The whole point of science is to increase our understanding of the universe and how it works on a fundamental level. Practical applications are then built upon this; not the other way around!
It's so true. If he and the other scientists wanted to do R&D for the government or corporation they'd sign up for that. It's not the universities position to do the R&D for the corporations. They should do Research for the sake of research and furthering the field of science. It is the academics roles in society to advance the fields of study, to show us new things, to invent and create new ways of doing things. It is the corporations responsibility to then take those advancements and implement them.
I concur ..politicians should not be whores of corporations.. it should be illegal for any political body to receive funds from corporate bodies. Then again.. political bodies should not be brought into power on the basis of political campaigns, that do not hold up to scrutinous hindsight . ..democracy sucks, except next to every other form of government (except maybe dictatorship, given an ideologically perfect [dictator], or maybe communism (if people weren't involved)). Unfortunately funding does have to come from somewhere, and to idealize a world where funding comes from autonomous entities deprived of autonomous inherent ideologies is ..umm, ideological. As first posited, I totally concur, but where do funds come from, if not from the owners of unprocessed commodities? And how does one restrict said owners from espousing their ideologies?
Just revisited this and was reminded by how much I agree with Phil's view. Despite playing devil's advocate here, hats off to Brady and all those behind his great UA-cam videos for all the educational value in them, as well as the entertainment!
I have not seen a youtube video with this amount of passion in it for a long time. when Brady asked one of the questions you could almost hear anger or disagreement in his tone.
Love it, love it, love it when you guys tackle the controversial issues. My roommate feels pretty strongly about the wisdom of the free market. I'm still learning about markets, subsidizing, market forces, government spending, you name it. But I love to hear from my roommate about economics, and I'm glad that you have explored the topic, too.
13:39 THIS is really relevant these coming weeks! Government is trying to pass a bill to keep institutions and universities from doing research which criticises government policies and who knows what else they want unquestioned... Which is absolutely ridiculous!
One thing we can take from this is that challenging the norm, the status quo or even the direction of advancement is not a bad thing and we should not be afraid to do so. Opposition makes us view what we are doing critically or at the very least gives us pause. People like Phil Moriarty should be given praise and thankfully with people like Brady they have a forum to speak out to a very large audience.
The funding for research in total is a limited commodity, so someone has to figure out what gives what. You can't just have scientists figure it out based on their own opinions on how much something is worth. While you can't predict with absolute accuracy what will be the next scientific boom, you can determine the probability based on both past information and how things are currently going. you can then use this to determine multiple monetary ranges with different probability scores.
Bravo Professor Moriarty! Finally a science researcher pointing out the difference between basic science research verses the applied sciences. We are currently witnessing the funding of science research being skewed to those projects with a predictable profit by individuals having only a superficial understanding of science resulting in a stagnation of the research process. We urgently need to communicate this to the populous and return to discovery for discoveries sake.
Professor Moriarty, I take my hat off to you. I think there are plenty of scientists out there who feel the same way but can't speak up because it would cost them their job. Thank you for standing up for science.
It's important to realise what motivates scientists in the first place. With this kind of approach in the long term fewer people are interested in doing science. but of course corporations only care about the short term
Professor Moriarty hits the nail on its head when he said it was fundamentally wrong and that he feels compelled to speak up. This is the type of attitude people should have about what they care about, because this is the only way proper discourse can come and conclusions drawn from, if we all speak our opinion and teach as well as learn from others. I'm also very pleased that Brady asked hard questions and didn't just have a video of intelligent remarks but rather a video of conversation.
I worry that our law makers (in both the UK and the USA) are grossly under qualified to not only understand science but to fund scientific projects. Having a Congressman decide what projects are wort6h funding and which have little or no merit is like asking your auto mechanic to perform brain surgery. These men and women are, for the most part trained as lawyers. They have had little (if any) scientific training, and remain completely scientifically illiterate. Worse very few even have the tools or skills to think critically. They depend on gut feelings and advisers when making decisions. If two advisers give conflicting opinions or advice on ANY subject, let alone science they lack the ability to know which one is more likely to be correct. How hard would it be to train these people up? Typically (at least in the US) there are several weeks between the time a new congressman wins the election and the time he actually begins his work. How hard would it be to set up a class on science literacy and critical thinking? We don't need doctorate level courses here. We need to explain to them HOW science works and why it is such a good system for discovery. Surely that could be done in a few days AT MOST. After they are up to snuff in science another couple of days should be all that is needed to give them the skills they can use to decide the real, best approach to solving problems. I can't see something like this being terrible expensive, and in the long run we would get better, more efficient laws.We'd get MUCH more efficient use of the tax payers money, which would, in the long run, lead to lower taxes. Why can't we make this happen?
Eric Taylor Question: Do you have the right to take my money to spend on a science project that you are interested in? Yes? What gives you that right? No? What business do law makers have taking money from those that they are supposedly representing to spend on a science project that the taxpayer is unlikely to know about? I'm not completely abject to scientific endeavors being funded with taxes, but the waste is pretty objectionable. I worked for the CDC for 3 years putting in a Vaccine Tracking system that took 5 YEARS to go live with less than a hundredth of the users we were suppose to go live with in the first six months. There are 15,000 contracts that the CDC alone awards each year. There is no way for the CDC to award these contracts fairly or with any idea if the contract will be worth it. Less than 30% of the contracts awarded are completed, 70% are trashed before completion. I actually billed hours against CITS (Counter-terrorism Inventory Tracking System) that had no stakeholders or users. It was a BUCKET of money, of which there are hundreds if not thousands within the CDC alone. We had to empty the bucket before they would fill it up again. It was just an account to put money that couldn't be allocated to something useful. Want more funding, get in line. The US is bankrupt, the US Dollar is worthless without the threat of the US military. The lawmakers/bankers are just about out of tricks to keep the Stock Market afloat (which is rigged) so the only avenue to them keeping power is likely a major war. So if you want funding, JOIN THE BASTARDS who print the money or use it for killing, that is where the money is.
+Steve Morris "I'm not completely abject to scientific endeavors being funded with taxes, but the waste is pretty objectionable." There is quite literally not a better way to spend money. If it wasn't for organized science we would be back to the middle ages.
I'm referring to an abstraction based upon what component you're working on at the moment. For example: Your team may be tasked with developing a microcontroller. One person may be in charge of say, the ALU - another in charge of developing various peripherals, etc. The engineer developing the ALU has a specific end user in mind - the engineer(s) afterward utilizing the ALU to create processes that build upon it. Each layer upward is an abstraction built upon the previous step.
Dear Prof. Moriarty, I just wanted to tell you how Very much I admire and respect the courage you've shown here. I hope that these contrived financial crises won't distract you, or any other scientist, from doing their research. We live in a backwards world; where the wise are ignored and the idiotic are cheered. I stand with you and those like you. As I'm sure you already know: you are not alone. We won't let the corps. run this show for much longer... "We are One planet" -Carl Sagan :)
That's, exactly what is happening in Greece at the moment. Even getting funded a few thousand euros is extremely difficult. I am with Phil all the way but unfortunately the economy demands such horrible and unjust measures. Thank you Brady for your excellent work on letting people like Phil, Ed, Roger, Michael, Laurence, Meghan, Professor Poliakoff, Pete, Stephen, Debbie, Sam, Darren and others share their knowledge and opinions.
While I am not a scientist, i have basic scientific training to GCSE level (which i failed) I would like to share my adoration of This professors views on funding - lazers are awesome as an example of us not knowing what is going to work. we have a moral obligation to fund a large amount of science, the returns are long lasting and long term yet often not immidiatly apparent.
I have to say Brady, you make a fantastic devil's advocate. I do science, and I do science for the sake of science. I love it. I don't deal with politics (I'm an undergrad, I don't really have to) but I fear for the day that I do. Because I'll refuse to deal with politics. Also, at 16:15 when you say "why do that, why make yourself a target?" I imagined Phil saying "Because fuck all, that's why."
I love how they present good points on both sides of the argument in this video. In addition, there are few thing in the world that are more fascinating to watch than people speaking about things which they're truly passionate about. Great video. Long live SixtySymbols!
My politics are fairly right of center, but I still fully agree that government funded science shouldn't be an indirect corporate subsidy. Companies should do their own R&D, academia has a different function altogether.
My politics are proudly left of center, even if conservatives agree with me. I support either complete anarchy: no government at all, no laws, everybody gets to solve their own crimes and fight their own wars, NO prisons, NO taxes. OR, Marxism: everybody gets paid equally. And all labor is useful, including abstract math research.
Whoever the daddy referred to in the scrawlings on the whiteboard is has the same birthday as me! I'd be honored to have the same birthday as Dr Moriarty, he's a straight up science badass, and couldn't be more right about the funding situation. It's a pity, for example, that we never built the particle accelerator we should have here in the US almost 20 years ago. Give any and all monies required to basic research, regardless of seeming profitability.
Excellent, excellent video, one of the best I've seen in a long time. Besides the science, *this* is why I follow channels such as these. It really puts the science in perspective.
In the end the user in question is an abstraction anyway - it depends on what the project is to be used for. Most especially in my field of computer engineering, we design components with an end purpose and user in mind. Typically you're working on a single system at a time to integrate later into a larger system. If you're looking at the top level of abstraction, then it depends on what the goals are for the project as to what it will perform. Appreciate the sentiment though.
Dude, you're off on a massive tangent. In fact, in your tangential rant, you directly confirmed my initial point. You listen to your users and produce a system that fits their needs. Well defined user (which is an abstraction based on all users' needs), well defined purpose (or usage) of the system. Once again, you have a problem with a specific company. Hell, I don't even produce products for a company within the context of my university. Where I end up after uni is done I don't know.
This information, in total, can be sent to a budgeting committee who can then figure out how much money in total research funding gets. You then can have different scientists divvy out the money, based on whatever criteria you want. This allows for the scientific community to control what gets funding, while still giving numbers and figures to the people who need them. Granted, this is just one idea, but at least I think it makes a case without ignoring any concerns.
This discussion is very applicable to NASA funding in the US! These exact comments and questions come up all the time in discussions of why the US should fund NASA to do (pick your mission/technology).
Firstly I'd say: Wonderful, awesome interview. Here in Italy do not exists such dialogues where the interviewer asks so uncomfortably questions. Secondly, professor, I'm on your side, I totally agree. And I think that the govern should leave science to the scientists and just hand out the damn money... 'cause it is also in its own interests to do that!
Phil's key insight is that this change turns the universities into subsidised R&D for industry. This of course opens up fantastic money making opportunities for the bureaucrats who make the decisions and the industries who incentivise them.
“People ask me, 'What is the use of climbing Mount Everest?' and my answer must at once be, 'It is of no use.'There is not the slightest prospect of any gain whatsoever. Oh, we may learn a little about the behavior of the human body at high altitudes, and possibly medical men may turn our observation to some account for the purposes of aviation. But otherwise nothing will come of it. We shall not bring back a single bit of gold or silver, not a gem, nor any coal or iron... If you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself upward and forever upward, then you won't see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to live. That is what life means and what life is for.” -George Mallory (first man to climb Mount Everest) Tl;dr: Science isn't about profit. Science is a product of the human condition, namely the need to meet and overcome a challenge. We do science for the same reason that professional football players play sport. The same reason why composers write music. The same reason that anyone does anything. In the end, science is our Everest. All people have their own Everest, their own life's struggle. This is why we live: to meet the challenge of life, the universe, and everything.
Perhaps science is not about profit. But why everybody are forced to fund it? What if they don't buy "We know better, trust me it will be better for you" argument?
Heres one example; in your video about light through glass and lab demonstration(thanks for it, it was very helpful in my studies) you stated that transmission through glass was really absorption-emmission; however it seems to me (from studies in light and this position was held by many like newton etc) that transmission through glass (inflection as they called it) is the same basic phenomena as reflection. And thus, it makes the hypothesis that photons travel "through" glass very likely.
The good Professor says he is quite Left of Centre. As an Economic and Social Libertarian I would have to say I am not Left of Centre. Regardless of ideology, I DO AGREE WITH HIS MESSAGE. Put aside the issue about the amount of funding available, there is no question that the best people to determine where the money allocated to Science should be spent are the experts - Scientists. If the government chooses to spend money on the sciences, it should do so where the market otherwise would NOT.
Issues of foreseable economic value and social benefit drive US university research fundining as well. It is a worldwide problem where short term return is the motivation for public funding. It is interesting that R&D in the private sector expects government grants for product commercialization research(SBIR grants as an example) and fundamental university research grant writing has become allied to similar criteria. Large companies do not want to risk shareholder profit on basic research so they tend to aquire small startups that have assumed all the economic risk and have products close to commercialization. The general public on average does not have long range thinking beyond the day after tomorrow which coincides with their shortsighted elected representatives who look at the next election as a basis for decisions on support for basic universitiy's research. The US elected Representatives will spend a trillion dollars on perceived security threats at home and abroad, but support of research on some fundamental aspect of science that gets picked up by the media is political suicide. Until our general population overcomes its phobia of science & mathematics the status quo of value driven research will continue. When I hear politicians say that "the jury is still out on evolution" and we should let the private sector determine what is important for education in our schools and research in our universities, it is obvoius that there are some substantial challenges ahead for humanity's progress toward enlightenment and understanding of our universe.
On a related subject: Barbara Van Dyck, a researcher in the department of architecture at the Catholic University of Leuven (Louvain), got fired a few months ago because she was involved in a protest against a corporate funded research field growing a batch of GM potatoes. She protested this research because she felt the research was biased (they were already promoting the potatoes, while they weren't even grown yet, let alone tested) and because of that she lost her job at the University.
I cannot agree more with his statements here. Trying to corral science into a predictable direction goes against pure scientific discovery. And as far as the financial crisis, what sense does it make to cripple your long term development? Yes, theoretical physics does not bring about next year's iPhone... but it DOES bring about next the generation's iBrain. Thanks Prof Moriarty for standing up for your passions. I'm not a citizen of GB, but i think we're seeing similar problems all over.
Becoming part of industry is not a bad thing. Industry is what connects science to the rest of the world. Industry is how you use science for the rest of humanity. But I disagree. What will (would) happen is a kind of passing off to industry. Like a painter who goes off into the desert, has a cathartic experience, then comes back and says "I've been painting for days, and I feel like I've learned a lot." When out with no aim but to paint, but the product will be the best he's ever sold.
I felt the two most important points worth taking note of here were: Science should be pushing the boundry of knowledge, not just R&D. _Informed_ democracy (peer rewiev and grants) is better than uninformed or partially informed dictation (a counsel of politicians). There was something else also, but i forgot. If you could summarize three very strong points like this, condense them to one sentence, and then list them at the end (and in video description), it would give it a heavier impact. :)
GOOD FOR YOU!! Scientists aren't meant to roll over and do what they're told. If they did, we wouldn't have half of the technology and knowledge that we have today. Even though I'm a biological anthropology student physics blows my mind :) It explains everything. Literally.
Professor Moriarty, please move to Scotland, vote for independence, start a new scientific political party and I'll vote for you... Agree with EVERYTHING you said!
Thing is you started with an example that is completely different than what you were referring to. A house is supposed to do something- remain intact- where as an experiment is supposed to prove something, to try out something, but even if the experiment's result disagrees with the hypothesis it's still not a failure. An experiment is not designed to do something particular, or if it is, it's then not an experiment but a demonstration, which can fail. An experiment can't fail.
If Professor Moriarty is punished for speaking out, Please get the news out. I know I personally would write to whoever was taking such unjustified action. I'm behind you guys all the way. Keep science free, unbiased, and well funded!
I agree: industry is not a bad thing. My point is that once scientists become rich from the value they create, they become private industrial sources for funding short or long term science as they see fit. My more subtle point is that grant allocation is a red herring when the funds themselves are first compelled by taxes. If Phil is correct that his preferred Research Council system is best at predicting value, then it could be self-funding in a free market.
The interviewer's questions are actually reasonably intelligent. rather than brainlessly obsequious or disingenuously adversarial. Moriarty's answers are of course superb.
I agree with Phil. Governments don't tell companies what they should invest their money in, which stocks to buy, how to structure themselves ect, for a very good reason; they lack the expertise to make a properly informed decision involving specialized fields. You can't expect a career politician, or a department of civil servants, to be able to accurately evaluate the merits of particular research applications. Advancements in science depend on broadening our knowledge, not our marketability.
I love what he had to say regarding funding basic sciences vs translational science. The best translational work is being scooped up by industry, so let them spend that money.
Phil, PEOPLE LOVE SIXTY SYMBOLS. The videos are an incredible asset to the entire world and Meghan is eye candy to boot! I would rather pay my monthly cable bill (110 USD$ minus the expense for TeeVee... so 65 USD$ a month) to watch Sixty Symbols. I know you can make this profitable and possible. I don't even have a college degree but I so much appreciate the videos Sixty Symbols shares!
Very interesting points indeed, and while I don't like to take sides in an argument before I've heard both sides this is pretty convincing, and it very much resonates with the kind of stance I take on Politics in general; leave the decisions to those who know what they're talking about, which is why I think it's ridiculous we don't have political education in school when we have a population of voters.
Is that Phil's kids handwriting on the board there? "Last Saturday it was July 9th It was mr Brady's birthday" Cute! And happy birthday Brady! Thanks again for the great videos guys.
@sharperguy I don't think this does get around the problem, it would only support the short term financially driven research which was one of the issues outlined in the vid.
Makes more sense for science to be funded completely privately anyway. I think there's a statistic somewhere showing that government funding actually causes private research to be invested in less - by a higher amount dollar per dollar than the government pays. But anyway this gets around the problem you mentioned because private businesses will generally be asking the scientists where the big ideas are and deciding which could become marketable products (i.e. actually useful).
very interesting, prof moriarty has put another point to this discussion which i previously did not see. universities shouldn't base their research on a certain market dictated premise. that's what is narrowing the research and blocking innovations!
I'm a bit late and I’m not the greatest economics student ever, but I think prof. Phil Moriaty is confusing different aspects referent to gov science funding from the economics point of view. 1º as said, there are long term from research that come from spin-offs and from innovation on top of innovation. These benefits can be apprehended by privates (think pharmaceutical companies) with application of a patent or not such as the academic research. Let's not forget that even in the case of private funded research, when you file for a patent you have to make a full description, giving others (your peers) insight into your discoveries. 2º Why gov finances directly science. We know that 1º is considered to have a positive impact on society (social well-being). So because this impact is positive state takes positive action funding research. Of course the way to maximize the effect of the policy is by making i available to everyone interested in it (this means that there are no cost to accesses research not driving out possible interest in it, so no one is excluded). As a final note, this is a pure microeconomic way of view this problem. Economic problems should never be treated lightly. I recommend for further reading: Microeconomics with Calculus by Jeffrey M. Perloff (of course lol) I hope I'm clear enough.
Wow......I think this is one of the few times I have been absolutely focused on listening and understanding something like this. I hate politics yet I must be vigilant and pay attention lest what I/we take for granted gets stolen from right under our noses.
Fundamental research is very needed, but it often takes decades before it pays off. I give the example of Quantum Physics in the 20's/30's leading to semiconductors in the 50's and ubiquitous integrated circuits today. Imagine if we understood gravity better, we might have Jetons' flying cars in 2100. The discussion is on innovation vs. revolution. Science needs to do the revolutions. Industry will do the innovation.
@Moriarty2112 It should be me thanking you for speaking out. I really admire what you did there and I'm also a big fan of sixtysymbols. :) If you haven't read it already, I recommend "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki, for a fresh perspective on this complex issue.
Brady does a great job here as a respectful devil's advocate.
i agree, hes a very good journalist
We need more people like Phil. I'm fully behind him on this whole video.
+Logan Fehr Creepy.. why didn't you just tell him you were there?
That is funny. thank you.
The man in the video has never earned honest money. Every money he has earned comes from legalized theft.
The whole point of science is to increase our understanding of the universe and how it works on a fundamental level.
Practical applications are then built upon this; not the other way around!
Boom. Logic. Obviously. But not to mentally inferior politicians, lawyers, police officers, soldiers, judges, lobbyists for bankers.
Brady is very good at his job. This interview is great.
It's so true. If he and the other scientists wanted to do R&D for the government or corporation they'd sign up for that. It's not the universities position to do the R&D for the corporations. They should do Research for the sake of research and furthering the field of science. It is the academics roles in society to advance the fields of study, to show us new things, to invent and create new ways of doing things. It is the corporations responsibility to then take those advancements and implement them.
I concur ..politicians should not be whores of corporations.. it should be illegal for any political body to receive funds from corporate bodies. Then again.. political bodies should not be brought into power on the basis of political campaigns, that do not hold up to scrutinous hindsight . ..democracy sucks, except next to every other form of government (except maybe dictatorship, given an ideologically perfect [dictator], or maybe communism (if people weren't involved)). Unfortunately funding does have to come from somewhere, and to idealize a world where funding comes from autonomous entities deprived of autonomous inherent ideologies is ..umm, ideological. As first posited, I totally concur, but where do funds come from, if not from the owners of unprocessed commodities? And how does one restrict said owners from espousing their ideologies?
I love the drawings in the background
makes me feel confident
Professor Moriarty, I am continually impressed by your dedication and integrity.
Just revisited this and was reminded by how much I agree with Phil's view. Despite playing devil's advocate here, hats off to Brady and all those behind his great UA-cam videos for all the educational value in them, as well as the entertainment!
I have not seen a youtube video with this amount of passion in it for a long time. when Brady asked one of the questions you could almost hear anger or disagreement in his tone.
Love it, love it, love it when you guys tackle the controversial issues. My roommate feels pretty strongly about the wisdom of the free market. I'm still learning about markets, subsidizing, market forces, government spending, you name it. But I love to hear from my roommate about economics, and I'm glad that you have explored the topic, too.
13:39 THIS is really relevant these coming weeks! Government is trying to pass a bill to keep institutions and universities from doing research which criticises government policies and who knows what else they want unquestioned... Which is absolutely ridiculous!
15:25 . The thing is, professional scientists tend to be smarter than the average 10 year old
You'd be surprised. ;)
Great questions Brady, I really enjoyed the passion of both Professor Moriarty and yourself. Very interesting video. Thanks!
One thing we can take from this is that challenging the norm, the status quo or even the direction of advancement is not a bad thing and we should not be afraid to do so. Opposition makes us view what we are doing critically or at the very least gives us pause. People like Phil Moriarty should be given praise and thankfully with people like Brady they have a forum to speak out to a very large audience.
The funding for research in total is a limited commodity, so someone has to figure out what gives what. You can't just have scientists figure it out based on their own opinions on how much something is worth.
While you can't predict with absolute accuracy what will be the next scientific boom, you can determine the probability based on both past information and how things are currently going. you can then use this to determine multiple monetary ranges with different probability scores.
Bravo Professor Moriarty!
Finally a science researcher pointing out the difference between basic science research verses the applied sciences. We are currently witnessing the funding of science research being skewed to those projects with a predictable profit by individuals having only a superficial understanding of science resulting in a stagnation of the research process. We urgently need to communicate this to the populous and return to discovery for discoveries sake.
Professor Moriarty, I take my hat off to you. I think there are plenty of scientists out there who feel the same way but can't speak up because it would cost them their job. Thank you for standing up for science.
Excellent conversation. The professors arguments are spot on. And Brady, what an excellent journalism !!
bring him to hello internet! That would be the best episode yet, with him and CGP grey talking and you
“We’re in a financial crisis”..... As we are now in the middle of the pandemic.... I think this speaks for itself.
It's important to realise what motivates scientists in the first place. With this kind of approach in the long term fewer people are interested in doing science. but of course corporations only care about the short term
I worked for a year at a university in England. I left largely because of this. Prof Moriarty is exactly right.
Professor Moriarty hits the nail on its head when he said it was fundamentally wrong and that he feels compelled to speak up. This is the type of attitude people should have about what they care about, because this is the only way proper discourse can come and conclusions drawn from, if we all speak our opinion and teach as well as learn from others. I'm also very pleased that Brady asked hard questions and didn't just have a video of intelligent remarks but rather a video of conversation.
It is very simple: The banksters want the money.
Hey Brady, Are you going to upload the full video?
Not that it wasn't long enough, but I could watch more!
I worry that our law makers (in both the UK and the USA) are grossly under qualified to not only understand science but to fund scientific projects. Having a Congressman decide what projects are wort6h funding and which have little or no merit is like asking your auto mechanic to perform brain surgery.
These men and women are, for the most part trained as lawyers. They have had little (if any) scientific training, and remain completely scientifically illiterate. Worse very few even have the tools or skills to think critically. They depend on gut feelings and advisers when making decisions. If two advisers give conflicting opinions or advice on ANY subject, let alone science they lack the ability to know which one is more likely to be correct.
How hard would it be to train these people up? Typically (at least in the US) there are several weeks between the time a new congressman wins the election and the time he actually begins his work. How hard would it be to set up a class on science literacy and critical thinking? We don't need doctorate level courses here. We need to explain to them HOW science works and why it is such a good system for discovery. Surely that could be done in a few days AT MOST. After they are up to snuff in science another couple of days should be all that is needed to give them the skills they can use to decide the real, best approach to solving problems.
I can't see something like this being terrible expensive, and in the long run we would get better, more efficient laws.We'd get MUCH more efficient use of the tax payers money, which would, in the long run, lead to lower taxes.
Why can't we make this happen?
Eric Taylor Question: Do you have the right to take my money to spend on a science project that you are interested in?
Yes? What gives you that right?
No? What business do law makers have taking money from those that they are supposedly representing to spend on a science project that the taxpayer is unlikely to know about?
I'm not completely abject to scientific endeavors being funded with taxes, but the waste is pretty objectionable. I worked for the CDC for 3 years putting in a Vaccine Tracking system that took 5 YEARS to go live with less than a hundredth of the users we were suppose to go live with in the first six months. There are 15,000 contracts that the CDC alone awards each year. There is no way for the CDC to award these contracts fairly or with any idea if the contract will be worth it. Less than 30% of the contracts awarded are completed, 70% are trashed before completion. I actually billed hours against CITS (Counter-terrorism Inventory Tracking System) that had no stakeholders or users. It was a BUCKET of money, of which there are hundreds if not thousands within the CDC alone. We had to empty the bucket before they would fill it up again. It was just an account to put money that couldn't be allocated to something useful.
Want more funding, get in line. The US is bankrupt, the US Dollar is worthless without the threat of the US military. The lawmakers/bankers are just about out of tricks to keep the Stock Market afloat (which is rigged) so the only avenue to them keeping power is likely a major war. So if you want funding, JOIN THE BASTARDS who print the money or use it for killing, that is where the money is.
Steve Morris
I never said the system wasn't broken. In fact I think my suggestion would be a viable and inexpensive fix.
+Steve Morris "I'm not completely abject to scientific endeavors being funded with taxes, but the waste is pretty objectionable."
There is quite literally not a better way to spend money. If it wasn't for organized science we would be back to the middle ages.
Carvin0
The lawmakers could look at what each organization is doing and use that information to know how much each one should get.
True scientists don't do science in order to make money. We need more people out there like Professor Moriarty.
I'm referring to an abstraction based upon what component you're working on at the moment.
For example: Your team may be tasked with developing a microcontroller. One person may be in charge of say, the ALU - another in charge of developing various peripherals, etc. The engineer developing the ALU has a specific end user in mind - the engineer(s) afterward utilizing the ALU to create processes that build upon it. Each layer upward is an abstraction built upon the previous step.
Truth to power professor. Damn right.
Dear Prof. Moriarty,
I just wanted to tell you how Very much I admire and respect the courage you've shown here. I hope that these contrived financial crises won't distract you, or any other scientist, from doing their research.
We live in a backwards world; where the wise are ignored and the idiotic are cheered. I stand with you and those like you.
As I'm sure you already know: you are not alone. We won't let the corps. run this show for much longer...
"We are One planet" -Carl Sagan :)
That's, exactly what is happening in Greece at the moment. Even getting funded a few thousand euros is extremely difficult. I am with Phil all the way but unfortunately the economy demands such horrible and unjust measures. Thank you Brady for your excellent work on letting people like Phil, Ed, Roger, Michael, Laurence, Meghan, Professor Poliakoff, Pete, Stephen, Debbie, Sam, Darren and others share their knowledge and opinions.
While I am not a scientist, i have basic scientific training to GCSE level (which i failed) I would like to share my adoration of This professors views on funding - lazers are awesome as an example of us not knowing what is going to work. we have a moral obligation to fund a large amount of science, the returns are long lasting and long term yet often not immidiatly apparent.
Thank you for your comments Prof. Moriarty. I totally agree with you!
I have to say Brady, you make a fantastic devil's advocate. I do science, and I do science for the sake of science. I love it. I don't deal with politics (I'm an undergrad, I don't really have to) but I fear for the day that I do. Because I'll refuse to deal with politics.
Also, at 16:15 when you say "why do that, why make yourself a target?" I imagined Phil saying "Because fuck all, that's why."
The more videos I watch with Phil the harder it becomes to dislike him. He is awesome!
I wholeheartedly agree with the good Prof's view on the 'impact statement' thing. Science is exploration, not a business venture.
Gotta love this guy!
I love how they present good points on both sides of the argument in this video. In addition, there are few thing in the world that are more fascinating to watch than people speaking about things which they're truly passionate about.
Great video. Long live SixtySymbols!
My politics are fairly right of center, but I still fully agree that government funded science shouldn't be an indirect corporate subsidy. Companies should do their own R&D, academia has a different function altogether.
My politics are proudly left of center, even if conservatives agree with me.
I support either complete anarchy: no government at all, no laws, everybody gets to solve their own crimes and fight their own wars, NO prisons, NO taxes.
OR, Marxism: everybody gets paid equally. And all labor is useful, including abstract math research.
The Ultimate Reductionist, I don't think you really understand Marxism, if you think it implies equal wages.
Whoever the daddy referred to in the scrawlings on the whiteboard is has the same birthday as me! I'd be honored to have the same birthday as Dr Moriarty, he's a straight up science badass, and couldn't be more right about the funding situation. It's a pity, for example, that we never built the particle accelerator we should have here in the US almost 20 years ago. Give any and all monies required to basic research, regardless of seeming profitability.
Excellent, excellent video, one of the best I've seen in a long time. Besides the science, *this* is why I follow channels such as these. It really puts the science in perspective.
In the end the user in question is an abstraction anyway - it depends on what the project is to be used for. Most especially in my field of computer engineering, we design components with an end purpose and user in mind.
Typically you're working on a single system at a time to integrate later into a larger system. If you're looking at the top level of abstraction, then it depends on what the goals are for the project as to what it will perform. Appreciate the sentiment though.
Already phoned a bakery and placed an order :3
Happy Birthday Prof. Moriarty!
wait... he's called Moriarty!
alex isawesome Common Irish name, but still cool to think he is a Professor Moriarty
Relbl It'd be awesome if he was also a Mathematician.
Dude, you're off on a massive tangent.
In fact, in your tangential rant, you directly confirmed my initial point. You listen to your users and produce a system that fits their needs. Well defined user (which is an abstraction based on all users' needs), well defined purpose (or usage) of the system.
Once again, you have a problem with a specific company. Hell, I don't even produce products for a company within the context of my university. Where I end up after uni is done I don't know.
This information, in total, can be sent to a budgeting committee who can then figure out how much money in total research funding gets. You then can have different scientists divvy out the money, based on whatever criteria you want.
This allows for the scientific community to control what gets funding, while still giving numbers and figures to the people who need them.
Granted, this is just one idea, but at least I think it makes a case without ignoring any concerns.
Excellent video.
We expect scientists to be rational, methodical and honest. We ask too much if we expect them to be clairvoyant as well.
Science needs a vast amount more funding everywhere in the world.
Thesis (spending funds)....Antithesis (granting funds)..... Synthesis (this wonderful video...)
This discussion is very applicable to NASA funding in the US! These exact comments and questions come up all the time in discussions of why the US should fund NASA to do (pick your mission/technology).
Firstly I'd say: Wonderful, awesome interview. Here in Italy do not exists such dialogues where the interviewer asks so uncomfortably questions.
Secondly, professor, I'm on your side, I totally agree. And I think that the govern should leave science to the scientists and just hand out the damn money... 'cause it is also in its own interests to do that!
Phil's key insight is that this change turns the universities into subsidised R&D for industry. This of course opens up fantastic money making opportunities for the bureaucrats who make the decisions and the industries who incentivise them.
“People ask me, 'What is the use of climbing Mount Everest?' and my answer must at once be, 'It is of no use.'There is not the slightest prospect of any gain whatsoever. Oh, we may learn a little about the behavior of the human body at high altitudes, and possibly medical men may turn our observation to some account for the purposes of aviation. But otherwise nothing will come of it. We shall not bring back a single bit of gold or silver, not a gem, nor any coal or iron... If you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself upward and forever upward, then you won't see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to live. That is what life means and what life is for.” -George Mallory (first man to climb Mount Everest)
Tl;dr: Science isn't about profit. Science is a product of the human condition, namely the need to meet and overcome a challenge. We do science for the same reason that professional football players play sport. The same reason why composers write music. The same reason that anyone does anything. In the end, science is our Everest. All people have their own Everest, their own life's struggle. This is why we live: to meet the challenge of life, the universe, and everything.
Perhaps science is not about profit. But why everybody are forced to fund it? What if they don't buy "We know better, trust me it will be better for you" argument?
Heres one example; in your video about light through glass and lab demonstration(thanks for it, it was very helpful in my studies) you stated that transmission through glass was really absorption-emmission; however it seems to me (from studies in light and this position was held by many like newton etc) that transmission through glass (inflection as they called it) is the same basic phenomena as reflection. And thus, it makes the hypothesis that photons travel "through" glass very likely.
The good Professor says he is quite Left of Centre. As an Economic and Social Libertarian I would have to say I am not Left of Centre.
Regardless of ideology, I DO AGREE WITH HIS MESSAGE. Put aside the issue about the amount of funding available, there is no question that the best people to determine where the money allocated to Science should be spent are the experts - Scientists. If the government chooses to spend money on the sciences, it should do so where the market otherwise would NOT.
I love this type of dialog...It's neutrally informative.
Issues of foreseable economic value and social benefit drive US university research fundining as well. It is a worldwide problem where short term return is the motivation for public funding. It is interesting that R&D in the private sector expects government grants for product commercialization research(SBIR grants as an example) and fundamental university research grant writing has become allied to similar criteria. Large companies do not want to risk shareholder profit on basic research so they tend to aquire small startups that have assumed all the economic risk and have products close to commercialization. The general public on average does not have long range thinking beyond the day after tomorrow which coincides with their shortsighted elected representatives who look at the next election as a basis for decisions on support for basic universitiy's research. The US elected Representatives will spend a trillion dollars on perceived security threats at home and abroad, but support of research on some fundamental aspect of science that gets picked up by the media is political suicide. Until our general population overcomes its phobia of science & mathematics the status quo of value driven research will continue. When I hear politicians say that "the jury is still out on evolution" and we should let the private sector determine what is important for education in our schools and research in our universities, it is obvoius that there are some substantial challenges ahead for humanity's progress toward enlightenment and understanding of our universe.
On a related subject:
Barbara Van Dyck, a researcher in the department of architecture at the Catholic University of Leuven (Louvain), got fired a few months ago because she was involved in a protest against a corporate funded research field growing a batch of GM potatoes.
She protested this research because she felt the research was biased (they were already promoting the potatoes, while they weren't even grown yet, let alone tested) and because of that she lost her job at the University.
Hard hitting interview, Brady! Very interesting to watch.
awesome video. I love how near the end of the video you were able to play the role of your detractors.
100% behind Prof Moriarty
I cannot agree more with his statements here. Trying to corral science into a predictable direction goes against pure scientific discovery. And as far as the financial crisis, what sense does it make to cripple your long term development? Yes, theoretical physics does not bring about next year's iPhone... but it DOES bring about next the generation's iBrain. Thanks Prof Moriarty for standing up for your passions. I'm not a citizen of GB, but i think we're seeing similar problems all over.
"... and therefor we should not predetermine what we are trying to do except to find out more about it" - Richard Feynman
Becoming part of industry is not a bad thing. Industry is what connects science to the rest of the world. Industry is how you use science for the rest of humanity. But I disagree. What will (would) happen is a kind of passing off to industry. Like a painter who goes off into the desert, has a cathartic experience, then comes back and says "I've been painting for days, and I feel like I've learned a lot." When out with no aim but to paint, but the product will be the best he's ever sold.
I felt the two most important points worth taking note of here were:
Science should be pushing the boundry of knowledge, not just R&D.
_Informed_ democracy (peer rewiev and grants) is better than uninformed or partially informed dictation (a counsel of politicians).
There was something else also, but i forgot. If you could summarize three very strong points like this, condense them to one sentence, and then list them at the end (and in video description), it would give it a heavier impact. :)
Writing as a physicist in the US, this is deeply true.
GOOD FOR YOU!!
Scientists aren't meant to roll over and do what they're told.
If they did, we wouldn't have half of the technology and knowledge that we have today.
Even though I'm a biological anthropology student physics blows my mind :)
It explains everything. Literally.
Professor Moriarty, please move to Scotland, vote for independence, start a new scientific political party and I'll vote for you... Agree with EVERYTHING you said!
Phil is absolutely correct.
Respect to Phil,
from a PhD student.
brady, if you got to talk to the head of the EPSRC i would love you. i'll write the letter for you! and phil!!! loved it. i compleatly agree with you.
Thing is you started with an example that is completely different than what you were referring to. A house is supposed to do something- remain intact- where as an experiment is supposed to prove something, to try out something, but even if the experiment's result disagrees with the hypothesis it's still not a failure. An experiment is not designed to do something particular, or if it is, it's then not an experiment but a demonstration, which can fail. An experiment can't fail.
If Professor Moriarty is punished for speaking out, Please get the news out. I know I personally would write to whoever was taking such unjustified action. I'm behind you guys all the way. Keep science free, unbiased, and well funded!
The goal of the university is to talk truth to power.
I agree: industry is not a bad thing. My point is that once scientists become rich from the value they create, they become private industrial sources for funding short or long term science as they see fit.
My more subtle point is that grant allocation is a red herring when the funds themselves are first compelled by taxes. If Phil is correct that his preferred Research Council system is best at predicting value, then it could be self-funding in a free market.
The interviewer's questions are actually reasonably intelligent. rather than brainlessly obsequious or disingenuously adversarial.
Moriarty's answers are of course superb.
I agree with Phil. Governments don't tell companies what they should invest their money in, which stocks to buy, how to structure themselves ect, for a very good reason; they lack the expertise to make a properly informed decision involving specialized fields. You can't expect a career politician, or a department of civil servants, to be able to accurately evaluate the merits of particular research applications.
Advancements in science depend on broadening our knowledge, not our marketability.
I love what he had to say regarding funding basic sciences vs translational science. The best translational work is being scooped up by industry, so let them spend that money.
I agree. A public not-for-profit corporation, chartered by the US govt, to do space and aviation research has so many advantages.
Phil, PEOPLE LOVE SIXTY SYMBOLS. The videos are an incredible asset to the entire world and Meghan is eye candy to boot!
I would rather pay my monthly cable bill (110 USD$ minus the expense for TeeVee... so 65 USD$ a month) to watch Sixty Symbols. I know you can make this profitable and possible. I don't even have a college degree but I so much appreciate the videos Sixty Symbols shares!
Those hardcore physics equations in the background definitely support his argument ;)
You don't bite the hand that feeds you, unless it starts trying to feed you shit.
Fantastic rant, really loved this video.
Very interesting points indeed, and while I don't like to take sides in an argument before I've heard both sides this is pretty convincing, and it very much resonates with the kind of stance I take on Politics in general; leave the decisions to those who know what they're talking about, which is why I think it's ridiculous we don't have political education in school when we have a population of voters.
Is that Phil's kids handwriting on the board there? "Last Saturday it was July 9th It was mr Brady's birthday" Cute! And happy birthday Brady! Thanks again for the great videos guys.
"Because it's far from market" DAMN GOOD ANSWER!!
i love you phil, he sums up exactly my opinions in many areas
I'd love to see an update to this video by Professor Moriarty.
Yes I would love to see an update as well...
@sharperguy I don't think this does get around the problem, it would only support the short term financially driven research which was one of the issues outlined in the vid.
I really enjoyed this video...I encourage you to create more videos like this from time to time! Keep up the good work.
will you post the unedited version?
Professor Moriarty hey? What a name to have.
Makes more sense for science to be funded completely privately anyway.
I think there's a statistic somewhere showing that government funding actually causes private research to be invested in less - by a higher amount dollar per dollar than the government pays.
But anyway this gets around the problem you mentioned because private businesses will generally be asking the scientists where the big ideas are and deciding which could become marketable products (i.e. actually useful).
very interesting, prof moriarty has put another point to this discussion which i previously did not see.
universities shouldn't base their research on a certain market dictated premise. that's what is narrowing the research and blocking innovations!
Create a website and publish it on there...?
I'm a bit late and I’m not the greatest economics student ever, but I think prof. Phil Moriaty is confusing different aspects referent to gov science funding from the economics point of view.
1º as said, there are long term from research that come from spin-offs and from innovation on top of innovation. These benefits can be apprehended by privates (think pharmaceutical companies) with application of a patent or not such as the academic research.
Let's not forget that even in the case of private funded research, when you file for a patent you have to make a full description, giving others (your peers) insight into your discoveries.
2º Why gov finances directly science. We know that 1º is considered to have a positive impact on society (social well-being). So because this impact is positive state takes positive action funding research. Of course the way to maximize the effect of the policy is by making i available to everyone interested in it (this means that there are no cost to accesses research not driving out possible interest in it, so no one is excluded).
As a final note, this is a pure microeconomic way of view this problem. Economic problems should never be treated lightly.
I recommend for further reading: Microeconomics with Calculus by Jeffrey M. Perloff
(of course lol)
I hope I'm clear enough.
Wow......I think this is one of the few times I have been absolutely focused on listening and understanding something like this. I hate politics yet I must be vigilant and pay attention lest what I/we take for granted gets stolen from right under our noses.
Fundamental research is very needed, but it often takes decades before it pays off. I give the example of Quantum Physics in the 20's/30's leading to semiconductors in the 50's and ubiquitous integrated circuits today. Imagine if we understood gravity better, we might have Jetons' flying cars in 2100.
The discussion is on innovation vs. revolution. Science needs to do the revolutions. Industry will do the innovation.
i wish brazil had these problems, but we have no decent funding for science :(
@Moriarty2112 It should be me thanking you for speaking out. I really admire what you did there and I'm also a big fan of sixtysymbols. :)
If you haven't read it already, I recommend "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki, for a fresh perspective on this complex issue.
Where is Phil from ? He sounds like he is from south Dublin, maybe Meath ? or even Wicklow ? Completly irrelevant but I would like to know.