🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr6.215919.13641@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes...
>In article <22528@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov writes:
>>The reason that we don't [wait until new technologies are developed to
>>build the SSC] is that the particle physicists are in a race against
>>time.
> 
>     Really?  Who else is working on a machine that is likely to produce
>similar results to the SSC?  I know about the CERN proposal but the
>Europeans have to convince their own governments of the wisdom of their
>proposal before they can go ahead.
> 

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.

>>If more and more scientists move into high-energy physics, this is an
>>indication that HEP is where the action is.
> 
>     Yes, but the previous poster's point is that the "action" in
>High-Energy Physics (HEP) is artificially created by government
>largesse.  If there were less money in this area, young physicists would
>take their talents elsewhere.

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?  
> 
>>Would you like to decide from you armchair what each of us should work on
>>according to *your* sense of what's interesting or important?  
> 
>     I think that those of us who pay taxes should be allowed some say
>in where our dollars are spent. 

As I stated above, I think that you should decide how much money is to be
spent on pure research, or perhaps on physics, and then let the scientists
who really know how best to spend the money decide upon the details.  It's
worked well this way for quite a long time.  I don't see how all of a sudden
the Congress or any other non-expert citizens are able to judge better than 
the scientists who are actually doing the work how best to spend the dollars
allocated on the field.  

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?  

>I have never heard of an artist who expected to be
>showered with the sorts of money which physics (among others) seems to
>demand.  

No one demands anything.  We ask, and society in its wisdom gives.  If a
project is intrinsically expensive but still worth doing, then we pay.  You
can't say that the Apollo program should have gotten less funding because 
the ecologists (or artists, or whoever) can do *their* work with much less 
money.  It's apples and oranges.

>     Some mega-projects are worth the bother, others aren't.  I honestly
>don't know which category the SSC falls in.  I can't say I'm as enamoured
>of HEP as some others clearly are; I suppose that I oppose Canadian
>participation in the SSC (as I opposed the kaon factory) on a sort of a
>gut feeling.  As a taxpayer, I believe I have that right.
> 

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?  

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.

-Scott