UK science funding protected from cuts
27 Nov '15 10:485 editshttp://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/nov/26/uk-science-funding-protected-from-cuts
The UK chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has announced that the country's science "...budget will be protected in real terms until 2020, dispelling fears among many scientists that it would be cut. The £4.7bn per-year budget will now rise in line with inflation, to "ensure the UK remains a world leader in science and research". ..."
well that means they are not totally stupid.
However, I personally have serious concerns they (by 'they' I mean whoever decides the funding details ) will not intelligently think about let alone prioritize which kinds of sciences get the most funding and which should get the least. With all else being equal, with x finite amount of funding, the more of that money that goes into one kind of science, the less will go into another.
I hope they wouldn't put so much money into the least argent sciences such as astronomy, and I say this despite having a keen interest in astronomy, and put a lot more money into the currently most important sciences which have much more significant likely potential to benefit humanity in the more immediate-run such as medical research, renewables, energy-efficiency etc.
I personalty think they should always make a thorough benefit-to-cost (likely benefit to humanity ) ratio analysis of every category and subcategory and subsubcategory of science and compare those benefit-to-cost ratios and make completely intelligent rational decisions on what should get how much funding based purely on those comparisons of those ratios ...I have a bad feeling they don't and won't.
The UK chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has announced that the country's science "...budget will be protected in real terms until 2020, dispelling fears among many scientists that it would be cut. The £4.7bn per-year budget will now rise in line with inflation, to "ensure the UK remains a world leader in science and research". ..."
well that means they are not totally stupid.
However, I personally have serious concerns they (by 'they' I mean whoever decides the funding details ) will not intelligently think about let alone prioritize which kinds of sciences get the most funding and which should get the least. With all else being equal, with x finite amount of funding, the more of that money that goes into one kind of science, the less will go into another.
I hope they wouldn't put so much money into the least argent sciences such as astronomy, and I say this despite having a keen interest in astronomy, and put a lot more money into the currently most important sciences which have much more significant likely potential to benefit humanity in the more immediate-run such as medical research, renewables, energy-efficiency etc.
I personalty think they should always make a thorough benefit-to-cost (likely benefit to humanity ) ratio analysis of every category and subcategory and subsubcategory of science and compare those benefit-to-cost ratios and make completely intelligent rational decisions on what should get how much funding based purely on those comparisons of those ratios ...I have a bad feeling they don't and won't.