A Small Science Rant

I've been watching the UK science funding debates through Prof. Brian Cox, after having discovered him on Wonders of the Solar System. After reading a few articles on the subject today, I thought I'd throw in my two cents:

This, first off, is not something that applies only to the United Kingdom, but here in the United States as well, and indeed in the world as a whole.


Research of fundamental sciences, particularly particle physics, is immensely necessary and important to our growth as a species. Concentrated short-term developments will only, as the name implies, get us so far, for so long. You can find the cure for cancer or AIDS, but there will always be another sickness that needs healing. You can find a better fuel, but there will still be damage in our world that needs to be repaired. And while these are important endeavours, surely, they should be working closely WITH scientific research, not fighting with it for funding.

Firstly, I am baffled at those people who are unable to see the importance of discovering the building blocks of our world. Simply put, the more we know about our world, the more we can do FOR our world. It is the study of the microscopic which allowed us to realize that it is carbon dioxide emissions that are destroying our ozone. It is the study of the microscopic that showed us, so long ago, that it was near-to-invisible viruses, bacteria, and out-of-control cells that are what make us sick, rather than the once-believed demonic forces. How is it, then, such a difficult leap from that to the realization that the very cures and fixes we're searching for may lie WITHIN the research of the even smaller components of our environment?

What baffles me even further is the simple fact that there are people so willing to discount the search for knowledge of any kind. Frankly, there is no telling what good will come from the gaining of knowledge. How can we know what insights we might make and inventions we may create, if we refuse to spare the money and the time to find out?

Those who hold the opposing view say things like, "Well, if we die out before we find the fix, then what's the point of knowledge?" What I don't get, personally, is why the money should come out of the funds for research, rather than, say, things that actually AREN'T important. To me, this looks like simple greed. How many people trying to remove research funding are working on buying another private jet or island home? How many CEOs or celebrities are getting another hundred million dollar or pound check today? How many people out there could single-handedly fund a bit of research toward the cure for cancer? And while the rich spend their money on excesses, they also widen their own carbon footprints, bringing us closer and closer to the end that they so fear.

Admittedly, I have to admit that I say this while giving my support to Dr. Cox, who is in the process of filming a highly expensive and travel-intensive sequel to Wonders. Perhaps that's hypocritical of me, but at the same time, were it not for the money spent on the first series, I would not today know about the Large Hadron Collider, would not know about the science funding battles, would not have taken the time to research and learn as I have. It's a two-sided argument. What is the real worth of the money spent? How many out there have learned or been inspired to learn because of the time and money spent making Wonders such a pleasure to watch? So, in the same vein, I counter the arguments from those who criticize Dr. Cox for becoming a celebrity in his own right with my own argument that if someone deserves celebrity status, it's the kind of person who will raise awareness and who will teach and inspire others to do their own parts in helping make the world a better place. We need more celebrity scientists, if you ask me. I'd rather keep up with the latest news from the LHC than the latest tit-slips and multi-million weddings/divorces.

I also add a counter to an argument made that research causes people who "should be" working on "important things" like the cure for cancer to be "distracted" with things like particle physics. As an extra counter to both this and the argument that there should also not be money spent on things like science documentaries, I say that the more money spent on science (on doing it, and on teaching it, and the more people who tirelessly and enthusiastically work on what they believe in, the more new people will discover science for themselves, and the more people there will be working toward fixing our world.

I close with another argument that I see as common sense. So many people complain about the cost of projects like the Large Hadron Collider, and even now seem to wish to strip the money from it and similar endeavours. Firstly, the money for these projects is spread out over a long period of time and from the hands of many people, from many countries, and thus does not immediately tax the economy. Secondly, stopping projects that are already started is a FAR larger waste.

All-in-all, it seems like complete and utter bull that this argument is happening at all, particularly amongst people who are supposed to be smarter than this.