"Basic research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
Wernher Von Braun (1912 - 1977)
 Being almost dark, I was rushed to finish setting up my Celestron 114mm Newtonian telescope. I enjoy sky watching in the backyard, but never seem to have enough opportunities to gaze upward. The night was cool and clear so I was excited to look around in the moonless sky.
My telescope has an apparent field of view, of 50 degrees, add a 10mm eyepiece and I get approximately a 0.52 degrees view of the heavens. This means that, when I look through the eyepiece I see about the apparent diameter of the Moon as seen from Earth. To put that into perspective, cut a 1/2" diameter circle of paper, attach it to end of a toothpick. Hold it at arms length, close one eye and look around. The area covered visually by the paper is roughly the field of view of my telescope using the 10mm eyepiece.
My telescope is high-tech compared to what Galileo had when he first pointed a telescope to the heavens (17th century), but far short of what scientists have access to today. Take for example the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) launched April 24, 1990 from the space shuttle Discovery (STS-31). Hubble can see detail down to less than 0.1 arcsecond across - more than 10 times clearer than the best ground based telescopes, because they must look through the Earth's atmosphere. The telescope can lock onto a target without deviating more than 7/1000th of an arcsecond, about the width of a human hair seen at a distance of 1 mile. That's like holding a laser pointer steady on a dime that's 200 miles away.
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which may be launched as early as 2013 promises to be even cooler. JWST's primary mirror (if ground and polished correctly) will give it 10 times Hubble's light gathering capability. How much does all this cost? My telescope cost $281.95, the Hubble at launch cost $1,700,000,000. and the James Webb is estimated to cost at launch $2,400,000,000.
Figuring a 10 year life cycle, design, assembly, launching, glasses, maintenance and the fact that it can only be operational 30% of the time, Hubble cost $2,854.00 a minute to use. Sounds fairly reasonable until you consider that the image taken April 2002 of the Peculiar Galaxy (above image), found in the constellation Draco, about 420 million light-years (130 million parsecs) from Earth took an 8.3 hour exposure. The smaller the target to measure, or the faster something needs to move, the bigger the device and subsequently, the greater the cost. A 10-2 meter measuring device can be purchased at Wal•Mart, a 10-12 device, can not. (Note: Check out the book "POWERS OF TEN")
Cutting edge science today has a big problem, the costs are staggering and things are not going to get any cheaper. The cost issue is not limited to astronomy/cosmology but extends throughout all sciences. Want to capture a few neutrino's, need to accelerate electrons to the speed of light, looking for a place to store some anti-matter? For today's scientists, it's like getting front row tickets to see Paul McCartny, you need to wait in a long line and pay the big bucks. So how do scientists get access and funding to do research with Hubble or the particle accelerator * at CERN (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire) the world's largest particle physics research center?
CERN located just outside Geneva, is a scientific research "observatory," which is a haven for scientific pursuit. Half of the world's particle physicists - about 6500 people - do research at CERN. They come from over 500 universities in 80 countries.
Too make things simple, scientist's have to know what they're doing, plus have a pretty good idea what they'll discover or prove, then convince an expert panel of both. If Gary Sinise has an idea for a new movie, he, or his people, write a treatment and then pitch the concept to a studio or a production companies executives. The pitch could be a ball and he's told to walk, a foul, and after a re-write he re-pitches, or a strike and the studio funds the movie. These pitch meetings are very 'hush, hush,' because Mr. Sinise doesn't want anyone to steal his concept and beat him to the box-office with his idea. Ultimately, the agenda of the one's with the money controls who, what, when and where for the movie industry. This is quite similar to the science community but science funding is much more complex and often more costly.
The Treatment
Each scientific window have unique pathways to funding and facilities, but to respect your time, I'll only explore examples of physical science.
The best way to look into the future, is to start with the past. Scientists know that experimentation requires a substantial amount of research prior to making their 'Pitch,' so they need a staff to assist them. The research staff is usually made up of students and are not limited to any specific science. Mathematics are crucial to research for several reasons, because theorists will calculate the probability that the desired result can be obtained, plus math will become the language that communicates the findings.
Einstein worked heavily with Riemannian geometry (a non-Euclidean geometry), though the resulting space was a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold rather than a strictly Riemannian geometry. Still, Riemann's work was essential for Einstein's own field equations.
Evolution of Relativity: Euclid ("flat" geometry, called Euclidean geometry) to Karl Friedrich Gauss (non-Euclidean geometries, called hyperbolic geometry) to Bernhard Riemann (elliptic geometry called Riemannian geometry) to Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (differential equation).
What's the status-quo of the proposed experiment? Research may include, who are the leaders to this point, what was tested and what did they find, where did they work and why did they come to their conclusion? It's not only important to know what's happened, it's just as relevant to have a knowledge of any parallel research. String theory is a good example. How many dimension could a theorist devise, if a theorist could devise dimension? As many dimensions as a theorist would, if a theorist could devise dimension. Enter M-theory, but that's another story, perhaps, a fairy tale.
 I propose we add the phrase [d-m-y] (d=day, m=month, y=year) to all future scientific notation. Just the mere suggestion, will cause a stir within the science community, requiring a world meeting of experts to discuss, debate and define a standardized meaning. Will it be a, 'Born On' date, 'Sell By' date or 'Expiration' date? I hope that they settle on, 'Experiment' date. Scientific research has a 'shelf life' because researchers don't want to publish new findings second.
A Google search using +scientific +"research facilities" +"trade show" led to the discovery that Las Vegas is not a 'hot bed' for science shows (exception to possibly, probability theorists). We all know that for someone looking for facilities to perform sub-atomic particle research, Google is not a good starting place. From the search, I found, "Argonne National Laboratory designs, builds, operates and/or manages many scientific and engineering research facilities and makes them available to outside researchers from industry, academia and other government laboratories." This is not enough information to add Argonne to a proposal without additional research, such as, 'does the facility fit your need, what is the availability of the lab and what will it cost?'
With all due respect to scientific research professionals, there is much more complex work that must be done then I have trivialized above. My lingua is lodged in the vicinity of my cheek.
The Pitch
Unlike baseball, this is where you need the pitch to hang, thigh high, over the middle of the plate. There are tens of thousands of organizations world wide which offer research funding, from main-stream science to the eclectic. Similar to securing the proper research facilities, submitting your research proposal to a 'like-minded' organization could save the chance of being rejected. Many philanthropic organizations even publish a list of projects that they request to be researched. A recent study found that these projects are most often voted "likely to resemble Pinocchio" by a panel independent of researchers.
The Conclusion
When a research project's funding is granted, then we could say the 'proof is in the pudding,' or at least it ought to be if that's what the funding body intended to establish as fact. In a perfect world, if the proof is found outside the pudding, then report that.
I really don't have an issue with research or science (I'm a total nerd and proud of it), I do with censorship of ideas. A good idea without funding, is still a good idea, it just requires more work.
Today we are caught in a scientific catch 22, because the direction of science is controlled by the decision makers that fund research. Scientific funding review boards are often made up of past researchers and students who learned this process from their own research experiences. All that is needed to start a "bias chain reaction," is a charismatic, narcissist with a seat on a review board who's trying to escape moral values.
The controlling force should steer research to the facts and not to a defined agenda that benefits its benifactors. If the facts point somewhere you don't agree with, don't move the target. The cost of scientific research will never be cheap, but it shouldn't cost us 'our trust' in the process. Perhaps man is evolving into a narrow minded being. I pray not.
* A very interesting short history of the instruments used in particle physics research can be found in 'Not even Wrong - The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law', (Peter Woit 2006).
Dennis James (9/06) |
|
