Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6315349" data-attributes="member: 177">I'm not in a position to critique how, when, and why NASA employs this status, so I cannot really judge whether it is appropriate.I think the Golden Rule applies.&nbsp; Which leads to: critique of funding for individual small projects should not be done at a distance.&nbsp; How many folks do you know might lose funding if put under scrutiny of a third party who wasn't involved or informed on the project, based upon their personal subjective expectation and standards of pay-off?&nbsp; Should science be conducted on the basis of what otherwise disinterested parties think is likely to succeed?&nbsp; How many important discoveries would have been squashed or delayed if similar standards were applied in the past?&nbsp; How many things would we not have found yet if we first had to have a high expectation of finding them before we started?&nbsp; I know you've said that you know folks who have scrabbled for grant proposals for smaller amounts.&nbsp; But, the big picture should not be abandoned.&nbsp; NASA's got a budget of upwards of $18 billion.&nbsp; By analogy, its expenditure on the project seems to be about the same order as a middle-class American buying a can or two of soda.&nbsp; Maybe as much as going to Starbucks once.&nbsp; Do you ever tell your friends, &quot;Hey, you shouldn't have gone to Starbucks that one time, because there are hungry people in the world who could use that money better!&quot;?At a distance, it is difficult to judge individual funding decisions.&nbsp; If we must engage in such, we can better discuss overall funding patterns.&nbsp; Does NASA, in general, not return good value from its projects?&nbsp; NASA returns *excellent* value, both historically and recently, no?&nbsp; So, should we criticize on a detailed level, or let the goose continue to lay golden eggs largely undisturbed?None of this says I feel they're likely to find out anything useful in this research.&nbsp; It is a long-shot, at best.&nbsp; But science, in general, operates on a &quot;shotgun&quot; approach, because we humans are not prescient, and have shown very poor ability to predict which things will give the best returns in the long haul.&nbsp; Science is all about the &quot;unknown unknowns&quot; is it not?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6315349, member: 177"] I'm not in a position to critique how, when, and why NASA employs this status, so I cannot really judge whether it is appropriate. I think the Golden Rule applies. Which leads to: critique of funding for individual small projects should not be done at a distance. How many folks do you know might lose funding if put under scrutiny of a third party who wasn't involved or informed on the project, based upon their personal subjective expectation and standards of pay-off? Should science be conducted on the basis of what otherwise disinterested parties think is likely to succeed? How many important discoveries would have been squashed or delayed if similar standards were applied in the past? How many things would we not have found yet if we first had to have a high expectation of finding them before we started? I know you've said that you know folks who have scrabbled for grant proposals for smaller amounts. But, the big picture should not be abandoned. NASA's got a budget of upwards of $18 billion. By analogy, its expenditure on the project seems to be about the same order as a middle-class American buying a can or two of soda. Maybe as much as going to Starbucks once. Do you ever tell your friends, "Hey, you shouldn't have gone to Starbucks that one time, because there are hungry people in the world who could use that money better!"? At a distance, it is difficult to judge individual funding decisions. If we must engage in such, we can better discuss overall funding patterns. Does NASA, in general, not return good value from its projects? NASA returns *excellent* value, both historically and recently, no? So, should we criticize on a detailed level, or let the goose continue to lay golden eggs largely undisturbed? None of this says I feel they're likely to find out anything useful in this research. It is a long-shot, at best. But science, in general, operates on a "shotgun" approach, because we humans are not prescient, and have shown very poor ability to predict which things will give the best returns in the long haul. Science is all about the "unknown unknowns" is it not? [/QUOTE]

Verification