Thread: IS THERE ENOUGH SCIENTIST IN AMERICA TODAY

A simple question that deserves a simple answer.

Some may dissagree but I think America as a country is falling short of scientific acheivements in the grand scheme of things.

Perhaps I think this way because when I was growing up there was talk of flying cars and reaching other planets, I know probably too much science fiction huh?

As I grew older things were becoming more simple to get from sceince community like alternitive fuel, or better ways to handle natural disasters.
There have been a lot of talk about these two factors and many more but no great push.

The number 1 technological advacement in America in 2004 was the Iphone.

Since then a lot of updates and a lot of talk.

Science research is just as important as the economy or health care or military.

The progress of America depends on Scientiific discoverys,


Ladies and Gentlemen I await your veiws or comments on this subject.

YES THERE ARE, THOUGH WE ARE RUNNING THE RISK OF A SEVERE SHORTAGE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

By and by, the reason we don't have flying cars or Moon bases aren't because we lack the technological know-how to make them, but because the concepts are either impractical on some level.

Originally Posted by Churlant

YES THERE ARE, THOUGH WE ARE RUNNING THE RISK OF A SEVERE SHORTAGE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

By and by, the reason we don't have flying cars or Moon bases aren't because we lack the technological know-how to make them, but because the concepts are either impractical on some level.

I thank you for your responce sir.
You maybe correct, maybe America does as enough scientist for the present, but it is the junior scientist of the present that will become the major scientist of the future. it is the junior scientist that are in short supply in America, at least in my opinion.

As far as scientific ideas being impractical.
I remind you sir of the other scientific ideas that at one time seemed impractical,
Airplanes, light bulbs, cars, computers, cd's dvd's, cell phones and many more.
All, and many more were considered at one time or another a concept the impractical.
This very nation stands on the concepts of the impractical

Originally Posted by Ferris

We don't need more scientists so much as we just need lab techs to do some grunt work, and of course the funding to pay for them. Also, a lot of the time, it's the dumbest **** getting the funding. That's the free market I guess.

You make a good point, sir.

Perhaps my thread should be about the scientific community instead of just scientist.

However a scientist without a lab tech, or an assistant would be hard to find in todays scientific world.

Sometimes the scientist can inspire the lab tech to an idea of their own.

Scientific acheivements will come from scientist who take risk, not the dumbest whatever scientist you describe no matter how much funding they get.

I remember seeing an article in Scientific American a while back suggesting that it's not a lack of scientists that's the problem. It's the lack of opportunities for scientists due to our strange economic structure for that field.
Contrast with bankers. We have too many of them. That's because there are opportunities.
People with scientific training end up leaving the field for banking, marketing, and lawyering careers. There are plenty of scientists- they just can't do science for a living.

Originally Posted by presluc

As far as scientific ideas being impractical.
I remind you sir of the other scientific ideas that at one time seemed impractical,
Airplanes, light bulbs, cars, computers, cd's dvd's, cell phones and many more.
All, and many more were considered at one time or another a concept the impractical.
This very nation stands on the concepts of the impractical

Okay now you're exaggerating a bit. Airplanes were considered impractical by some shortsighted individuals, but who ever said DVDs were impractical?

And anyway if people can figure out a way to make flying cars useful instead of a hazard, then I'm sure we'll get them eventually.

Meanwhile Java has a point. There are a buttload of physicists in banking and it ain't for the opportunity to wear expensive suits.

-JC

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

I remember seeing an article in Scientific American a while back suggesting that it's not a lack of scientists that's the problem. It's the lack of opportunities for scientists due to our strange economic structure for that field.
Contrast with bankers. We have too many of them. That's because there are opportunities.
People with scientific training end up leaving the field for banking, marketing, and lawyering careers. There are plenty of scientists- they just can't do science for a living.

You make a good point sir, America has more than enough lawyers and bankers.
The opprotunities for people in the scientific feild come up short in American society.
However sucess in science belongs to the risktakers , while bankers and lawyers change money and trials.
Scientist can change the world.

Originally Posted by Churlant

Okay now you're exaggerating a bit. Airplanes were considered impractical by some shortsighted individuals, but who ever said DVDs were impractical?

And anyway if people can figure out a way to make flying cars useful instead of a hazard, then I'm sure we'll get them eventually.

Meanwhile Java has a point. There are a buttload of physicists in banking and it ain't for the opportunity to wear expensive suits.

-JC

Really DVD'S were considered impractical by the people who still had a lot of vcrs to sell.
Just as the horseless carriage was considered impractical by a lot of people who had livery service and sold horses.
Alternitive fuel is considered impractical at this time by oil companies.but steps are being made.
Of course alternitive fuel was first considered impractical in the late 60's and early 70's.
Just like it was impractical to make cars with more mpg.

Java has a point I have stated that , but America wasn't built on people wearing expensive suits.