'undesirable?' 😆

What do folks think? @AverageJoe1 let's hear from you. How about you @moonbus? @Rajk999? @Suzianne? Everybody.

This is the most important question of your lives, so you should have a ready answer. no1m and I are friends now, but we have different opinions on this. If we were to go at it, you'd think it was a Royal Rumble from 2005 again! 😆

@spruce112358 said
The majority can and should vote to spend tax dollars protecting the rights of any sized minority - even just one person. Rights are things we have agreed on in a super-majority fashion. Much more than a majority agree on what our rights are, and we all accept the obligation (not choice; obligation) to help protect one another's rights. That's what makes us a civilized n ...[text shortened]... rent opinions on this. If we were to go at it, you'd think it was a Royal Rumble from 2005 again! 😆

What percentage of a minority would be sufficient in your view to block the majority's wishes?

We are not talking about measures which violate the Natural Rights of individuals but more mundane matters like "should there be a traffic light on Elm and Main".

@no1marauder said
What percentage of a minority would be sufficient in your view to block the majority's wishes?

We are not talking about measures which violate the Natural Rights of individuals but more mundane matters like "should there be a traffic light on Elm and Main".

Well, we all have an equal right to 'freedom of association.' That means that I can get on and off my property. I MUST adjoin some public land otherwise I'd be trapped. Administering public land (e.g. roads) has to be done by gummint in such a way that it protects all our rights.

So, question: If the roads are hazardous or unsafe or in very bad condition, is our right to freely associate limited? Answer: yep. We don't have a 'right' to specific solutions (e.g. concrete vs asphalt; lights vs traffic circles), those decisions the majority (i.e. through elected representatives) must work out, but we DO have a right to go where we please, without significant risk.

So - gummint - please regulate the traffic at Elm and Main so that I can safely associate with others, as is my right! 😆

@spruce112358 said
Well, we all have an equal right to 'freedom of association.' That means that I can get on and off my property. I MUST adjoin some public land otherwise I'd be trapped. Administering public land (e.g. roads) has to be done by gummint in such a way that it protects all our rights.

So, question: If the roads are hazardous or unsafe or in very bad condition, is our right ...[text shortened]... e regulate the traffic at Elm and Main so that I can safely associate with others, as is my right! 😆

Using such an expansive definition of "rights" is hard to think of any government expenditure that wouldn't qualify.

Go ahead and tell me one.

@Metal-Brain said
There is good funding and bad funding. You need to examine the difference instead of supporting ALL funding.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/05/17/watch-bioengineered-ticks-make-you-allergic-to-red-meat-to-fight-climate-change/

The best strategy for determining who gets funding is for agencies to set clear priorities, request grant applications, and have those applications reviewed by other scientists. The multi-layer review process will weed out both bad science and science that doesn't jive with government priorities.

The NIH and NSF are shining examples of how it should work. Obviously there are some flaws to be ironed out and adjusted as they go, but it mostly works as it should.

Without government-funded R&D, our technology sector in the US becomes Europe - boring, uncreative milquetoast.

@spruce112358 said
Well, we all have an equal right to 'freedom of association.' That means that I can get on and off my property. I MUST adjoin some public land otherwise I'd be trapped. Administering public land (e.g. roads) has to be done by gummint in such a way that it protects all our rights.

So, question: If the roads are hazardous or unsafe or in very bad condition, is our right ...[text shortened]... e regulate the traffic at Elm and Main so that I can safely associate with others, as is my right! 😆

To be clear, when I refer to rights, I accept the traditional Lockean definition of "negative rights" and not the expanded use of the term in something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thus:

"“A ‘negative’ right is a right not to be interfered with, a right that imposes no obligation upon others except that of non-interference.”

Therefore, I do not believe that your "freedom of association" requires the government to build roads so you can associate more freely. Of course, it's a wise policy to do so but that doesn't make it mandatory.

@no1marauder said
To be clear, when I refer to rights, I accept the traditional Lockean definition of "negative rights" and not the expanded use of the term in something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thus:

"“A ‘negative’ right is a right not to be interfered with, a right that imposes no obligation upon others except that of non-interference.”

Therefore, I do not ...[text shortened]... an associate more freely. Of course, it's a wise policy to do so but that doesn't make it mandatory.

Same with me

@no1marauder said
Using such an expansive definition of "rights" is hard to think of any government expenditure that wouldn't qualify.

Go ahead and tell me one.

Say there is already a traffic circle at Elm and Main. Then gummint replacing that circle with a less-safe traffic light because of lobbying down at the statehouse from a wealthy donor who manufactures traffic lights would not qualify. Because that expenditure in no way protects our right to freely (i.e. safely) associate, it should be disallowed.

We have 4,000 M1 Abrams tanks which have never fired a shot in defense of US territory. Gummint must defend the nation - but wouldn't 1,000 tanks have had the same effect?

Let's go much bigger: healthcare. Do people have a right to have government pay for their healthcare services which they acquire from private providers? How do we describe that 'right' exactly?

Do farmers have a 'right' to price supports for their crops? Do people who build in a flood plain have the 'right' to federal flood insurance? Do students have a 'right' to federal dollars to pay for their education? Do banks have a 'right' to be bailed out if they are 'too big to fail'?

Of course the famous example is when Congress couldn't agree on Federal funding for a pedestal for the Statue of Liberty which ended up being privately funded.

😆