Originally Posted by Dude
I will grant you that building a $400M supercomputer does reflect a willingness to invest in R&D, because this computer is a tool that can be used for R&D purposes. But its construction does not reflect a major R&D achievement.

Well, I won't grant that at all. Not unless you didn't know from the outset just WHETHER it was possible to achieve this outcome, or how precisely to go about the attempt. Neither of those things seems to have been the case. LHC is another example-- that isn't really a "research" thing, at least the construction itself is not, because the method and protocol is pretty well-defined to start with. If I build the world's LARGEST reflector telescope, is that "research?" Not really, unless I'm using some untested/new idea or material in its construction. It's merely "D" not R &D at that point otherwise.


And to add to the notion that communication and "soft" skills matter,

See what Neil deGrasse Tyson has to say about how important this is.

One can argue that he's more educator than scientist, but I doubt that one can dismiss what he is saying there. Science influences public policy-- er, or it should, at any rate. When it doesn't, in the modern age, we are in a lot of trouble, since those without a good grasp of scientific literacy are the ones deciding what makes it into school curricula, what message the CDC is allowed to promote for public health, and the scope of the FDA, DEA, and USDA missions. That seems fairly important.



Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.