Doesn't a lot of science funding come from Defense?

mandarin, there is a difference between funding science and funding technology. Tough surely the Pentagon does finance some science.

Here is a Clinton statement on the Republican war on science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu1T-kHfJdc

there is a difference between... science and... technology.

you know that, and i know that, and i'd wager a majority of 1gm readers know that, but i doubt the pentagon knows that...or cares.

here is a difference between... science and... technology.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think you could classify some DARPA projects as Science.(Although I think of Technology as a subset of science and not separate category). Problem with DARPA is that whatever they are funding has to have some military application. What they don't do is fund much science for science's sake.

I think you would have trouble arguing the the DOD doesn't embrace technology and science.

First, let me say that there isn't a huge difference between science and technology these days; the two are inexorably intertwined, the caduceus upon which our modern understanding of the universe and its intricacies are built. Science has long since passed the point where our observational abilities (IE, the five senses) are of any use. What can sight tell us of the atom? Touch of quantum states? Can taste detect quarks?

While Senator Clinton's plan for science funding is more comprehensive than Senator Obama's, it is far from complete, and it focuses heavily on alternative energy.... not exactly science for science's sake. I like her ARPA-E initiative, but where are we going to get researchers to man it without some kind of tuition subsidy? I believe that the best and brightest from around the world should come here to do their research, and we should welcome them, but America needs some of its own scientists leading the way. I wouldn't say either of them are better than the other on this issue, though.

Give us the special comment! ;)

As an astronomer I was pretty disappointed in both candidates' science polices. As has been noted they both focus heavily on communications and alternative energy.

Both of them are proposing tuition subsidies to open up college to more people but they seem awfully small: $4000? That gets you about one quarter even at a state school. I'd like to see interest free loans or something serious.

I heard an interesting comment last week from someone who works on the Hubble Space Telescope: he said that the Republicans have actually been great for the project because they don't try to get involved but they don't dare cut funding so they just throw money to smart people at NASA who decide what to do with it. At what point do we actually want our president making personal decisions about where science money goes? On the other hand, it's probably true that Bush is not so good for NEW science initiatives.

By the way, the Department of Energy actually pumps a lot of money into astronomy and physics research.

Is your Hubble Telescope plan the ideal one-- throw money at smart government workers, and let them decide what to do with it? Because that plan sounds like someone whose head really is in the stars. You say "at what point do we actually want our president making personal decisions about where science money goes?". At what point do you want anyone making personal decisions about where your money goes?

Is your Hubble Telescope plan the ideal one-- throw money at smart government workers, and let them decide what to do with it?

I didn't say it was my, or anyone's, "plan". Just an interesting counter example to our usual observation that this administration has been underfunding science.

Obama's got a better plan for nationwide internet access and net neutrality.

I have to take point with Jiffyclub's comments. I personally believe that communications and alternative energy seem to be more important right now than astrology. But that's just me. Peace all

I have to take point with Jiffyclub's comments. I personally believe that communications and alternative energy seem to be more important right now than astrology.

I agree 100%. Communications and alternative energy are more important than astrology.

Astronomy on the other hand...