Greens may push law to protect research. [Australia] - Polidicks

[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 600, align: left"] [TR] [TD][TABLE="width: 550, align: left"] [TR] [TD][h2]Greens may push law to protect research[/h2][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][TABLE="width: 550, align: center"] [TR] [TD]The Greens may introduce legislation to block the federal government from cutting research funds, sparking a parliamentary battle that pitches Labor against a Greens-conservative alliance. Greens MP Adam Bandt told The Australian he would consider legislation to enforce his motion to insulate science and research from funding cuts or freezes this fiscal year.[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][B]SOURCE: [/B] [URL]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/greens-may-push-law-to-protect-research/story-e6frgcjx-1226578508411[/URL][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

As much as I despise the Aussie Greens, I have to support them on this

I don't know if Australia has debt issues on the scale of America, but I would not support such a bill in my country.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39629588]I don't know if Australia has debt issues on the scale of America, but I would not support such a bill in my country.[/QUOTE] The token conservative doesn't like scientific research. Who would have guessed?

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39629588]I don't know if Australia has debt issues on the scale of America, but I would not support such a bill in my country.[/QUOTE] If I remember correctly, Australia was one of the few Western Nations that came out on top after that economic crisis, so I'd say debt isn't too much of a problem

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39629601]The token conservative doesn't like scientific research. Who would have guessed?[/QUOTE] I like scientific research, however I am cautious about its benefits as compared to the money spent on it.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39629656]I like scientific research, however I am cautious about its benefits as compared to the money spent on it.[/QUOTE] yes, human history proves the profit motive is more important and useful to humankind than research noooope

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39629664]yes, human history proves the profit motive is more important and useful to humankind than research noooope[/QUOTE] Research is good, and it can even bring in a net profit, but an across-the-board "no, you may not reduce scientific spending" is not a good idea, I think.

Scientific research is such an important thing, and it hurts when people ignore this because it isn't yielding short term profits.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39629588]I don't know if Australia has debt issues on the scale of America, but I would not support such a bill in my country.[/QUOTE] We're doing quite well, sure we have debt but it'd be nothing like what America has

The thing is that if you cut funding to research then you only really feel the effects many years later when less breakthroughs come out/are published and students are less incentivised to take up a career in research.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39629601]The token conservative doesn't like scientific research. Who would have guessed?[/QUOTE] "More funding for research" is what Science fans chant when they want to show their support for Science, like how they'd support their favorite sports team. Elec has a point - the point of being able to cut funding is that oftentimes project managers become complacent. You need to have some kind of incentive. [editline]18th February 2013[/editline] Throwing money at science won't necessarily give you better stuff.

Thing is scientific research in Australia has been pretty much commercially oriented since a revamp of the CSIRO in the 1990s. While it may be throwing money at science its pretty much catered around ensuring that it has some sort commercial benefit at the same time (at least in an industrial sense)

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39629656]I like scientific research, however I am cautious about its benefits as compared to the money spent on it.[/QUOTE] monetisation isn't the only metric of value of something in existence.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39630335]"More funding for research" is what Science fans chant when they want to show their support for Science, like how they'd support their favorite sports team. Elec has a point - the point of being able to cut funding is that oftentimes project managers become complacent. You need to have some kind of incentive. [editline]18th February 2013[/editline] Throwing money at science won't necessarily give you better stuff.[/QUOTE] True, but On the other hand, we still haven't found a cure for Cancer, or HIV/AIDS, just dead ends, despite all the time and money we throw into it. That doesn't mean we should cut our losses and quit looking, it just means we should look in other places, continue to research and experiment until we finally do nail it. We would have never gotten to the moon if it weren't for the Government funding it all. A private corporation would not only be unwilling, but financially unable to do such a thing. The costs are too high, and the short-term profit is nonexistent. Only Government funding could have gotten us there.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39630335]"More funding for research" is what Science fans chant when they want to show their support for Science, like how they'd support their favorite sports team. Elec has a point - the point of being able to cut funding is that oftentimes project managers become complacent. You need to have some kind of incentive. [editline]18th February 2013[/editline] Throwing money at science won't necessarily give you better stuff.[/QUOTE] I actually did not think of it like that, but all right.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39635220]I actually did not think of it like that, but all right.[/QUOTE] Ah, what were you thinking of? [editline]18th February 2013[/editline] Oh and I'm not actually against science getting more funding, I'm just saying that governments shouldn't be prevented from withdrawing funding from institutions or projects that have proven themselves incapable. [editline]18th February 2013[/editline] To do otherwise would be a bureaucratic disaster waiting to happen.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39635267]Ah, what were you thinking of? [editline]18th February 2013[/editline] Oh and I'm not actually against science getting more funding, I'm just saying that governments shouldn't be prevented from withdrawing funding from institutions or projects that have proven themselves incapable. [/QUOTE] That's not necessarily what this is about. It's hard to tell what's going on with just a two paragraph article but I imagine there's clauses in place for those sorts of circumstances. It's just that in an atmosphere of economic doubt some people may be too quick to jump the gun and start slashing scientific research funds.

Just wondering are these cuts of the research funds due to the new "blue collar" jobs scheme Gallard is introducing?