posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 05:03 AM
Science is a well funded area of spending, however it's not funded as much as it should be. Science projects, entire big scale ones have been dumped
because of lack of funding. These projects aren't unimportant, they are very important but someone somewhere decides something else is slightly more
important at the time. However at some point someone will still have to come back and start up the experiment that didn't have funding.
Science helps us understand the world around us, improves our quality of life, extends life expectancy, feeds the starving, powers our homes and is
the best hope of prolonging our species and making sure we get to other worlds and guarentee our continuing existence.
NASA's budget has been absolutely obliterated over the years. Or how about the international space effort? This is where i think a ton of europes
money should go, instead of giving it to the ambassadors and commisioners for nice dinners at very pricey restruants. Imagine what would happen if the
countries of the world really funded space research together, and seriously commited a high budget to it.
Overall though science needs more funding, biotech does it on it's own because a lot of money can be made from medicines and cures. However physics
and chemistry are less funded. Basically overall science needs a good boost and a higher commitment by the governments of the world. Providing
scientists with the tools they need will no doubt help encourage more to the field anyway .
A final thing would be to fund science more in schools and show kids the fun side of science (yes it exists). Show them the explosions and bubbling
stuff in chemistry, show them the fun physics experiments like water boiling in a vacuum, the classic static and hair experiment, the pendulum
experiment where it nearly hit you. All of this should be encouraged.
What does everyone else think? Should we fund science more, fund less or leave it as it is?