🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <22549@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

|>If we don't build the SSC, then the Europeans are *more* likely to build LHC
|>and move the state-of-the-art over to Europe.

Now, when I talk to my civil servent friends in the European Commision, they
laugh and tell me that the heart of CERN's sales pitch for the LHC is to
be competitive with the Americans. Seems like we've substituted the Space
Race and Arms Race with the HEP race. when it gets too expensive the U.S.
and Europe will both bow out. Then no-one can exclaim "look they're getting
ahead" credibly. Moreover, without the false competition issue, HEP may fade
from the radar screens from the public at large, both in Europe and America.

If the U.S. tubes the SSC, I think the impetus for building the LHC will be 
less not more. Funny thing this nationalistic pride (especially since Europe 
is multi-national). The thing I worry about, is if we are in a 
national pride frenzy about bragging rights for the Higgs, then what comes 
after? Ask some of the "Rocket Scientists" what happened to their jobs after 
Apollo. Look at the current situation facing defense contractors. Sure the 
politicians and the sound bite technicians love HEP now, but what happens when 
the spotlight fades? Sometimes it is very ugly. I hope that this is not the 
future that awaits HEP but I am afraid that it may be.


|>No.  Given a (roughly) fixed physics budget, it is then the scientists who 
|>decide, through a lengthy scientific/political debate, how the money will be
|>subdivided among projects.  If the government intentionally put the
squeeze on
|>any active area of research, then of course the work would dry up, but why 
|>would they do that?  

IMO you're way off base here. First, funding of the SSC is not a case of
alloting a pot of money to the physics community and then letting the
physicists decide. It was a case of concerted (and very effective) effort
pointed to many centers of power (DOE, congress, OMB, state governors). It
was not the result of any priority setting inside DOE's OER. In fact the
existence of such a dispassionate scientific priority setting is an
unproven assertion on your part. I have rarely seen any such thing in the
U.S. except on a small scale within tight subdisciplines. Sure NSF
directorates review and allocated funds, but there is no proirity setting
by scientists about funding levels of HEP vs. condensed matter. There is no
peer review to determine Chemistry's share of the funding pie vs. Physics'
share. These are intrinsically political decisions and have always
been subject to myriad political pressures. Currently when DOE's OER does
its budget planning, it has handed down to it a set figure to put into its
budget request for the SSC. The White House has said that it is to be regarded 
as "A special presidential initiative" and is thus untouchable in the executive
budget process. It is not scientists who decide the debate (although they
may have some input).

Second, If you're saying that some sort of meta-peer-review has given the
SSC its seal of approval, then I'm not aware of it. The APS has stated
that it supports the SSC, provided it does not crowd out other legitmate
science. Thus if we believe your assertion that scientists decide through
debate once they are given their fixed budget, then the APS has clearly
come down on saying if the pie is fixed, their is no room for the SSC.
And nowhere have I seen life scientists bow in awe and sign over their
grants in order to pay for the SSC.

In my opinion, the SSC has been sold not just as science. It is supposed
to have many other "socially beneficial" features, including jobs, constituent
satisfaction, etc. At the point in time where the decision was made, it
was explicitly stated that the SSC would enlarge the pie, not redistribute
it. The SSC is not a product of the peer review system, and rightly so.
Such a large project requires consideration of other issues besides
scientific merit. As a HEP experiment it surely has merit, but scientific
merit alone will not justify spending 10G$. The process that does make
such decisions, seems to have given it the green light. The carping and
complaining that you are seeing in this thread is mostly a concern that the
SSC will go back on its promise and start cannibalizing other disciplines
instead of enlarging the pie. Such is the nature of this real political
process in the times of budget caps and firewalls. This is the answer to
your rhetorical question of why the government would "put the squeeze"
on any active area of research. The squeeze often occurs, and more 
often because of neglect than malicious intent. Your notion that
if a discipline if in financial straits, than it is prima-facia evidence
of a lack of scientific vigor is as naive as believing that poverty is an 
inherent sign of laziness.


|>If you think that you really should get involved in the details, perhaps you
|>can tell me whether I should upgrade my image-processor or buy better optics
|>with my equipment money this year?  
10G$ is hardly a detail. Your image processor, from my point of view,
probably is because it costs much less. The proposition you put forth is
analogous to your mechanic telling you to shove off when you ask him
to itemize the work he has done and explain the total bil you are asked
to pay. I don't like to write blank checks.


|>No one demands anything.  We ask, and society in its wisdom gives.
Right, and Charie Keating didn't pervert the S&L regulatory system,
he just "requested a little help" from some friends in Congress.

The proponents of the SSC have had very effectice representation in
Washington. They have the benefit of offering good science, providing jobs,
and they have at their disposal some very eloquent and presuasive people
both in and out of government.

|>You surely have the right to voice your opinion, even if it is just a "gut"
|>feeling.  But do you have the wisdom to allow the people who have real
reasons
|>for their expert opinions to decide how best to spend the physics dollars 
|>that your government has already decided to spend?  
Okay I get it. Your position is give the the check and get the h**l out
of my lab, me and my friends will decide how to spend it. I got news for
you. It's never worked that way and it never will. You are correct in 
stating that peer review is a vary valid maethod for allocating a given
pool of resources, but with it comes disclosure. Whoever funds
inevitably asks for accountability, both in terms of results of previous
funding and proposals and general directions of present and future funding.
Just as in a bequest, it is quite natural and common for the bequestor to
place restrictions on the use of funds as well as demand a say in allocation.
|>
|>I don't presume to know enough to decide how other people should spend
|>the money that we give them to get the job done.  I support funds for medical
|>research, but don't opine (in public anyway) about how those research
dollars 
|>should be allocated.  What do I know?  I have some faith in the people who 
|>have dedicated their lives to doing the work.
If I'm paying, then I do demand such knowledge. Like you, Scott, I will
probably defer to experts, but experts can often lose sight of the forest
for the trees. He who pays the piper calls the tune. If the SSC is to be
built with public funds, then it owes (and IMO has given) accounting for
what it will do and for how much. When others (some of who are paying
with tax dollars) have questioned this rationale, your response is to
tell them to butt out. Well I don't agree.
|>
|>-Scott
                                                                            
John W. Cobb
jwc@fusion.ph.utexas.edu