Answer for: What are moral and ethical purposes for the government to spend your money?
#4 Basic Scientific Research
Science for science's sake
Related products from Amazon (See more...)
Advanced Scientific Computing in Basic With Applications in Chemistry, Biology and Pharmacology (Data Handling in Science and Technology, Vol 4)
$146.25 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
Benchmarking the Competitiveness of the United States in Mechanical Engineering Basic Research
$30.75 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
Benchmarking the Competitiveness of the United States in Mechanical Engineering Basic Research
$30.75 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
Advanced Scientific Computing in Basic With Applications in Chemistry, Biology and Pharmacology (Data Handling in Science and Technology, Vol 4)
$146.25 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
Benchmarking the Competitiveness of the United States in Mechanical Engineering Basic Research
$30.75 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
Benchmarking the Competitiveness of the United States in Mechanical Engineering Basic Research
$30.75 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
Related Answers
Grupies who voted on this answer also voted on:- Infrastructure basics (roads, water, sanitation)
- Welfare for the poor
- Universal health insurance
- Defense of the nation
- Arts Endowments
Comments |
Leave a comment
Got my vote.
Saying "we must develop a cold fusion reactor" without confidence that the concept is valid, is like saying "we must develop a matter transmitter." Nice wish to have, but no proof of concept.
Type your comment:
Hey, I didn't say it.
I take it you're not in science, as this comment displays a lack of understanding of the granting process via government agencies.
bansai, let me elaborate. When government funded the Manhattan Project as a crash program, there was decent scientific theory and evidence that a nuclear detonation could be developed. We were a long ways away from an *engineering* point of view, but the concept was convincing.
With cold fusion, there is sketchy evidence and even less theory that it will work. So while it was certainly worthwhile to investigate the phenomenon (observed by Fleischmann and Pons), the bottom line is that we aren't even convinced that it's created by nuclear fusion. We should understand it (and it's still being investigated), but we can't say we are going to have a crash program to develop cold fusion when the phenomenon hasn't even been demonstrated to be fusion. Show that it's fusion, then develop a theory or a model that predicts it can be produced in adequate energy density to produce useful electricity, then I'll be the first one on your bandwagon.
I happen to support nuclear power, and I think a viable means of implementing nuclear fusion as a power source could create great benefits for humanity, our environment, and be particularly beneficial to the neediest among us. Energy = productivity = wealth = lifespan & quality of life. I'm not a naysayer, but I do have an annoying habbit of pointing out logical inconsistencies in arguments / statements.
Sorry, Skrrriti, I just copied and pasted the remark of someone who doesn't seem to think that a cold fusion reactor will be developed any time in the near future. This person seems to think that it's as far-fetched as a Star Trek transporter. You'll notice that below it says:
Type you comment:
Hey, I didn't say it.
Maybe it doesn't seem feasible, but I'll say this--Einstein wrote a letter to FDR in the late '30s saying he thought it was imperative that the the US develop an atomic bomb before Germany did. It could have been catastrophic had the Nazis developed this technology before the rest of the world did. I feel the same way now. With global population continually increasing, and global wealth increasing, enabling more people to have the means to have automobiles and other means of increasing global warming, it seems we must find an alternative, before something just as catastrophic can occur. I don't want to think it's true, but it seems just as imperative today as when Einstein wrote the letter to FDR. I hope the world can hang on.
A great first step would be to have two crash programs, then follow up with a third: 1) Significantly improve battery technology (or "energy storage device"). 2) Develop 4th & 5th generation nuclear power plants to produce abundant electricity.
Then, 3) convert all possible fossil fuel burning systems to electric. Manufacturing, transportation, refining, mining, etc.
This is within our grasp *now*.