Statium | Why does the United States not pay attention to basic science?

Author:Crystal report Time:2022.06.28

Author: Jiang Xiaoyuan Shanghai Jiaotong University Lecturer Professor, the first dean of the History and Science and Culture Research Institute

Yesterday, many domestic scholars firmly believed that the United States attaches great importance to basic science, but in fact this belief is completely unable to receive data support. Let's talk about these data today.

For many people, the problem of "the United States does not attach importance to basic science" does not exist at all -the United States affirmed, of course, and absolutely attaches great importance to basic science research. This question is a question of an idiot. "Water" "Americans don't sleep" are like idiots, do you still need to answer?

However, "attach importance to basic science" after all, it is more complicated than drinking water, and it is not as intuitive as I drink water to sleep. If we are "idiots" once, we have to ask those people: Does the United States really attach importance to basic science? How do you prove this? Those people will be annoying and annoyed, because in fact they have no way to effectively prove this.

I came up with a path to answer questions

I have only seen one demonstration of the United States' attention to basic science. The whole journey is as follows:

Because Van Bush Bush said in "Endless Frontier" that it is necessary to pay attention to basic scientific research, the United States must pay attention to basic scientific research. The certificate is over.

See, what is this argument? Is it an idiot that "the United States does not pay attention to basic science", or is the above demonstration idiot?

In "hegemony or survival", Noim Jimsky also said that the United States should not invade Iraq, so the United States has not invaded Iraq?

What an American has said, must it be done in the United States?

Since Van Bush Bush, which is a scientific official in "Endless Frontier" a few days after a few days, is not enough to prove that the United States really attaches importance to basic scientific research. Let us assume that "the United States does not pay attention to basic science" is not a problem of idiot, but a question worthy of seriously answering. Let's try to answer how?

What paths are there to answer the question of "the United States does not attach importance to basic science"? In 2021, my academic partner Mu Yunqiu finally came up with a path: examining the flow and distribution of American scientific and technological funds to see how many real gold and silver flowed to basic scientific research.

The amazing facts behind a set of data

This path is more reasonable and reliable than just looking at the words that Van Bush says it has said? If a country attaches great importance to basic science, there must be enough funds to invest in basic science research?

Let's check the official website of the National Science Foundation (NSF, Bush strongly promoted the institution used to fund basic science research), and saw an amazing data -the year when the NSF was established, it received $ 150,000 for funding. When Xiao Mu told me this data, did I say you read it wrong? At least 1.5 billion, right? She counted the number of 0 again, yes, it was 150,000! Although the inflation of 70 years cannot be ignored, it can be affordable to find a wide guy at $ 150,000 in 1950. Can this $ 150,000 "start a new era of national strong funding for basic science"?

Of course, NSF's appropriations have also increased year by year, but the money that can be obtained every year in the future is only 1.5 % of the total US science and technology R & D (R & D total cost) (note the decimal point)!

But this poor 1.5 % is far from all basic scientific research. For example, at the 60th anniversary of the establishment of NSF, a list of "successful funding projects" was on the official website. There were 60 projects. We counted it and found that there were only 12 items that could be counted as basic science, only 20 %, and the rest were left. The projects are actual technical applications, including two -dimensional code.

Some people do not give up, saying that the US science and technology research and development costs throughout the year are huge. Although NSF only gets 1.5 % of them, other institutions can also get basic scientific research funds?

Yes, other institutions can also get it. Then let's look at the data of the total science and technology research and development of the United States throughout the year. The National Council of Sciences will consolidate all scientific and technological research and development investment in the United States every year, including the country and private investment, and summarize the "American Science and Engineering Index" (that is, the SEI report), submit it to the president to read, and then then then see it, and then then read it, and then then read it, and then then read it, and then then read it, and then then read it, and then then read it, and then then read it, and then then read it, and then then read it. Published publicly. We consulted the SEI reports over the years. Americans divide the total amount of science and technology research and development into three parts: basic research, application research, and experimental development. The latter parts are all application and technology research and development, and the money that the United States has invested in basic scientific research over the years has not even reached 10 % at first, and later stabilized at about 15 % of the total plate for a long time.

Americans only take the benefits of science

Judging from the above data, the United States must not pay attention to basic scientific research. But we feel that this is not enough, and we want to look at Europe again and see how other countries vote for money. Data in this area also have the SEI report in the United States over the years, although the data is not as complete as the United States.

As a result, we found an unexpected phenomenon: Britain, France, Germany, Italian, and even the Czech Republic, Poland in Eastern Europe, Sweden and Denmark in Northern Europe. They all have more investment in basic science than in the United States! Basic studies in some countries account for 26 % (Italy) or even 28 % (Switzerland) in total R & D. Almost all these developed western countries have attached great importance to basic scientific research than the United States, but in recent years, have the above -mentioned countries in the field of science and technology be stubborn in the United States? We can also find Russian data in the SEI report. Russia's investment ratio is almost the same as the United States, about 15 %. It turns out that the two strongs of the United States and Russia only invest in the least money in basic science, but become the strongest country.

We can also take a look at another angle: Who achieved the first leaky achievements of basic science? For example, gravity, relativity, evolution theory, atomic theory, aerospace theory, dual spiral theory, etc. All these first -class scientific theories are made in the United States? not even one. It was all made by Europeans, but many scientists later moved to the United States.

What do Americans do? Through technology, they brought the benefits in science. For example, the theory of atomic theory was made by the British. At present, the biggest use is to make the original bullets and nuclear power plants. Both of them have practical value, but they are all made in the United States. There have been countless scientific theories in history. Without technology to carry forward them, they can only be sealed in old paper piles.

Bush said in "Endless Frontier" that "the main source of scientific capital" in Europe, he hopes to change this. However, attaching importance to basic science is only his personal vision (the public publishing of "Endless Frontier" in 1960 may even be a certain strategic deception), but it has not been transformed into US national policies and actions at all.