EU tells US scientists to dump Trump for a lab in Europe The European Commission (EC) is looking to make Europe the home of science by tempting researchers and scientists to relocate to the continent amid a more hostile stance toward academic freedom in the US. At an event at Sorbonne University, EC President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled the "Choose Europe" scheme to promote the …
Seeing as it's not the EU's purview, I don't think the money really matters. But your point stands that, in comparison with the US, most European countries invest little in the kind of large research projects that have made America so popular since the 1950s: we have great general and university education but life as a post-grad is the for chosen few with most researchers forced to scrape from one temporary contract to the next with tenure always out of reach.
According to research on grok, a large number of the "disgruntled scientists" responding to the Nature magazine poll are probably POST-GRADUATE STUDENTS. But as the article is behind a paywall it's hard to search it or read it without coughing up the cash [damn them].
Here's what I found: https://x.com/i/grok/share/M3UkPNZ4VCkRecPw3IwtPQe6F
The issue here is public funds for research, and the kinds of research being axed. From what I can glean, it is mostly climate change research, sociology and DEI-related research, certain kinds of health research (fired NIH researchers), plus anything previously funded by USAID, and primarily affects new graduates and post-grad researchers.
In short, if your only funders were the U.S. gummint before 2025, and the funds were cut off, and you read Nature magazine and responded to the poll (a 'self-selected' group) then it explains why 3/4 of respondents wanted to "go elsewhere" after losing their gummint funds.
[if this offer affects a LOT of people, competing for the limited funds from EU will be fierce]
But but but muh Elong Muskrat. You have to be voted down because it doesnt matter if you are right, politics comes first. Everything is political Dontchaknow?
Grok does have worse general knowledge than ChatGPT-4o right now but it hallucinates a lot less which overall makes it a better, more consistent tool for our use. Though we continue to use both
"Grok does have worse general knowledge than ChatGPT-4o right now"
No, neither has "knowledge", which requires understanding. They have large tables of probabilistically generated text fragments which they string together to persuade some people with wallets bigger than their brains to cough up $s before the "AI" bubble bursts.
"but it hallucinates a lot less"
No, these models do not "hallucinate", which is a behaviour sometimes exhibited by sentient beings. They simply produce incorrect output sometimes, which they can neither detect nor correct, both of which processes require actual intelligence.
So use it to get a summary, but verify what it is telling you.
I'd just neutrally observe that this means that you start off reading information on the subject with a confirmation bias problem.
I was googling a very obscure topic recently for a source to confirm a vague recollection when replying to an email. Generative AI spat out a plausible answer at the top which was sort of technically speaking correct in every detail, as so long as you understood enough to know that those details didn't actually relate to the subject at hand.
I wouldn't have known that if I wasn't already a subject matter expert. Therefore, the danger is that the less you understand the better the AI output looks which appears to be a really deeply serious problem.
No, I mean ask Grok to get a summary of US - China trade data. It produces a very concise description of the fact that US exports make up about 2.9% of total Chinese GDP. It shows the assumptions made and what figures it is using.
You can then go look at official US trade data and check the that figures it is stating are accurate. They match.
The trend was particularly pronounced among early-career researchers. Of the 690 postgraduate researchers who responded, 548 were considering leaving; 255 of 340 PhD students said the same. [...] “This is my home — I really love my country,” says a graduate student at a top US university who works in plant genomics and agriculture. “But a lot of my mentors have been telling me to get out, right now.” |...] One postgraduate researcher in a biomedical field summed up much of the thinking these days: “Don’t want to leave, but what’s the alternative?”
This is what I am thinking as well, the fact that this is an employment contract good only, at best, for 3 years. If the EU is serious they'll need to consider adding long-term residency to the pot; I would think that many serious scientists wouldn't want to walk away from their research because of a hard-time deadline and, if given an opportunity (especially considering the current political climate) that some of them would seriously consider a permanent change of residency / nationality...IF the long-term benefits are both secure and good enough.
"If the EU is serious they'll need to consider adding long-term residency to the pot"
Consistency of support for the 3 years one might have a contract will be important. If you are doing research, being somewhere that might axe all support with zero notice is a big problem since it would mean starting all over again someplace else with IP issues. Long-term residency might be valuable to some, but not all. A compromise might be continued support if progress can be shown and the results will have value. Some research is interesting and might get funding if it can be done in a certain time period and within a set budget. Beyond that and there isn't any interest.
"According to research on grok…"
Or, as a less credulous reader might put it...
"According to a probabilistic word prediction program, unable to provide specific sources or lines of reasoning because its fundamental design uses neither in its word prediction algorithms (*), might generate..."
(*) Although able to retrospectively generate "sources and reasoning" (albeit not actually used to generate the original response), if pushed, which are sufficient to persuade the same credulous reader.
I have ceased to be amazed at how easily supposedly intelligent people are taken in by turbo text prediction and end up believing that they are interacting with an artificial "intelligence" rather than with a very expensive dice rolling machine.
In Europe we have no government, that
- suppresses facts that do not fit their ideology
- actively tries to destroy science in general
- requires allegiance to its Dear Leader to get a job
- goes after you or your family for your inheritance or nationailty
- goes after you for speaking your mind
- lets idiots decide policy, just because they kiss their Dear Leader's ass on a daily basis
Additionally in Europe's science operations, €500M is a much larger volume in terms of research positions compared to $500M in the U.S.
I mostly agree, but hold your horses.
"- suppresses facts that do not fit their ideology"
Forgotten covid and the suppression of any alternative views? I haven't. You must only speak this way or it is "fake news". The science went out the window.
"Forgotten Covid and the suppression of any alternative views?"
I see you didn't follow Alison Pearson or Toby Young in the Daily Telegraph. They appeared free to make up stuff and/or too stupid to even question it. No apology when proven completely wrong. That may have cost lives. But, hey they have the right as non-experts to rubbish experts.
I don't question that we shouldn't give them freedom to speak their misinformed minds. I do question your assertion they didn't.
>> we shouldn't give them freedom to speak their misinformed minds
Exactly my point. But yours is from the other direction. You are stating exactly what I wrote: as long as you follow the "authorised" view, such as yours, it's OK.
Numbskulls exist. The correct response it to counter them, not ban them.
I suggest taking a look at Dr Campbell John on YouTube, and how daintily he has to dance around the truth.
Oh dear, back to YouTube as a source of research?
You might want to check that Dr's soundness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)#Ivermectin
If that is not enough, then "...in December 2024 shared his faith and belief in Creationism in an interview with Russell Brand".
Of, FFS! You claim to be "VoiceOfTruth" and then deliberately selectively quote to reverse the meaning of the posters original quote.
YOU posted "we shouldn't give them freedom to speak their misinformed minds."
The ORIGINAL was "I don't question that we shouldn't give them freedom to speak their misinformed minds."
That makes you a LIAR[*] with the proof directly in the original post above you.
You've done this often enough in the past that we expect it, but did you have to be so absolutely brazen this time? Wow. Just wow!
* yeah, no need for "untruths" or other aphorisms when it's an outright lie in full view of the audience.
>Forgotten covid and the suppression of any alternative views?
What suppression? Social media were chock full of people claiming that COVID was just a flu and that vaccination was too risky, and those were just the coherent ones. In my country, some of those were on freakin' national TV every other day. Sure, they were roundly debunked and called "fake news" and misinformation, because they were, and they weren't invited to speak everywhere, because nobody is owed that. Frankly, I would have much preferred for at least major TV channels to just stop inviting them, but I respect their editorial authority. As far as I know, nobody was ever prevented from speaking in a public place, and nobody was prosecuted for social media posts.
Or do you mean that having someone contradict you in public is "suppression"? Or that not being allowed on private events that don't want you to attend is "suppression"?
Because those line of thoughts, now those really are suppression.
Yes, that's exactly what they mean. If you say that a liar is lying, people might not believe those lies. And if people don't believe the lies, the liar's point of view is being suppressed. We must have a balanced debate where harmful lies are given the same weight and consideration as the truth; otherwise, how will people be able to decide what to believe?
(My apologies for depleting the Register's strategic sarcasm reserves, but this is the kind of occasion that we save it up for.)
Yeah, valid point.
I had many "discussions" with those types at the time. Simply by not agreeing with them they already feel "attacked" or "suppressed".
Call out their lies, misinformation and the really weird stuff, and you "censor" them.
Just by answering to their posts, leaving them fully intact...
They simply require you to accept their lies without even responding or offering counter arguments. Everything else is regarded as "cancelling" them.
"Forgotten covid and the suppression of any alternative views? "
"Alternative views" is just another way of saying "LIES"
Countering and suppressing LIES is the CORRECT thing to do... regardless of whether the LIE is called a LIE or an "Alternative view" or an "Alternative fact"
That may be true, but simply "not being the USA" is not a recipe for improving economic growth rates, or improving European technological independence.
All that Agent Orange has done is created a window of opportunity for other countries or blocs to seize the moment. The Draghi report showed how badly Europe was lagging, and still there's not much sign of speedy, united, and effective policy responses to the challenges Draghi found.
>> simply "not being the USA"
This is the crux of Europe's problem. By slavishly following American policy, it has turned itself into a footrest. It is not that Europe cannot invent things - it can. But take the example of ASML. It bowed down to the USA to its detriment. What did it get in return? Sweet FA.
Meanwhile China is not playing the "we are not the USA" card. It is playing the "we are China" card, and it can deliver.
Europe could very easily chip away at parts of American dominance over technology. But it won't. I've been reading between the lines the responses to the tariffs all over Europe. They have a few things in common: it's not fair; we will fight hard to overturn them; it will be part of our trade negotiations. In other words, a load of limp wrist hand wringing. China's response: we will build our own.
Europe is going to be crushed. We are in the midst of a battle between two major powers. Europe is expendable to the USA. It's time it woke up.
You seem to be willfully ignoring the post-war consensus that paved the way for the rebuilding of Europe and, more or less, guaranteed peace that had had major wars every decade for over a hundred years. The aim was very much to bind economies together and make the military inferior and subservient to the American. And this has worked very well for all concerned, including America.
Capital structures and national borders make developing American style corporations that dominate the single market almost impossible, but smaller companies have been able to thrive by specialising and cooperating. We don't have America's energy resources and we don't have the same demography, so why should we ape them?
Back to the original point: for decades Europe's best scientists have been lured to America, not only by money but by the security and independence that tenure gives them, whereas in Europe universities do not have sufficient funds to offer them all permanent positions. Things have improved through European integration and the ability to pool cash for international research programmes – I'm part of one long-term study – but these pale in comparison with the funding available in America.
As for great power conflicts – Europe invented these – but the continent is uninteresting for both America and China.
You make a good case for the America of the past, B.T. But Krasnov is doing a good job of destroying American advantages quickly and destroying the Atlantic alliance, on behalf of his master Putin. Now Europe needs to put on its big boy pants and step up.
"Europe could very easily chip away at parts of American dominance over technology. But it won't. I've been reading between the lines the responses to the tariffs all over Europe. They have a few things in common: it's not fair; we will fight hard to overturn them; it will be part of our trade negotiations. In other words, a load of limp wrist hand wringing. China's response: we will build our own."
IMHO, Europe is looking towards a post-Trump era when being "friends" with the USA might be back on the cards. Not retaliating in kind to Trumps deranged policies is called "not burning your bridges". Trumps is doing a flaming good job of that all by himself.
lets idiots decide policy, just because they kiss their Dear Leader's ass on a daily basis
we have that Kallas woman who fits quite well that description. We had that Baerbock lunatic but she is no more in Europe now (was promoted to world leader). We have the greens who, at the same time, promote electric vehicles and shut down electric energy sources. We have Rutte and Stolenberg who ruin Europe to please the US deep state (North Stream anyone ?)
So unfortunately we have as many idiots – or more – deciding politics than anywhere else. I'd take a Vance over a von der Leyen any day.
Moldova is in Europe. Georgia (the E and I are pronounced, unlike in the US state) is, geographically, considered part of Asia. The Caucasus and Urals are considered the continental boundaries. But the mess in Georgia is sort of sad, as it could be a good country if it weren't being pressured so much by Russia. Likewise Moldova, and if the candidate who led in the first round of Romania's vote wins, he has territorial claims on Moldova, which again upset the EU applecart, along with his support for Putin and Trump.
This post has been deleted by its author
Actually, the point is that because the US provides such lavish funds for research, it has potentially has the ability to directly affect policy, as we're seeing now. This is something that Eisenhower warned about when the programme started.
But, in practice, in many countries there is political interference with universities because they are dependent upon state funding.
Gravity attracts money, too.
You see money stuck to the gravity well sometimes - coins, bills (sometimes bigger bills) - but how often do you see it flying through the atmosphere? Well, sometimes - but it always ends up stuck against the gravity well!
(I have no idea where I was going with this)
not constantly beeing afraid to get shot, anywhere.
If you have kids: They don't need a bullet proof backpack.
The cops in Europa not there "to get ya!".
If you are black you will enjoy the "invisibility", you won't feel under constant surveillence by "the authorities".
Cost of living is cheaper. You need half, quite often even only a third of the annual amount of money just for living.
Education ist (mostly) free, and when it is not free the costs are laughable.
20 to 30 days actual paid vacation. You are expected to be UNreachable when you are on vacation, the people and bosses respect that.
You are not expected to do overtime by default.
If you come to Europe you will see that this way of living will increase your efficiency. You manage to achieve more in less time.
As for above list: I did not make it, American who live in Europe make it. Tony of youtube channels out there say the same: Came here didn't regret, never want to return.
Hints they give: Don't try to get your household and car over. Too expensive, and as far as the car goes, many many US-brand cars are not legal in Europe for safety issues. There are specialized car-shops in each country to fix up your car to get it legal, but that might be expensive.
Special hint for Germany: Get your driver license the German way. If you are not experienced driving here, you are in for several shocks when it comes to "sticking to the rules". From my point of view we have too many which don't, but every American living here says "they stick to the rules, the traffic lights, the right lane rule. And if you forget the right lane rule for even a second, you will have a BMW at one inch distance at your rear bumper. Literally one second..." And hefty fines. Also watch the "Tom Hanks on German Autobahn" video :D - especially the part how it sounds to be overtaken be someone else.
The flight is well under way. The first wave will not be the US scientists (they may "consider", but will dither too long), but the many foreigners that the US institutions attracted with their ample funding and career opportunities. With funding withdrawn and not even a Green Card making you safe from deportation on spurious grounds, they are looking for safer pastures.
Working in UK academia, us incumbents are less pleased. While we support our colleagues in their plight, the situation isn't that rosy here either. The job market is already competitive, many positions are precarious (the postdoc stage extends ever longer into midlife) and academic salaries have gone down massively in real terms. Particularly in Blighty, the financial situation of universities is also deteriorating, and the government washes its hands off the situation. I wouldn't be surprised if many of those newly funded positions in the EU (if they really appear, and are not the usual re-badging of existing jobs) would be filled by immigrants from closer to home.
Obvious icon...
Well, in the UK we cut off our nose to spite our face, and everyone believed the Tories when they promised that British science and academia would still be richly rewarded post-Brexit. Well guess what, we didn't, did we? And then the immigration policies that the Tories so gleefully tightened up made it virtually impossible to get academics and scientists that have *gasp* *shock* *horror* a FAMILY! So... yeah, UK science and academia is in a funk, and slowly but inexorably moving towards the abyss.
And no, just because "in the thirties and forties we did wonders with pennies in our pockets" it does not mean that we'll be able to do that again, or *want* to for that matter. People would like a decent wage for their work and their efforts, not living in a single room in "Mrs Doubtfire's Boarding House" or whatnot.
The EU at least knows that they can score big by not only rescuing data (which they have been doing and continue to do), but by also offering science in the US a way out of the shit hole that Cheeto Trumpet is creating.
Just a definition reminder:
"The term has mainly been used by Trump supporters to discredit criticism of him, as a way of reframing the discussion by suggesting that his opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world."
See also ad hominem.
Really, Europe. Multiply that by ten. Twice.
50 billion euros. That would be a *good* science investment.
The thing about technology is: it's always the future. The more you have, the more advanced you are, the better the technology, quality of living, the more of a world-leader you are. Everything that you get from science, and everything that you invest into science, is about building you forward. Everyone else - will be running to stay where they are. That's what built the US, that's what got it so much momentum and so much advancement - until it stopped. Cut costs. Ship it abroad. Cut science that we 'don't like'.
500 million, thank you, it's a start. It's appreciated. Seriously, though: for Europe to exceed China, the United States, Russia, Israel - dump 50 billion euros into science. (Over ten years?) There's probably nothing else that will provide such a strong return. Spread it: biology, pharmacy, geology, astronomy, computation, particle physics, energy - there are so many fields that it seems like not enough, and every one of those fields will repay investment in spades. 50 billion is hardly a defense budget, but much of that science will feed into defense as well. (lasers - not energy weapons, but missile tracking and defense. Just one example of uncountably many.)
Even if you share the derived knowledge freely, the ones who do the work maintain such a grasp and understanding of the "best ways," the "what not to dos," the "tried that, it works, but this is better," that, as a science investor, you will be on top for as long as you keep doing it. It will pay for itself in reasonably short order for as long as you keep doing it.
*ALWAYS* bet on science and technology for investments. Then, always let corporations take that science and make processes more efficient (profitable), and mature them. Science creates the corporations, science trains the scientists (who often found businesses, or advance their processes), hones the technologists insight and intuition, creates the learned, and makes all of them into capable members of society considerably exceeding the world average.
Simply paying for the research isn't enough. It is only a good investment if the investor gets worthwhile returns on it. Europe already does vast amounts of world class research for generations, At a total level, public sector investment in research and innovation is near enough the same proportion of GDP as for the US, and the total GDP for Europe is about the same as the US. It's private sector investment where the problem is, with European companies investing less (all this is laid out in brutal and forensic clarity in the Draghi report).
The US has persistently demonstrated faster growth than Europe. That's down to less intrusive regulation, higher private investment, more effective use of innovation, better labour productivity, and lower energy costs. I suspect but can't prove that often the US and China have benefited more from science done in Europe than Europeans have.
The EU can throw as much as it can find at scientific research and see the same outcome, unless it can address the reasons for lower growth.
"The US has persistently demonstrated faster growth than Europe."
Yes, but let's not lose sight of some of the consequences of that growth:
Facebook, Xitter, fake food, unsafe Boeing aeroplanes, unsafe self-driving Teslas, world-leading obesity, the biggest national debt in world history (with the bubble still growing), the best politicians that money can buy, the right to bear arms that facilitate easy killing of other USians, etc, etc...
Not all growth is desirable.
<..........".....higher private investment, ................better labour productivity...."....>
Those two probably being the most significsnt differences between the USA and the EU/UK.
Higher private investment because there are higher returns - in the US companies appear to be allowed to shaft their customers so that they can pay bigger dividends to shareholdes than is the case in Europe where we have laws requiring companies to guarantee their products and services, and make servicing and repair/parts available for a reasonably long time - contrasted with the US where it often appears that companies are allowed to abandon their customers after a much shorter period, and even prevent them from extending the life of the product (added to which much of what is still produced in the US is of poorer quality and less repairable than products from elsewhere).
Better labour productivity (in purely financial terms) because US companies are not constrained by laws...
..requiring them to pay low end workers a wage that they can actually live on;
..not required to give them any more than very minimal time off,and often without pay;
..not required to make significant pension contributions on top of the employees pay;
..allow employers to demand long and abusively unhealthy working hours because they don't have their working hours constrained by regulations designed to preserve the health and welfare of workers;
.. the ability to hire and fire on a whim because, again, there are no labour laws to sufficiently control the abuse of such a system;
..and they don't appear to have to comply with the degree of health and safety provisions that covers employment in most of Europe.
In short, the USA is more productive to a great extent because it is allowed to exploit and abuse its workforce in ways which nations that have moved on beyond the attitudes of the 19th century no longer permit.
If achieving supposedly faster growth and better productivity means going backwards on workplace safety and workers pay and conditions, then I will take the slower growth thank you very much!
Check your sources, 'cause you included industrial and private financed research. And even then I'd love to see the source. And the 500 mill are on top of existing EU grants.
It is like you INSIST that this MS13 tattoo is not a photoshop (or rather pbrush) job.
"In 2022, the United States is estimated to have spent nearly $900 billion on research and development. EUR 500 million is less than the rounding error in that estimate."
Did you check that number? Or do you think €500m is the *total* science budget of the entire EU? Hint: It's a budget for a special program to attract more scientifictionism from the US in addition to the existing programmes and budget.
" "America will continue to attract and cultivate the best talent in science, research, and beyond.""
That's a laugh... suurrrre you will.
The truth is that top scientist are already being poached by institutions outside of the USA due to Crooked Trump's insane policies.
I'm in Canada.. and we are also starting to poach US scientists as well as US academics:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/yale-professor-moving-to-university-of-toronto-trump-administration-1.7494704
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/us-scientists-canada-1.7502527
The USA is going to experience a major brain drain in the coming years.
ideas are intangibles, like services. And the USA has a huge trade *surplus* of services in the trade figures, which would knock the tariff justifications on the head and show them to be made up figures. So no, he won't be going anywhere near that "idea" 'cos only Trump ever has good ideas.
Third stone from the Sun we need a piece of this rock. Our goal, indestructible intellect. United we stand. Boffins' gonna work it out!
Let's get one thing clear right off the bat: if anyone's gotta leave this town, it's not You (US). It's the Incubus Orange in Spray-On Fake Cheese, its DOGE brownshirt wankers with sofas shoved deeply up their butts, and the hole kennel court of loyalty asscrack-caliper comptrolled bentover chihuahuas. That's who.
Refuse to lose to those obscurantist professional wrestling wusses who couldn't string two thoughts together if their lives depended on it. Look, they talk big, real big, the biggest of all, and yet achieve nothing at all, zip, zilch, nada, nil, naught, bupkis, diddly-squat, bugger-all, a big fat adipose Orange goose egg. Their intimidation is as empty as the vacuum between their ears. Knock-knock ...
So, NO. The best trained, best educated, best equipped troops, cannot refuse to fight! 1989, the number, we're all in it together now ... trans woke first-nations climate change cybersecurity boffin migrant pet dog-and-cat voodoo BBQ tourist ... who's for-profit government is stealing this country's soul, right now?!?! That's the target. Fight that power.
This generation generates a new attitude, mental self defensive fitness ... Do the right thing, right here, right (about) now, imho!
This American generation is all about getting snatched off the street by men in sweat shirts and masks.
Don't you remember when this happened about six years ago, during Oregon protest/riots?
I mean look, 'Murrica is all about its guns, and that was all about being able to defend your property -- even from the government, who might come at you with a similar gun. These days the US government will come at you with bullet-proof vests, APC's, flashbangs, teams of trained militants (I'm actually in favor of SWAT - de-arm cops, call in SWAT), Stingrays, tasers, tear gas, tracking devices on your car and probably casually dropped into the side pocket of your backpack to track you and follow you to a dark alley--
Today's "resist the government" is no longer like yester-year's "resist the government," and the government - without a doubt - is encroaching far more into your life and decisions that was ever imagined a couple-hundred years ago (living alone, on a ranch? who cares what you do? Light that tree on fire and smoke it, who are we to say no? None of our business. Oh, but you downloaded..!)
Anyway, saying "This generation needs to rise up!" is like saying that the lab mice in the cage should fight back against their oppressors. The scale is profoundly unrealistic. Even voting, if you don't support the current system, you will not make it to the ballot. Notice how the presidential nominations have reached a low that is *SO* low that it's a 50/50 split trying to decide which candidate is least-worst. No one is even hoping for "good," it simply won't be offered. Choose the worst candidate that *might* not be worse than the other party, and that's the ballot nominee.
What are they to do? practically? How can this scenario be improved in a 75-year timeframe?
Isn't as much as you might think it is...Disney would only manage a crappy live action remake for that money.
...especially for scientific research...it's a bit of a limp dick effort on the part of the EU.
Perhaps the EU should start a multibillion dollar super hero franchise to raise more capital for science?
I'd go and watch "L'Avengers"...with Captain Belgium, Iron Mensch, Monsieur Araignée and El increíble Hulk...the suffering would be worth it...for science!
Maybe something a bit more classical.
Le magicien d'Oz ... a story where Dorothy leaves Belgium in search of le magicien d'Oz along with her friends Greece (who needs money), Germany (who needs a heart) and The Netherlands (who don't need to go but are just too nice and they're there for beersch and a good schmoke).
... aren't in their field for large sums of money, but to pursue an interest. Salaries/grants need to be sufficient to live at a reasonable level so food, housing and transportation aren't an issue. Having good facilities and access to machinery and research materials that are often locked up behind expensive paywalls is a big issue. Beyond that, being surrounded by other researchers is a comfort.
A prominent aerospace executive pointed out in an interview how important consistency of support is when he talked about US space programs. The constant starting and stopping of projects and outright crippling of funding going to agencies such as NASA sets back programs for many years as there's an inertia that gets interrupted and important people will disperse into the wind so restarting something like a manned lunar program winds up needing to begin again from scratch. Many people I know that have been at places such as JPL told me that if you can't get a project done in 4-8 years (1-2 Presidential terms), there's a high likelihood that it won't get done. Some people have spent careers working on successive projects with none ever being finished.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
