Because the uk government has a track record of neglecting science?
Secondly, where do you propose the money will come from to make up the shortfall?
Please please please for the love of god don't say "the money we've saved by leaving the EU".
How will Brexit affect you and your family personally?
- Thread starter Evole
- Start date
Because the uk government has a track record of neglecting science?
Secondly, where do you propose the money will come from to make up the shortfall?
Please please please for the love of god don't say "the money we've saved by leaving the EU".
damn, just scrolled down and saw your disclaimer at the bottom
perhaps we can put 2 to 3p on tax? Oh wait, that would be a "punishment" budget for voting leave and we aren't allowed to do that. ANy other ideas?
stop paying benefits and use that money for science. Use the benefit scroungers either as skivvies to keep the labs clean or test subjects for new drugs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,488
I'm OK for the immediate short term. But a lot of the work I do is created by the HSC and vicariously the HSE in terms of compliance and whilst I am pretty sure we will retain our safety standards in industry if we leave I can't gurantee it. Clients are putting work on hold due to uncertainty, and we will likely lose further work due to government cuts to spending and the loss of EU grants for housing associations (better home projects etc). I guess there may be eventual redundancies, of which I may be one. Leaving the EU is bad for my line of work as we get a lot of business from EU policy making. I guess time will tell.
My wife works in a school, and judging by increased cuts to spending and the gloomy forecast for more, she may well be deemed surplus to requirements as she isn't in what would be classed as a key role (but it is an important one for other reasons, nonetheless). She has other experience she could try and fall back on, but that would mean going back to a job and a life she has successfully escaped over the last few years.
In terms of home life - my mortgage is a short term fixed rate so I will wait and see come September 2017. Can't really answer that now but I imagine we may have to increase our mortgage repayments - but I guess if we are both out of a job we might not have a house to worry about anyway! lol. If the interest rates increase past what we can afford we will lose the house, but we are both resourceful and will ride that wave should it come. There is always a deal to be done with the mortgage provider and if not, we will rent somewhere cheap till we can get back on our feet. We will probably have to cut spending on all but the essentials and have planned as best we can for that.
I personally think we will be OK for the first year or so, but depending on A50 and the negotiations, after that it becomes sketchy. It seems likely there will be big changes in our life one way or the other, but we will cross each bridge as we come to it.
We made the decision to face what comes together and just simply try our best. I guess that is all anyone can do.
My wife works in a school, and judging by increased cuts to spending and the gloomy forecast for more, she may well be deemed surplus to requirements as she isn't in what would be classed as a key role (but it is an important one for other reasons, nonetheless). She has other experience she could try and fall back on, but that would mean going back to a job and a life she has successfully escaped over the last few years.
In terms of home life - my mortgage is a short term fixed rate so I will wait and see come September 2017. Can't really answer that now but I imagine we may have to increase our mortgage repayments - but I guess if we are both out of a job we might not have a house to worry about anyway! lol. If the interest rates increase past what we can afford we will lose the house, but we are both resourceful and will ride that wave should it come. There is always a deal to be done with the mortgage provider and if not, we will rent somewhere cheap till we can get back on our feet. We will probably have to cut spending on all but the essentials and have planned as best we can for that.
I personally think we will be OK for the first year or so, but depending on A50 and the negotiations, after that it becomes sketchy. It seems likely there will be big changes in our life one way or the other, but we will cross each bridge as we come to it.
We made the decision to face what comes together and just simply try our best. I guess that is all anyone can do.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
Seeing as a majority of research breakthroughs land up in the hands of the corporations or rich, I honestly don't give a monkeys where the money is coming from.
Science is science. You practise it or you don't. Did Einstein give a damn about funding? No.
There will always be a way. Just means no more pay outs for studying the poop cycle of a Peruvian Rock Toad.
Does anyone actually believe a universal cure for cancer would be allowed for everyday people?
No chance.
Acceptance and innovation will make it so. Just means folks on the fence will have to consider their career choices.
Science is science. You practise it or you don't. Did Einstein give a damn about funding? No.
There will always be a way. Just means no more pay outs for studying the poop cycle of a Peruvian Rock Toad.
Does anyone actually believe a universal cure for cancer would be allowed for everyday people?
No chance.
Acceptance and innovation will make it so. Just means folks on the fence will have to consider their career choices.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
I thought science was about the betterment of mankind. All you get is researchers going me, me me. Get an office job.
The money will be there for the most worthy of advancements. Maybe this will focus and prioritise efforts.
The money will be there for the most worthy of advancements. Maybe this will focus and prioritise efforts.
Actually collect some tax off of large corporations.
Thank the fairy god in the sky that you're not the one in charge of funding for the sciences and if you are a manager of some people, I would hate to be them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
What is your field of research? Photosynthesis effects on the Mongolian pond beetle?
Space, cancer, other illness, medicine, clean energy, food propagation.
Everything else can and should wait.
Admittedly, a breakthrough in one field yields benefit in another. That is if the benefactors care to share.
Last edited:
Did Einstein give a damn about funding? Almost certainly, he probably spent a lot of time when he was younger applying for funding to do experiments. How else would he have lived, paid his rent and eaten if he didn't have any money to do so, let alone do his experiments? He didn't spend his entire life in the patent office.
Or are you suggesting scientists should work in Accounting and IT and research in the evenings?
Research breakthroughs landing in the hands of the rich or corporations happens in one of two ways normally.
1. The rich and corporations pay for the research and get the results.
2. The researchers use their research to create a new company which becomes successful (usually the university/research institution/funder takes a large cut of this). For some reason UK science is really bad at spinning of research into successful companies, perhaps in part because the UK government does not help as much as other governments. End result is a lot of great research is put into practice by companies in other countries. The scientists become well off, governments benefit from privately funded research and tax revenues, along with the results of the company (for example carbon nanotubes).
Interestingly what you are complaining about is something the EU is very passionate about.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...ers-2020-target-free-access-scientific-papers
As for what research is actually useful, that's for the funding bodies to decide. The poo of the Peruvian Rock Toad could give indications of how to save the species, or the health of the ecosystem it lives in as an example. Both worthy causes for research.
Food propagation, medical breakthroughs and clean energy are all useless if we live on a baren planet and/or wipe out the plants and animals that may lead to breakthroughs in each of the above. As you say no field is separate from another.
There is a lot of me, me, me in that post. Humans aren't the be all and end all on this planet.
You are aware that studies of animals and plants have led to new medicines, and it's the sort of thing that you ideally want to do before they become extinct
A lot of relatively "useless" studies have helped with other areas of science as you don't know what you're going to find out.
For example the study of the habitat for the "Mongolian pond beetle" might lead to something that can be used in Cancer or space as you don't know if a creature doesn't get a disease until you study it, if it doesn't when others that are close to it do then you've got something interesting.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
You are aware that studies of animals and plants have led to new medicines, and it's the sort of thing that you ideally want to do before they become extinct
A lot of relatively "useless" studies have helped with other areas of science as you don't know what you're going to find out.
For example the study of the habitat for the "Mongolian pond beetle" might lead to something that can be used in Cancer or space as you don't know if a creature doesn't get a disease until you study it, if it doesn't when others that are close to it do then you've got something interesting.
I'm on the wind up, it's now a day later so I've stopped. Lol
Annoying Devil's advocate. These are the sort of arguments that go on among politicians and especially through places I've worked at.
Ideally some of the lottery find can be used rather than modern art projects.
It's alarming that the only research that stands any chance of survival needs a profit attached to the end of it.
Equally alarming is the amount of research that proves a theory which goes ignored because again, doing what's necessary costs £££ to some conglomerate.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
You are aware that studies of animals and plants have led to new medicines, and it's the sort of thing that you ideally want to do before they become extinct
A lot of relatively "useless" studies have helped with other areas of science as you don't know what you're going to find out.
For example the study of the habitat for the "Mongolian pond beetle" might lead to something that can be used in Cancer or space as you don't know if a creature doesn't get a disease until you study it, if it doesn't when others that are close to it do then you've got something interesting.
Dementia in the young is a topic that hits close to home. My family is in tatters. My Ma developed it in her late 40s.
The research being carried out on Sharks is the most likely chance of a breakthrough because they are somehow immune to it yet there is EU funding from one side but they are held to ransom by the ethics committee to appease PETA chumming uber liberals.
Wouldn't shock me if China made all of the major breakthroughs in this area and hold the west to ransom.
I have hope we get to the stage where the UK government realises that science progression isn't just an option. It's actually the only way.
Perhaps the astoundingly rich companies that will end up benefiting from said research could fund it themselves?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Well obviously it will, the question is how much.