> From: Warnick, Walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "In the natural sciences, basic research at universities tends to be funded by the Federal government... Basic research funded by corporations is very small."
Which hits on my original remark: if we have two types of scientists, Basic & Applied, and if business is the only funder of research, then the firms will be hiring both types since the Basics will portray themselves as Applieds to get jobs. With gov't. funding basic research, then the Basics get to do basic research at taxpayer expense, but the firms can apply the Applieds to applied research at greater efficiency because there are no Basics getting in the way. The economic benefits of this separation outweighs the cost of paying for basic research. The world is better off. That's not to say that basic research is not valuable, but it evidently follows strange and unpredictable paths. The Nobel winning chemist Dudly Herschback traced the path of work starting with Otto Stern 75 years ago on molecular rays (or beams) to test a prediction of quantum physics. It lead to the discovery of the laser, radio-astronomy, and nuclear magnetic resonance which lead to the MRI. Chemists who wanted to study crossed beams layed the groundwork for the discovery of the Buckyball, with the study that discovered it being motivated by studying interstellar spectra. And the Buckyball, in turn, may prove a key to shutting down an enzyme that governs the HIV virus' replication, not to mention the value it has as a strong and lightweight material. He ends the story by noting that, "No funding agency would find plausable a research proposal requesting support on supersonic beams or interstellar spectra as an approach to AIDS. But many such historical paths can be traced that celebrate hybridizing discoveries from seemingly unrelated patches of scientific gardens." -jsh __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
