BBC - Astronomers 'must make own case'

Mike Dworetsky wrote:

Taking money from people and apparently giving little in return is bound
to have its limits.

If you look in the back of any copy of Astronomy Now you will find a list of
talks on astronomy being given to numerous astronomical societies around the
UK. Most of these lecturers are not being paid anything extra, or maybe
bare travel expenses, to give these talks. Visitors are welcome in most
cases.

Many universities also have public lectures; no ticket fees.

So I'm not sure what you are talking about. AstroFest? AF is a "free
enterprise" private venture and the lectures are a "hook" to help get enough
punters in, to be able to make a profit on the exhibitions. Rather good
hooks, I hope you will agree. But not enough is taken in to fund research.

Good points all. I'm not saying that enough gate fee can be taken to do
big science. However, what's being done in terms of reaching out to the
public is connecting only with a tiny fraction of the public that's
interested and motivated. To get the money of the rest guaranteed, some
connection needs to be made with them to persuade them that the money is
a good investment.

If astronomy is just one more set of people looting the public through
taxation, then sooner or later a bad economy will mean that the purse is
close to empty. In such a circumstance, atronomers will not come ahead
of nurses, and may find themselves without any money at all.

Sure there are some dedicated folks doing great public outreach, but
it's clear from recent events that more is needed. Folks who're doing
research perhaps can't just leave it to the few.

We're convinced it's money well spent, but all of us know people who
aren't and possibly reckon they'd be better with money for another beer
than give it in tax for more research. Those are the people who must be
persuaded. It's too easy for researchers to concentrate on convincing the
grant bodies who merely direct the cash of taxpayers. To ensure the
money is there, it's the taxpayers who have to believe it's a good use
of their cash.

FoFP

--
"Our entire banking system is a complete disaster. In my opinion, nearly
ever major bank would be insolvent if they marked their assets to market."
-- Head of hedge fund Lahde Capital, which made 1000% return betting
against subprime. Financial Times 26/11/07

"M Holmes" wrote in message
...
Mike Dworetsky wrote:

Taking money from people and apparently giving little in return is bound
to have its limits.

If you look in the back of any copy of Astronomy Now you will find a list
of
talks on astronomy being given to numerous astronomical societies around
the
UK. Most of these lecturers are not being paid anything extra, or maybe
bare travel expenses, to give these talks. Visitors are welcome in most
cases.

Many universities also have public lectures; no ticket fees.

So I'm not sure what you are talking about. AstroFest? AF is a "free
enterprise" private venture and the lectures are a "hook" to help get
enough
punters in, to be able to make a profit on the exhibitions. Rather good
hooks, I hope you will agree. But not enough is taken in to fund
research.

Good points all. I'm not saying that enough gate fee can be taken to do
big science. However, what's being done in terms of reaching out to the
public is connecting only with a tiny fraction of the public that's
interested and motivated. To get the money of the rest guaranteed, some
connection needs to be made with them to persuade them that the money is
a good investment.

If astronomy is just one more set of people looting the public through
taxation, then sooner or later a bad economy will mean that the purse is
close to empty. In such a circumstance, atronomers will not come ahead
of nurses, and may find themselves without any money at all.

Sure there are some dedicated folks doing great public outreach, but
it's clear from recent events that more is needed. Folks who're doing
research perhaps can't just leave it to the few.

We're convinced it's money well spent, but all of us know people who
aren't and possibly reckon they'd be better with money for another beer
than give it in tax for more research. Those are the people who must be
persuaded. It's too easy for researchers to concentrate on convincing the
grant bodies who merely direct the cash of taxpayers. To ensure the
money is there, it's the taxpayers who have to believe it's a good use
of their cash.


The main area of outreach that gets access to large numbers of people is TV
and popular accounts of science in general and astronomy in particular (to
be on topic in this newsgroup). While it is true that the large majority of
people seem not to care very much one way or another, this is true of nearly
everything (even elections to some extent). This is why government has to
be representative rather than doing everything by referendum.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

In message , M Holmes
writes
Hils wrote:
M Holmes wrote

wrote:

Astronomers must make the best case for their subject to government if
they are to stave off further funding woes.

More at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7330699.stm

Could be that socialist astronomy and its constant need for a
taxpayer handout comes with its own problems...

There's nothing stopping them entering sponsored triathlons, holding
jumble sales, selling raffle tickets...

True, but I was thinking more along the lines of giving talks to the
public explaining their research and charging a ticket fee for entry.
After all, if people want to take money from the pockets of the public,
a talk about the purpose and fruits of the work is the very least the
public could expect.

Happens every year at AstroFest. I expect the proceeds mainly go to the
organisers and not to the lecturers though. But the amounts that you can
realistically raise this way are extremely limited.

One notable exception is Stephen Hawking who commands a pop star level
of public awareness. I was at a talk he gave in Brussels a few years
back (free I think) where they filled a major lecture theatre to
overflowing and had exterior large scale football stadium style TV
screens relaying his talk to the crowds outside. And even that was not
enough. It gridlocked part of the city as people parked up all the
streets chaotically.

Many professional astronomers (and other researchers) will give public
lectures for free or a modest fee plus travelling expenses (friendly
ones may even waive their travelling costs). They see it as a part of
their job to educate. Local astronomical societies can benefit from
this.

The most we have ever raised from a public lecture is about £500 (for a
local charity). Such lectures are not uncommon (and for the most part
free or a nominal entry fee) you just have to look out for them.
Astronomy Now has a list of local talks in the society pages for
example.

It is an act of pure vandalism to crucify the UK science base in this
way - but so typical of myopic UK government planning ruled by bean
counters.

Hard not to compare how the science budget is being administrated today
with the recent Terminal 5 fiasco - myopic halfwits in charge of both.

Taking money from people and apparently giving little in return is bound
to have its limits.

You mean like bankers for instance?

What you get by funding academic science research in the UK is the
training of the next generation of scientists. Only the very best and
most dedicated stay in academic astronomy the rest go on to use their
skills in the commercial and industrial world. The problem is even more
acute for training chemists (the most expensive of the hard experimental
sciences).

At least astronomers can show the public some very pretty pictures for
coffee table books (although they see nothing of the proceeds). Particle
physics research is even more expensive but yields nothing that has any
clear or immediate public appeal. Unless and until they master the
controlled fusion reactor or solve the nature of matter.

Do you really think that science research should be limited in scope to
only doing things that the general public can understand? You would
never have discovered lasers, superconductors, monoclonal antibodies or
transistors that way.

You cannot predict the long term spin off from blue sky research until
it comes of age and the commercial applications are exploited. Lasers
looked like an extremely expensive physicists toy until they were mass
produced. Every CD & DVD player now depends on them.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In message , M Holmes
writes
Hils wrote:
M Holmes wrote

I was thinking more along the lines of giving talks to the
public explaining their research and charging a ticket fee for entry.
After all, if people want to take money from the pockets of the public,
a talk about the purpose and fruits of the work is the very least the
public could expect.

This is very reasonable, though taxpayers already have to pay even more
simply to read the primary results. The US is considering legislation

Anything published in the peer reviewed journals will be available free
to the public in the UK library system. There are plenty of university
libraries that take all major journals so you don't have to travel that
far to read for free.

Original raw research data is normally dedicated to the research team
that obtained it for 12 months or a little longer if it is particularly
difficult to process and interpret. Increasingly a lot of new bulk data
is being made available immediately on the web for anyone to examine and
process. A few dedicated amateurs have been scouring it for eg SOHO for
sun grazing comets.

Taking money from people and apparently giving little in return is bound
to have its limits.

If academics in the UK find that many members of the public see them as
arrogant moneygrabbers from the same stock as politicians, they've only
themselves to blame.

Somewhat true. There are a goodly number of academics who do give talks
for the general public. This should certainly be encouraged.

My suspicion is that any funding drive with which Patrick Moore was
associated would see money being put into tins.

We will see. He was on "Sky at Night", BBC4 last night interviewing
Professor Sir Martin Rees who is now Chairman of the Royal Institution
(and probably one of the most articulate astronomers on the planet). If
together they cannot defend the UK science base from this unprecedented
attack then we deserve to languish as a third rate country.

However, it says a lot that SaN is relegated to BBC4 in the evening and
the Royal Institution Xmas lectures are no longer broadcast at all by
the BBC (Channel 4 now do them). It is all about ratings and profits
now.

TV phone-ins to choose the least untalented singer, brain dead quizzes
or most uneducated moron on Big Brother are what really matters to Joe
Public.

Arts and music do slightly better on the airwaves because many in the
media industry are Arts graduates. Science is typically *******ised.
"Horizon" is now a shadow or its former self and "Tomorrows World" is
history (John Dankworth blames the change in the theme tune from his
original jazz score to a funky heavy metal version for starting its
demise). Popular science programs are very thin on the ground.

You seem to forget that Jodrell Banks birth was a very tricky operation
and but for Sputnik (and the US paying Jodrell to use the Mk I steerable
dish) it might well have gone bankrupt in the early days. ISTR Lord
Nuffield heard about the Sputnik work and Bernard Lovells funding
difficulties and provided the funds needed to pay off the outstanding
debts for the original build.

The history is online, but it seems they may not have paid their ISP so
the university server is not responding today. Google cache still has it
online at:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:C...ac.uk/booklet/
History.html+%2BJodrell+%2BNuffield+%2BLovell&hl=e n&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

Potted timeline history of Jodrell Bank at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/cont.../051007_jodrel
l_factfile_feature.shtml

It would be a tremendous shame if a world class steerable single dish
and research facility was closed down just to save money. It is sad to
note here that 2009 is supposed to be "Year of Astronomy".

However, "Please donate
kindly for Dark Matter research..." tins in the High Street would
probably garner very little. The reason for the difference is fairly
obvious.

We could always run the Nigerian bank transfer and get rich kwik scams
to fund astronomy I suppose. They must work well enough. Ripping off the
terminally gullible to fund astronomy research might work, but
astronomers would have to spend insane amounts of time looking for
little green men and investigating demented claims of UFO sightings to
keep them happy.

But if you stop and think for a moment one of the main reasons that Prof
Pillingers ill fated Beagle2 Mars lander mission failed was that he had
to spend so much time out on the streets begging for the money to build
it.

Similarly if they want my cash, Astronomers should be talking to me and
others, not using government bureaucracies to pick our pockets while
talking amongst themselves.

I'm sure they'd rather be researching, but it behooves all who want to
take from the public purse to do a little singing for their supper.

They already do. It says a lot that you have not been listening.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Apr 8, 8:36*am, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"M Holmes" wrote in message

...





Mike Dworetsky wrote:

Taking money from people and apparently giving little in return is bound
to have its limits.

If you look in the back of any copy of Astronomy Now you will find a list
of
talks on astronomy being given to numerous astronomical societies around
the
UK. *Most of these lecturers are not being paid anything extra, or maybe
bare travel expenses, to give these talks. *Visitors are welcome in most
cases.

Many universities also have public lectures; no ticket fees.

So I'm not sure what you are talking about. *AstroFest? *AF is a "free
enterprise" private venture and the lectures are a "hook" to help get
enough
punters in, to be able to make a profit on the exhibitions. *Rather good
hooks, I hope you will agree. *But not enough is taken in to fund
research.

Good points all. I'm not saying that enough gate fee can be taken to do
big science. However, what's being done in terms of reaching out to the
public is connecting only with a tiny fraction of the public that's
interested and motivated. To get the money of the rest guaranteed, some
connection needs to be made with them to persuade them that the money is
a good investment.

If astronomy is just one more set of people looting the public through
taxation, then sooner or later a bad economy will mean that the purse is
close to empty. In such a circumstance, atronomers will not come ahead
of nurses, and may find themselves without any money at all.

Sure there are some dedicated folks doing great public outreach, but
it's clear from recent events that more is needed. Folks who're doing
research perhaps can't just leave it to the few.

We're convinced it's money well spent, but all of us know people who
aren't and possibly reckon they'd be better with money for another beer
than give it in tax for more research. *Those are the people who must be
persuaded. *It's too easy for researchers to concentrate on convincing the
grant bodies who merely direct the cash of taxpayers. *To ensure the
money is there, it's the taxpayers who have to believe it's a good use
of their cash.

The main area of outreach that gets access to large numbers of people is TV
and popular accounts of science in general and astronomy in particular (to
be on topic in this newsgroup). *While it is true that the large majority of
people seem not to care very much one way or another, this is true of nearly
everything (even elections to some extent). *This is why government has to
be representative rather than doing everything by referendum.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Basically you are descended from the same bunch of celestial sphere
astrologers who made Harrison's life miserable and eventually
assimilated his chronometer into celestial sphere navigation and
jettisoned any links to the Equation of Time method,even though it
exists at the core of all astronomical timekeeping -

"Now, in the former part of this book, I have treated about matters
pertaining to the strictness of measuring time; and have shewn the
deficiencies of such means as Mr. Graham had taken or made use of for
that purpose; and I have also treated of the improper, troublesome,
erroneous - tedious method, which the professors at Cambridge and
Oxford would have to be for the longitude at sea:"

But indeed, had I continued under the hands of the rude
commissioners, this completion, or great accomplishment, neither
would, nor could, ever have been obtained; but however, providence
otherwise ordered the matter, and I can now boldly say, that if the
provision for the heat and cold could properly be in the balance
itself, as it is in the pendulum, the watch [or my longitude time-
keeper] would then perform to a few seconds in a year, yea, to such
perfection now are imaginary impossibilities conquered; so the priests
at Cambridge and Oxford, &c. may cease their pursuit in the
longitude affair, and as otherwise then to occupy their time." John
Harrison.

The same rude people whinging here can't even demonstrate basic
astronomer principles such as how clocks are kept in sync with the
daily cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees or what causes variations in
daylight/darkness,astronomical material everyone,astronomer or
not,should know.Why should the goverment or anyone else fund
astrologers,people already pay money for astrological predictions
based on their personal lives,why should they care about wide and
sweeping gestures about the Universe when most people already know it
is a load of cobblers anyway.

They should call this forum uk.sci.astrology (without the fun bits).

Martin Brown wrote:

My suspicion is that any funding drive with which Patrick Moore was
associated would see money being put into tins.

We will see. He was on "Sky at Night", BBC4 last night interviewing
Professor Sir Martin Rees who is now Chairman of the Royal Institution
(and probably one of the most articulate astronomers on the planet). If
together they cannot defend the UK science base from this unprecedented
attack then we deserve to languish as a third rate country.

However, it says a lot that SaN is relegated to BBC4 in the evening and
the Royal Institution Xmas lectures are no longer broadcast at all by
the BBC (Channel 4 now do them). It is all about ratings and profits
now.

I wonder about Patrick Moore's outburst regarding the BBC being run by
girls with no interest in science. Other contacts have said much the
same thing, though not quite so bluntly. Something along being told "SF
is for kids and we'd rather be doing grown-up programming". I get the
general impression that luvvies don't do science or science fiction.

My bet is that it'd be a lot easier to persuade the public than to
persuade the luvvies. Patrick Moore has undoubtedly done a sterling job
in the face of intractable odds there.

TV phone-ins to choose the least untalented singer, brain dead quizzes
or most uneducated moron on Big Brother are what really matters to Joe
Public.

I hate to be a TV snob and even more so Mary Whitehouse, particularly
when I'm more than happy to watch Desperate Housewives and maybe even
Bionic Woman (haven't decided after just one episode). Still, when the
Jade Goody thing hit my radar through the news and then the Shetty
fracas, it became obvious to me that Channel Four were quite happy to
play Poke-The-Retard and Let's-Start-a-Race-War just to get ratings.
That I think really is descending into the mire.

Still, if that's the folks whose money astronomers want, then they're
the folks astronomers have to get interested no matter how difficult the
task.

Arts and music do slightly better on the airwaves because many in the
media industry are Arts graduates. Science is typically *******ised.
"Horizon" is now a shadow or its former self and "Tomorrows World" is
history (John Dankworth blames the change in the theme tune from his
original jazz score to a funky heavy metal version for starting its
demise). Popular science programs are very thin on the ground.

Spot on. So is it that science graduates won't go into the media or is
there a conspiracy of arts graduates to prevent them?

You seem to forget that Jodrell Banks birth was a very tricky operation
and but for Sputnik (and the US paying Jodrell to use the Mk I steerable
dish) it might well have gone bankrupt in the early days. ISTR Lord
Nuffield heard about the Sputnik work and Bernard Lovells funding
difficulties and provided the funds needed to pay off the outstanding
debts for the original build.

Most new businesses go bankrupt within three years. It's not like the
rest of the world finds it easy to get people to part with their money
either.

It would be a tremendous shame if a world class steerable single dish
and research facility was closed down just to save money.

True, but it's understandable if the politicians are more worried about
a repeat of the 1930s and think that saving banks is a better way to
prevent it than saving science. Like it or not, there's going to be a
lot less tax money available in the next decade and a half (credit
bubbles are a hobby of mine) and what there is may not be thrown our way
without much effort.

It is sad to
note here that 2009 is supposed to be "Year of Astronomy".

Sad indeed, but 2009 is more likely to be The Year of Crashing House
Prices. While the stars may be easier to see without a roof in the way,
people's minds may be on other things.

However, "Please donate
kindly for Dark Matter research..." tins in the High Street would
probably garner very little. The reason for the difference is fairly
obvious.

We could always run the Nigerian bank transfer and get rich kwik scams
to fund astronomy I suppose. They must work well enough.

Scary isn't it?

Ripping off the
terminally gullible to fund astronomy research might work, but
astronomers would have to spend insane amounts of time looking for
little green men and investigating demented claims of UFO sightings to
keep them happy.

There's a lot to "He who pays the piper calls the tune" I'm afraid.

But if you stop and think for a moment one of the main reasons that Prof
Pillingers ill fated Beagle2 Mars lander mission failed was that he had
to spend so much time out on the streets begging for the money to build
it.

Unless he was going to build it out of squeezy bottles, what choice
was there? There are a few folks like Bill Gates who could sponsor such
things but by and large that much money is always going to be hard to
come by.

Similarly if they want my cash, Astronomers should be talking to me and
others, not using government bureaucracies to pick our pockets while
talking amongst themselves.

I'm sure they'd rather be researching, but it behooves all who want to
take from the public purse to do a little singing for their supper.

They already do. It says a lot that you have not been listening.

I'm already in the pews. It's the people drinking Buckfast outside the
church they have to persuade to come in.

FoFP

Mike Dworetsky wrote:

We're convinced it's money well spent, but all of us know people who
aren't and possibly reckon they'd be better with money for another beer
than give it in tax for more research. Those are the people who must be
persuaded. It's too easy for researchers to concentrate on convincing the
grant bodies who merely direct the cash of taxpayers. To ensure the
money is there, it's the taxpayers who have to believe it's a good use
of their cash.

The main area of outreach that gets access to large numbers of people is TV
and popular accounts of science in general and astronomy in particular (to
be on topic in this newsgroup).

True, but it cannot be left just to TV, which has its own problems as
discussed elsewhere in the thread.

While it is true that the large majority of
people seem not to care very much one way or another, this is true of nearly
everything (even elections to some extent). This is why government has to
be representative rather than doing everything by referendum.

Let's look at politicians: they have the power to grab our money and
jail us if we don't pony up. Yet they'll go out on the stump and meet
people whenever there's an election. They'll hold a surgery in their
constituency every week and they'll answer letters from each and every
constituent who writes one. Many will give as many public talks as
they're invited to and they'll damn near never turn down an invite to
go on TV. They have what seems an absolute right to pick our pockets and
they'll still not miss a chance to engage with the public. Astronomers
have the right to pretty much zip. Are they engaging the public more
than are politicians? Are there any politicians who just stay in their
workplace and never meet the public?

I'm not trying to say that astronomers are bad people. Far from it. I am
trying to say that any astronomer who sits in a lab doing research and
just waits for the money to come in from the taxpayer tit is not running a
viable business model.

FoFP

Martin Brown wrote:

It is an act of pure vandalism to crucify the UK science base in this
way - but so typical of myopic UK government planning ruled by bean
counters.

My point being that the "bean counters" tend to do what the people who
own the money (the taxpayers) want them to do. It's a strategic mistake
to appeal to the bean counters rather than to the taxpayers.

Hard not to compare how the science budget is being administrated today
with the recent Terminal 5 fiasco - myopic halfwits in charge of both.

It does make one wonder whether any large project can be successfully
implemented here...

Taking money from people and apparently giving little in return is bound
to have its limits.

You mean like bankers for instance?

I have more than a little to say on that subject too. You can check the
arcchives of uk.finance for details. The short form is that I knew it
was a credit bubble a decade ago. I have a pretty good idea what will
come now, and I think the bankers should die by the markets just as they
lived by them. I'd not just refuse them money but I'd sell their kidneys
to get what we're owed back.

What you get by funding academic science research in the UK is the
training of the next generation of scientists. Only the very best and
most dedicated stay in academic astronomy the rest go on to use their
skills in the commercial and industrial world. The problem is even more
acute for training chemists (the most expensive of the hard experimental
sciences).

I know that and you know that. How well have we communicated that to the
average guy in the Turf Accountant's?

At least astronomers can show the public some very pretty pictures for
coffee table books (although they see nothing of the proceeds). Particle
physics research is even more expensive but yields nothing that has any
clear or immediate public appeal. Unless and until they master the
controlled fusion reactor or solve the nature of matter.

Indeed. It's always good to know that someone, somewhere, has it harder...

Do you really think that science research should be limited in scope to
only doing things that the general public can understand?

I'm not sure that fire would have been invented under those
circumstances. Then again, was it Feynman who said that if you can't
explain the science to your grandmother then you don't understand it
either.

I do think though that if we depend on the general public to fund it,
then we either persuade them that it's worthwhile, do science that we
can pay for out of our own pockets, or do taxpayer-funded science that
will be regularly interrupted by the lack of funds.

It'd be nice to live in a utopia where money grew on trees, but we don't.

You cannot predict the long term spin off from blue sky research until
it comes of age and the commercial applications are exploited. Lasers
looked like an extremely expensive physicists toy until they were mass
produced. Every CD & DVD player now depends on them.

A good point. Try it on someone at the butcher's...

FoFP


--
"Our entire banking system is a complete disaster. In my opinion, nearly
ever major bank would be insolvent if they marked their assets to market."
-- Head of hedge fund Lahde Capital, which made 1000% return betting
against subprime. Financial Times 26/11/07

On Apr 9, 8:13*pm, Hils wrote:
Martin Brown wrote

Anything published in the peer reviewed journals will be available free
to the public in the UK library system. There are plenty of university
libraries that take all major journals so you don't have to travel that
far to read for free.

UK taxpayers do NOT have free access to the results of the research
which they have paid for.

1. Real people usually have to get specific permission to visit
university libraries.

I don't like your implication that I am not a "real" person. There are
public copyright libraries in the UK that are entitled to receive a
free copy of anything published here. University libraries vary in
their access security, but there are plenty that are perfectly willing
to allow members of the public to use them for reference. Most
librarians are genuinely helpful. The only ones where there may be a
problem hold very precious collections of historic books.

2. Not all university library resources are available to real people.

True enough. Although online catalogue searching is usually free
access. Internet access and computing is not.

3. The last time I checked, real people had to pay a significant charge
to take away a copy (eg for private study) of journal articles.

Nominal price of photocopying. Or zero if you are carrying a small
digital camera (and ignore the rules a bit).

I live 25km from my nearest university library. Some taxpayers are
undoubtedly closer, others much further away. Material which could

Tough. You live some distance from the nearest university library. The
material is still free access.

easily be published electronically but which is only available with a
50km journey and significant expense is NOT accessible.

Blame the academic journals for that. They are in business to make
money out of libraries. Searching ADS is free and a proportion of the
material is available free online, but a lot more is pay to view.
Still useful as a index though:

http://doc.adsabs.harvard.edu/

You quickly learn which journals and resources are online free access.
But if you have a specific paper you want you can always write to one
of the authors for a preprint after reading the free access abstract.

arXive increasingly contains e-Prints made publically available by
researchers. There are some real gems on that.

http://arxiv.org/

You are tilting at windmills.

Last time I looked reading a Nature article online at $8 was a
complete rip-off for a private individual (non-subscriber)for
instance. But the researchers do not get to see a penny of it. Most
decent libraries hold this journal though.
.

The information could, and should, be available to all at the click of
mouse. The only people who would object to publishing taxpayer-funded
work in a free, permanent archive are the incompetent and corrupt, with
something to hide. Quite clearly there are already enough of these to
make legislation necessary.

Not at all. Most academics would love to see their work published and
made accessible to a wider audience, but the reality is that the
academic journals hold the reproduction rights once the article is
accepted for publication.

"Scientists" who see nothing wrong with using corrupt proxies to steal
from taxpayers are a significant part of the problem with science in the
UK, and the sooner they are eradicated, the sooner real science can
progress for the benefit of all.

I don't see how else large scale blue sky research can ever get done
without government funding. You would never have had the Internet
without the US government DARPANET research. Industry won't pay for
anything that doesn't get the CEO an even larger bonus at the next
shareholders meeting.

Original raw research data is normally dedicated to the research team
that obtained it for 12 months or a little longer if it is particularly
difficult to process and interpret. Increasingly a lot of new bulk data
is being made available immediately on the web for anyone to examine
and process. A few dedicated amateurs have been scouring it for eg SOHO
for sun grazing comets.

I note that you chose to ignore the free access data which is
available in your rant.

TV phone-ins to choose the least untalented singer, brain dead quizzes
or most uneducated moron on Big Brother are what really matters to Joe
Public.

This is because of the failure of the economic, social, welfare and
education policies of the same state which takes money from taxpayers
with no real consultation and throws it at "academic" projects. You
can't have it both ways.

We could certainly do with more plumbers I will grant you that. But
many inner city estates these days are blighted with a small number of
completely feral children who cause a disproportionate amount of
trouble.

Arts and music do slightly better on the airwaves because many in the
media industry are Arts graduates.

Nonsense. Arts coverage in broadcast media is at least as dumbed-down as
science coverage.

You have to be kidding. The BBC Proms alone provides more airtime for
(mostly) complete performances of orchestral works than is ever given
to popular science programs on that channel. Radio3 is almost entirely
music and the arts and done to a very high standard (pregnant pauses
and continuity glitches excluded). Popular science gets just a few
hours a week on Radio 4 if we are lucky.

But if you stop and think for a moment one of the main reasons that
Prof Pillingers ill fated Beagle2 Mars lander mission failed was that
he had to spend so much time out on the streets begging for the money
to build it.

Remind me, what would Beagle 2 have told us, that we didn't know already
from (much) earlier landings, that was worth so much money? How much of
it was simply gathering data which would have been used to justify yet
more tax-grabbing? How much was it worth to you?

If they had succeeded it might well have been able to detect Martian
life. My honest opinion is that they had already compromised the
hardware to meet an incredibly tight budget to the point where it
probably would not have been sensitive enough, but they did have a
damn good try. Even the Torygraph agrees they were short changed by
governmental penny pinching :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...02/nbeag02.xml

I'm sure they'd rather be researching, but it behooves all who want to
take from the public purse to do a little singing for their supper.

They already do. It says a lot that you have not been listening.

*Some* do. Most behave (as M Holmes has already illustrated) *worse*
than politicians. If you see nothing wrong with that, you're part of the
problem too.

Worse than politicians? Yeah right. What planet are you on? I can't
recall many cases of nepotistic scientists employing their kids as
"researchers" whilst paying them £20k a year of taxpayers money to
**** about at uni.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Apr 8, 11:35*am, M Holmes wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
My suspicion is that any funding drive with which Patrick Moore was
associated would see money being put into tins.

We will see. He was on "Sky at Night", BBC4 last night interviewing
Professor Sir Martin Rees who is now Chairman of the Royal Institution
(and probably one of the most articulate astronomers on the planet). If
together they cannot defend the UK science base from this unprecedented
attack then we deserve to languish as a third rate country.

I wonder about Patrick Moore's outburst regarding the BBC being run by
girls with no interest in science. Other contacts have said much the

Not just the girls. Same in government. Very few of them are trained
scientists, a few are medics and the rest are lawyers who appear to
deliberately convolute legislation to help their compatriots in law
firms make more money.

same thing, though not quite so bluntly. Something along being told "SF
is for kids and we'd rather be doing grown-up programming".

Torchwood is SF and doesn't exactly look like a childrens programme
(in fact it has proved too racy to be a success on the US channels).
Doctor Who seems to be going from strength to strength now.

My bet is that it'd be a lot easier to persuade the public than to
persuade the luvvies. Patrick Moore has undoubtedly done a sterling job
in the face of intractable odds there.

But he is getting a bit long in the tooth. Eventually a successor will
have to take over. Some are being groomed, but when PM eventually
drops out of the frame Sky at Night will be vulnerable to
obliteration.

Still, if that's the folks whose money astronomers want, then they're
the folks astronomers have to get interested no matter how difficult the
task.

Unclear. The public did not want us to invade Iraq, but the government
did so anyway. Persuading politicians is at least as important as
appealling to the lowest common denominator TV couch potato. And I am
not sure they can be swayed unless we invent some way of harvesting
cheap alcohol from nearby nebulae.

Arts and music do slightly better on the airwaves because many in the
media industry are Arts graduates. Science is typically *******ised.
"Horizon" is now a shadow or its former self and "Tomorrows World" is
history (John Dankworth blames the change in the theme tune from his
original jazz score to a funky heavy metal version for starting its
demise). Popular science programs are very thin on the ground.

Spot on. So is it that science graduates won't go into the media or is
there a conspiracy of arts graduates to prevent them?

I think most of the ones I have known end up as sound engineers or
technicians behind the scenes. Very few want to be in front of the
cameras.

You seem to forget that Jodrell Banks birth was a very tricky operation
and but for Sputnik (and the US paying Jodrell to use the Mk I steerable
dish) it might well have gone bankrupt in the early days. ISTR Lord
Nuffield heard about the Sputnik work and Bernard Lovells funding
difficulties and provided the funds needed to pay off the outstanding
debts for the original build.

Most new businesses go bankrupt within three years. It's not like the
rest of the world finds it easy to get people to part with their money

But it is an example where private money as well as public money was
needed and sought.

It would be a tremendous shame if a world class steerable single dish
and research facility was closed down just to save money.

True, but it's understandable if the politicians are more worried about
a repeat of the 1930s and think that saving banks is a better way to
prevent it than saving science. Like it or not, there's going to be a
lot less tax money available in the next decade and a half (credit

I agree. But I am not sure that saving Northern Rock (or Bear Stearns)
will have the desired effect. Banks can have their cake and eat it.
When they gamble recklessly and win they get to keep the profits and
when they lose the taxpayer has to bail them out because they are "too
big to fail". BoE calls it "moral hazard".

It is sad to
note here that 2009 is supposed to be "Year of Astronomy".

Sad indeed, but 2009 is more likely to be The Year of Crashing House
Prices. While the stars may be easier to see without a roof in the way,
people's minds may be on other things.

Indeed.

We could always run the Nigerian bank transfer and get rich kwik scams
to fund astronomy I suppose. They must work well enough.

Scary isn't it?

Yes. It could work but would not be ethical.

But if you stop and think for a moment one of the main reasons that Prof
Pillingers ill fated Beagle2 Mars lander mission failed was that he had
to spend so much time out on the streets begging for the money to build
it.

Unless he was going to build it out of squeezy bottles, what choice
was there? There are a few folks like Bill Gates who could sponsor such
things but by and large that much money is always going to be hard to
come by.

The amount they needed to do it properly was small in the aerospace
business. Their idea was very neat but was starved of funding in such
a way as to practically guarantee failure. Heroic failure is now one
thing that the UK does extremely well. I fully expect the 2012
Olympics to be every bit as toe curlingly embarrassing as the T5
fiasco.

Regards,
Martin Brown