Quit whining.
The NASA budget just for space science exceeds that for the entire NSF.
The NSF budget for behavioral science was way up...to $175,000,000.
I couldn't find a line item for SETI (probably because there isn't one).
In the humanities or behavioral sciences $100,000+ student loan debts are
common. The lucky graduates will earn $50,000 per year *max*.
We can assume:
1) There are way too many graduate students and programs in the Behavioral
sciences.
2) The Behavioral Sciences are economically and militarily useless.
(Actually, a big part of the problem is that Behavioral Scientists and
Humanists are @#$% liberals and bleeding-hearts who make their research
economically and militarilly useless. For example they analyze how to
promote the welfare of the disadvantaged instead of how to exploit them more
effectively while keeping the disadvantaged politically quiet.)
and/or
3) The Behavioral Sciences are irrationally underfunded.
==========================================================
See:
http://www.neh.gov/pdf/other/congress2002.pdf
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf01316/pdf/tb11.pdf
http://ifmp.nasa.gov/codeb/budget2002/12_science_aero.pdf
http://www.seti.org/faq.html
========================================================
Project Phoenix uses $4-5 million per year.
There are also other US SETI projects that are currently active.
Collectively they probably consume no more that project Phoenix. The total
US annual expediture on SETI should be less than $10 million per year.
There are also SETI projects outside the US. The Global SETI budget is
probably less than $15 million per year.
At that rate SETI would have to be defered around 10 years to pay for just
one unmanned planetary mission.
However for $50,000 you can do first rate anthropology for a year (Three if
you award that to Ph.D. candidates instead of to proven researchers.) For
$100,000 you can finance a good Archaeology field season, substantial
restoration of historical manuscripts, or a solid sociology project.
No doubt $50,000 can fund a Ph.D. project in biology and $1,000,000 will buy
a lot of marine biology or meteorology.
So in terms of Astronomy, Planetary Science, or High Energy Physics, annual
expenditure on SETI is chump change.
However, a year of Phoenix Project research still means that the world
forgoes 100 cultural or linguistic anthropology projects or 100 Ph.D.
projects in biology. For one year of SETI at current funding levels the
oportunity cost is 50 years of archaeology or sociology or at least 5 years
of comparable research on poorly understood marine ecosystems or global
warming.
As science _per se_ the sexy astro-physical sciences provide a relatively
poor return on investment.
The only way that space research makes sense is when you include not just the
return to the store of esoteric human knowledge (that is, the grand
scientific project) but also the economic -- and above all the
military-political returns on space exploration.
You don't spend billions to go to the Moon for science. It just doesn't make
sense. But when you consider the Keynsian effect, the backdoor subsidy to
high-tech, the military value of technology developed in the process and
subsidy to military contractors, AND the propaganda value of the
venture...then it makes sense.
SETI differs from astronomy and planetary science in several ways.
1) The likelyhood of project success defined as significant results is
relatively small.
2) From #1 it follows that the likelyhood of a propaganda windfall is low.
3) Keynsian and subsidy effects are no better than for any other basic
research.
4) Any military-political value is nil.
5) It is no more likely to provide productivity enhancing spin-off
technologies than any other basic R&D project.
On Thursday 08 November 2001 21:06, you wrote:
> At 04:00 PM 11/8/01, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> >Jeroen wrote:
> > >I am not an expert in this field, so I cannot comment on the scientific
> > >validity of his claims, but this sounds quite a lot like a scientist
> > > being angry because SETI gets funding and he does not.
> >
> >Which is a perfectly valid reason for being angry, because
> >SETI may be bogus while there are important science
> >projects deserving funding :-P
>
> Given the tiny amount of funding that SETI gets now (the scene of Jodie
> Foster's character in "Contact" begging for funding is one of the things in
> the movie that, sadly, cannot be dismissed as "artistic license"), what
> "important science projects" do you deserve the funding more and would
> benefit from dividing up the tiny crumb of the pie that is SETI funding at
> present?
>
>
> (And, yes, I noticed the :-P )
>
>
>
> -- Ronn! :)
>
> God bless America,
> Land that I love!
> Stand beside her, and guide her
> Thru the night with a light from above.
> From the mountains, to the prairies,
> To the oceans, white with foam�
> God bless America!
> My home, sweet home.
>
> -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989)
