Research, development and funding

[Kosmo]

I heard a little rumor that if we break world in to regions, North America is actually using more money to R&D but produces the least practical uses. Now I'm not so sure about this and I tried going through all the statistics sites and R&D council sites to get proof about this, but it seems to be near impossible to gather any data whatsoever.

But the rumor goes about like this, since major funding to R&D in North America and Europe comes from public sources and goes in to public foundations like Nasa and such, I'm pretty confident that this might be true. As opposite, Japan being the major player in R&D with most practical uses put to mass production and in to the market.

Now, I think there is truth behind this since Japan HAS done alot of technological advancement during past 40 years or so, and in Japan most of the R&D is done by major companies, like Honda for example that is reseaching robotics. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if corporations put millions of dollars to R&D they are bound to make some profit out of it.

But it is actually pretty interesting when you think about it. So if anyone has any source with some tasty numbers or any other data, please post here. And if anyone has anything on their mind about the subject, you are welcome to contribute.

(I know the forum is for political discussion, but I didn't think this kind of post would be good for General, since there is some politics involved here.)

[DaanO]

I just think that in the US people dare to fund more fundamental research that goes deeper than the stuff that get's us microwaves. While one way of doing research gives more practical uses, the other one is just as interesting. But it's harder to earn your money back. This is what i like the US for, people dare to invest in more fundamental research, with as reason science itself, instead of earning invested money back.

[Kosmo]

I just think that in the US people dare to fund more fundamental research that goes deeper than the stuff that get's us microwaves. While one way of doing research gives more practical uses, the other one is just as interesting. But it's harder to earn your money back. This is what i like the US for, people dare to invest in more fundamental research, with as reason science itself, instead of earning invested money back.

I agree, not all science should be practical, or have a practical use in the near future, X-Rays are good example, but I respect Nikola Tesla for being very much an practical scientist, but his research has produced many theoretical offshoots.

Just like research on cosmic rays and such, they help us understand the universe, even tho they are nearly useless when it comes to paying the bills.

But the point of this whole thing is, when there is balance between spending money on basic research as opposite to funding applied research. I'm not so happy if it is true that US is spending the most money on research with no practical use at all, they already are spending vast amounts of natural resources and they use huge amounts of it to research basic research. I really don't accept it morally.

[DaanO]

As far as i know (and my knowledge on this subject is based on many articles i read that do not form a consistent whole or anything, it's a bit vague tbh) they're doing just fine. There's a balance, but the rest of the world is like doing research that earns back it's money only or something.

[Kosmo]

There's a balance, but the rest of the world is like doing research that earns back it's money only or something.

Not to undermine your opinion or anything, but umm.. america lover? There is nothing wrong with USA, the rest of the world is to blame :roll:

Besides, wasn't NASA's main goal when it was found to only study things that it can get profit seven times? NASA funding was in 2002 around $14,793.2 million, so I only assume that it has not made it's goal atleast in the past 30 years.

[Schmung]

Most of the interesting stuff in the Uk is done by guys in sheds who wear deeplky unfashionable woollen jumpers and have £3 a year in funding.

Hurling money at 'pointless' research mostly occurs because the plug is pulled when nothing much is happening, so you've thrown a few billions $ at a project for three years and seen nothing, you shut it down. Probably more sensible to give them less money over a longer period of time, which would be more useful to everyone, but thats not the way the financing works.

[DaanO]

I"m anything but an america lover but when they're doing something right i can still agree with it.

[Kosmo]

I"m anything but an america lover but when they're doing something right i can still agree with it.

I know, I was just joking.