The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
When judging spending on particle physics one should as well consider, that a huge machinery will die and it is very difficult to reestablish it. If you stop research now, and in 200 years one would like to restart it, one would have to redo a lot of work and rebuild knowledge, which will be lost.
With ecologists its a special story. First I think that spending for ecologist projects and physics are not at all exclusionary. The spending on science is not so high that a bit more would do any damage to the society. But ecologists really are bad organised. When some astrophysicists had a project in the Adria (ANTARES, listen to high energy neutrinos) they asked some ecologists if they didn't want to participate and put some instruments on the chains to have long term Adria watching deeply under water. They hadn't and that is typical. In physics people usually come up with a huge number of projects once you have some type of large experiment. Ecologists are not enough connected with each other to lobby for a big project. 300m really is peanuts for a developed world society with a yearly GDP of maybe 30 trillion.
The most important development of particle physics was html, and like this probably spin-offs really will exist in the future. If they are of such enormous reach is unclear, but for more specialised applications it will be good enough. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
As for the PR: of course it's true, but it worth considering that most fields wouldn't even dream of trying to get these amounts of money, because no one would stop and listen to their arguments why they need billions of euros, no matte how good their PR would be.
In the end, I would argue that past applications really are a large reason particle physics can even consider to have a PR-fight for billions.
On the issue of deciding where to invest money for 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge', I would suggest let scientist decide, what they like to do most. And of course there is a level of saturation and a minimum level below which a branch of science can't operate anymore at all. This minimum amount is unfortunately in particle physics relatively high, as you want to have at least one high energy collider in the world. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
by gmoke - Oct 4
by gmoke - Oct 1
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 3 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 38 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 12 comments
by Oui - Sep 3025 comments
by Oui - Sep 29
by Oui - Sep 285 comments
by Oui - Sep 2722 comments
by Oui - Sep 2620 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 243 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1338 comments
by Cat - Sep 1312 comments
by Oui - Sep 1210 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment