Reply to Federal Govt an Artificial Job Market? Admin Changes, Private Sector Adjusts

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to " Federal Govt an Artificial Job Market? Admin Changes, Private Sector Adjusts—Why Not Train for Portable Skills?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.[/quote]

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.[/quote]

You don’t understand how scientific innovations occur.  You don’t recognize the existence of “fundamentals” and the necessity of basic research.

You’re a GD moron.[/quote]

No need for name-calling, let’s keep it respectful. I get that fundamental research is important, but the real question is who should be paying for it. If a study has real value, private industry, philanthropy, or universities will fund it, like we see with AI, biotech, and space exploration. If no one outside the government wants to invest in it, maybe it’s not as essential as some think. Good debate is how ideas get better, so let’s focus on that instead of throwing insults.

There are plenty of examples of wasteful government-funded research, which is why people question if taxpayer money is always well spent. They’ve funded things like a robotic squirrel to study rattlesnake reactions, shrimp running on a treadmill, and even an $80,000 study on why certain teams dominate March Madness. [b]Maybe some of these had merit, but if research is actually valuable, private funding will step in.[/b] If no one wants to pay for it outside of government, that’s a sign it probably wasn’t that important to begin with.[/quote]

Private funding? Like Amazon and its innovative logistics software. Which is collectively amazing, by the way. A chunk of it was funded by NSF and other government programs.

Fundamental research in universities is largely funded by the government.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics