http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3650 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3650&cpage=1#comment-2081 Gregory Lewis Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:15:35 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3650#comment-2081 Seems to me the larger context is the lack of support for education in general (at all levels--although I am most concerned about k-12 for many reasons) as well as loss of support for scientific reasearch. Seems to me the larger context is the lack of support for education in general (at all levels–although I am most concerned about k-12 for many reasons) as well as loss of support for scientific reasearch.

]]> http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3650&cpage=1#comment-2080 Lisa D Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:24:02 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3650#comment-2080 I just witnessed a mini-exchange on this exact issue at the recent open meeting of the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the NRC, while the topic of the interim report on the state of the NSF Atmospheric sciences program was discussed. Some individuals present argued that the US was "losing it's leadership" in field campaigns and the like to the EU, Japan and others. Others argued the counterpoint that they were heartened by the fact that other countries now had the capacity to lead major scientific intiatives and that they felt that scientific collaboration was so much the richer for it. After further discussion, the gist of the US "losing it's leadership" argument appeared to be a cover argument for the more basic complaint that some felt the US was falling behind in support of the sciences in terms of proportion of GDP spent of scientific research. So, it seems to me it is another attempt to argue for more research funds, using the more nationalistic argument that we are somehow "losing" our place in the global competition. Personally I think they are two separate issues-- building or enouraging capacity in other nations for science and technology capability and supporting US science adequately. Atmospheric sciences in particular is a field that has benefitted tremendously from international partnership, and I support broadening cooperation even farther. It seems to me that sharing or rotating "leadership" of various fields with nations around the globe would be a logical extension of true partnership. I just witnessed a mini-exchange on this exact issue at the recent open meeting of the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the NRC, while the topic of the interim report on the state of the NSF Atmospheric sciences program was discussed. Some individuals present argued that the US was “losing it’s leadership” in field campaigns and the like to the EU, Japan and others. Others argued the counterpoint that they were heartened by the fact that other countries now had the capacity to lead major scientific intiatives and that they felt that scientific collaboration was so much the richer for it. After further discussion, the gist of the US “losing it’s leadership” argument appeared to be a cover argument for the more basic complaint that some felt the US was falling behind in support of the sciences in terms of proportion of GDP spent of scientific research. So, it seems to me it is another attempt to argue for more research funds, using the more nationalistic argument that we are somehow “losing” our place in the global competition. Personally I think they are two separate issues– building or enouraging capacity in other nations for science and technology capability and supporting US science adequately. Atmospheric sciences in particular is a field that has benefitted tremendously from international partnership, and I support broadening cooperation even farther. It seems to me that sharing or rotating “leadership” of various fields with nations around the globe would be a logical extension of true partnership.

]]>