tomandlu Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Apologies if this has been posted before... (zoomable) http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-6208&y=-4240&z=2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justthisbloke Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 +1 Like Etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpo Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I guess the most stunning stat for me was the richest half of the US networth vs poorest half... that and the annual cost of small mammal owner ship being $300.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Really interesting visual break down, thanks for posting. Depressing how little seems to be spent on science! There's another thread on US income inequality here if anyone's interested: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=196066&st=0&gopid=1102450937entry1102450937 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Really interesting visual break down, thanks for posting. Depressing how little seems to be spent on science! and it is probably one of the most efficient uses of money that there is, and with the biggest pay back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 and it is probably one of the most efficient uses of money that there is, and with the biggest pay back Absolutely! No idea why governments seem so adverse to following the maths on this one. Short-termism I guess as few scientific projects produce economically productive results within a 5 year term... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Absolutely! No idea why governments seem so adverse to following the maths on this one. Short-termism I guess as few scientific projects produce economically productive results within a 5 year term... Because, as I posted on another thread, very few MPs have a science degree Only one with primary knowledge They just don't 'get it', like many other things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Because, as I posted on another thread, very few MPs have a science degree Only one with primary knowledge They just don't 'get it', like many other things Interesting article, thanks for posting. It's highly depressing that, on this subject as on others, we have to turn to the undemocratic House of Lords if we want to see anything approaching sensible policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 They just don't 'get it', like many other things Symptomatic of the cultural problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Interesting article, thanks for posting. It's highly depressing that, on this subject as on others, we have to turn to the undemocratic House of Lords if we want to see anything approaching sensible policy. House of Lords is good on science, their select committees especially. But the government representatives in the House of Lords steer debates on science policy too much, unfortunately, which trickles down to how the science budget is spent by the Research Councils (RCs). For example, you now have to justify how your grant will contribute to 'wealth creation and quality of life', which gives a very short-term approach to what science is funded, and some rather desperate justifications in proposals. Fortunately, the Royal Society is less influenced than the RCs and is perhaps the jewel in UKs science crown, especially with respect to its University Research Fellowship scheme for young scientists, which gives up to 10 years (5 + 3 + 2), although more typically 8 years (5 + 3) of funding and intellectual freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 House of Lords is good on science, their select committees especially. But the government representatives in the House of Lords steer debates on science policy too much, unfortunately, which trickles down to how the science budget is spent by the Research Councils (RCs). For example, you now have to justify how your grant will contribute to 'wealth creation and quality of life', which gives a very short-term approach to what science is funded, and some rather desperate justifications in proposals. Fortunately, the Royal Society is less influenced than the RCs and is perhaps the jewel in UKs science crown, especially with respect to its University Research Fellowship scheme for young scientists, which gives up to 10 years (5 + 3 + 2), although more typically 8 years (5 + 3) of funding and intellectual freedom. As far as I can see this policy isn't based on any evidence. Has anyone done a comparative study on the wealth generation of projects that were undertaken specifically to create wealth versus those engaged in pure science? I very much doubt they would get a result that supported either the Research Councils current approach or the government's relative underinvestment in the science budget. I often wonder what breakthroughs might be in the pipeline if as a society we had taken the money we used to bailout the banks and invested it in science education and R&D instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 As far as I can see this policy isn't based on any evidence. Has anyone done a comparative study on the wealth generation of projects that were undertaken specifically to create wealth versus those engaged in pure science? I very much doubt they would get a result that supported either the Research Councils current approach or the government's relative underinvestment in the science budget. I often wonder what breakthroughs might be in the pipeline if as a society we had taken the money we used to bailout the banks and invested it in science education and R&D instead. Or reskilled British Leyland to develop tidal power - you get my drift Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Or reskilled British Leyland to develop tidal power - you get my drift Yep, that would have been great: less reliance on energy imports, less need to push on with fracking before the long term impacts can be properly assessed, etc. So clearly far too sensible to be actual policy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 This stat is somewhat graphic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 This stat is somewhat graphic... Apparently the contemporary CEOs are workshy scroungers who need to be constantly incentivised before they'll bother doing any work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.