The government should provide more money to fund science
The science budget is one of the area’s most likely to be cut or at least frozen when the cuts in government spending begin to bite. However many scientists criticise this as undermining our economy in the longer term. The Obama administration in the USA is increasing its science budget and the rising powers of India and China continue to concentrate on sciences. Should we be cutting funding?
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
No quick physics
Did this happen instantly? Of course not it took many moons, of small steps at a time. Now we are at a time where critical scientific needs are waiting to be made. Global warming, energy supplies dwindling, more complex bugs, and ageing population and a growing third world with not enough food. This issues cannot be solved overnight and even the mostminute experiments in universities become necessary in building the blocks that willmark the next big expansion.
With these problems on the horizon it is most blatnatly time to invest in these problems potential soloutionswhich can only be further scientific advancment, improving the yields of crops, alternative fuels, otherwise we could find ourselves in deep trouble and stagnating.
Instead people like Brunel would seek investment and the market system would very effectively differentiate between good investment in science and bad investment.
Historically governments have tended to be very bad at this, wasting huge amounts of money. In a time with such an enormous budget deficit, throwing more money at high speed trains and concord type experiments that do not make financial sense would be an alarming move.
Also Theoretical physics has very nearly never had any practical benefits(to an economy) apart being highly correlated with genius and being the glamour-science.
If investment in science and funding of its advancement was cut it will put Britain in a precarious scenario. It would be robbing its future of one of the few avliablesources of future wealth. While this may not effect the short term interests it would surely effect the long terminterests and prosperity, and create oppotunities for modernisin geconomies to take other.
Millions should be spent in creating jobs that require skills jobless people(the unemployed) already have.
Science/technical job vacancies and immigration
The entire continent of Europe has a need for immigrants mainly because of a science-education deficit-[[http://www.newsweek.com/id/233913]]
Britain needs doctors and techies from all over the world too; mainly because there are not nearly enough high-quality home-produced techies/doctors in Britain.
The G.B.P has recently matched the Euro and bad long-term planning has the leading role. The U.K cannot afford to make the same mistakes as the rest of Europe.
If you have to out immigration and David Cameron intends to; then the only way to curb continual and massive economic-slumping/plummeting is to train/educate locals to fill in the gaps.
If immigrants can fill in vacancies then the locals need not be trained to be proficient in science.
Immigration will not be halted/curbed/stagnated to a stop any time soon.
Sending just a few British troops to Afghanistan to fight alongside masses of Americans and locals is a fruitless investment(both short and long-term)
The N.H.S has been a recent disappointment, primarily because science education in Britain is not up to the mark.Better medical staff is a very important factor in better medical service.
Science funding can provide immediate return in terms of Doctors/Nurses/Engineers who/that will graduate this year.
Also in terms of higher-quality refresher courses that any scientist/science-person/doctor/nurse/etc in this day and age has to take; to perform optimally(in an ever-changing competitive environment of day-to-day scientific breakthroughs)
Some might say (the) war is a foolish investment.
What do you think?