Material Science VS Exploration Science

[Grimlock]

Where should the money on scientific projects go to? Those that have obvious benefits for mankind or those that mostly benefit the Scientists.
The CERN project might be a very interesting project as (to my knowledge) it has the potential to tell the scientists about the things that happened early in the universe and while interesting to scientist the alot of non scientist aka mr and ms average might ask themselves "well how do we benefit from that discovery?".
The money spent on CERN could easily have been used to help find a cure for cancer or figuring out how to make multi frequencies Optical fibre cables, that could replace the copper wiring in our computers thus making them over 600 times faster than they are now or for the sake of it find a way to get rid of all the pollution in the world. At least that's how the normal man and woman might see it.

The problem is that such projects might not be that interesting to the scientists around the world. I believe it was Ken Miller in the Dover Trial who said I don,´t want to research things I already know (might be misquoting or misunderstanding that statement) and to some scientist researching projects like those I mentioned might seem boring and tedious compared to the other projects like CERN and so forth.

But as Scientists needs money to fund their project and those money often come out of our pockets, I think it's reasonable to ask where do you think the money used on science projects should be spend? Should it be spend on Exploration like landing on mars or exploring the universe and so forth let's call it exploration science its serve to answer some questions we have about the solar system the universe and so forth, but beyond that it has little obvious benefits for the average person in the short run.

Or

Should it be spend on more materialistic gains such as finding a way combat food shortages, pollution that makes drinking water toxic to humans, finding cures for incurable diseases such as cancer, HIV, AIDS, making our lives more combatable with lightning fast computers and so forth let's call it Material science, Basically its science that may not answer that many questions but has more material gains for the average person in the short run .

So where do you think the money should be spend on Exploration Science or Material Science?

 

[Ratatosk]

I think that we (or.. the scientists... I don't do much scientific research) should focus more on Material Science, as it, as you stated, benefits mankind more in the short run.
A cure for diseases like HIV/AIDS, Cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, combat food shortages, making it safe to drink water etc is, in my opinion, more important than finding out how the universe was created, or what happens when you bang two invisible particles together at a high speed.
The average man, especially in, for example, east Africa, doesn't care much how the universe started, they are much more interested in trying to survive on the scarce resources that exists in that area, especially right now.

Though the Exploration Science is not without its worth, and we do benefit fromit in the long run, and may discover some truly marvelous discoveries that may throw all mankind into a new era, I do think that too much focus and money is spent on that right now, rather than trying to solve the problems we have right now.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

A bit of nitpicking first. Material science is the science of studying material properties and doesn't really have much to do with finding a cure for cancer or HIV/AIDS. For example, a research done to make polymerization of M5 very easy would be a wonderful thing and would affect the average man, but would not fall under the category material science. Now coming back to your question, I think we should both. Research which impacts humans on the short term is great. It generates money and benefits many people making them healthier, live longer, or make their lives easier in some way or another. Yet it is also very important to do fundamental research into the universe to get a greater understanding of it. This has two reasons. One, because it is cool. Knowing how something in out universe works is fucking awesome and the more we know, the better. Two, because we don't know what benefit these new theories or explanations will arise from the research. When Maxwell did his research on light, it had for its time period no use. But later, we were able to develop radar and radio with what he did. His research was the start of the greatest technological breakthrough when it came to long ranged communications. His research has had a tremendous impact on our lives. I think it is ignorant to say that we should pour more money into such things as HIV/AIDS research and stop funding CERN because we don't know what CERN may discover which will benefit is generations later. And everyone must admit that a Mars landing would be beyond cool. Just remember how everyone felt when this happened:

 

[Grimlock]

A bit of nitpicking first. Material science is the science of studying material properties and doesn't really have much to do with finding a cure for cancer or HIV/AIDS. For example, a research done to make polymerization of M5 very easy would be a wonderful thing and would affect the average man, but would not fall under the category material science.

Yes that could have been formulated better but i didn,´t know what else to call it.

Now coming back to your question, I think we should both. Research which impacts humans on the short term is great. It generates money and benefits many people making them healthier, live longer, or make their lives easier in some way or another. Yet it is also very important to do fundamental research into the universe to get a greater understanding of it. This has two reasons. One, because it is cool. Knowing how something in out universe works is fucking awesome and the more we know, the better. Two, because we don't know what benefit these new theories or explanations will arise from the research. When Maxwell did his research on light, it had for its time period no use. But later, we were able to develop radar and radio with what he did. His research was the start of the greatest technological breakthrough when it came to long ranged communications. His research has had a tremendous impact on our lives. I think it is ignorant to say that we should pour more money into such things as HIV/AIDS research and stop funding CERN because we don't know what CERN may discover which will benefit is generations later. And everyone must admit that a Mars landing would be beyond cool. Just remember how everyone felt when this happened:

It wouldn,´t be a bad thing to do both and i don,´t know maybe we do. Yet the things that hit the new is often water discovered on Mars second moon theory might explain the difference in the front and back side of the moon.
And while they might in the long run have a tremendous impact on our live like Maxvell,´s research on light did, its a gamble that may not cast something of its self at all, in any foreseeable future.

Another thing i often see on tv and so forth is that things such as research into stem cells, research into cures for cancer Alzheimer's disease and such debilitating diseases are almost ALWAYS in need of money, that they seem to depend on to get from charity to get.

And theres the problem since other projects like CERN and so forth doesn,´t seem to be in need of money, why should important Research topics like the before mentioned, that have a more short term/foreseeable benefit, be lacking in money and depend on charities to get the budget they need?

 

[Dean]

Science, as I understand it, deals with the uncovering of laws and properties in our physical universe through inductive logic. In addition, it would be worth noting, as I have said so many times before: science is NOT technology, which works in the leverage of those laws and properties. :|