Theme: Institution

  • Data check: U.S. government share of basic research funding falls below 50% By J

    Data check: U.S. government share of basic research funding falls below 50%

    By Jeffrey Mervis

    For the first time in the post–World War II era, the federal government no longer funds a majority of the basic research carried out in the United States. Data from ongoing surveys by the National Science Foundation (NSF) show that federal agencies provided only 44% of the $86 billion spent on basic research in 2015. The federal share, which topped 70% throughout the 1960s and ’70s, stood at 61% as recently as 2004 before falling below 50% in 2013.

    The sharp drop in recent years is the result of two contrasting trends—a flattening of federal spending on basic research over the past decade and a significant rise in corporate funding of fundamental science since 2012. The first is a familiar story to most academic scientists, who face stiffening competition for federal grants.

    But the second trend will probably surprise them. It certainly flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which paints U.S. companies as so focused on short-term profits that they have all but abandoned the pursuit of fundamental knowledge, an endeavor that may take decades to pay off. (This month, for example, Duke University’s Center for Innovation Policy will hold a conference entitled “The Decline in Corporate Research: Should We Worry?”)

    NSF defines basic research as “activity aimed at acquiring new knowledge or understanding without specific immediate commercial application or use.” In contrast, it says applied research is “aimed at solving a specific problem or meeting a specific commercial objective.”

    The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is the major driver behind the recent jump in corporate basic research, according to NSF’s annual Business Research and Development and Innovation Survey (BRDIS), which tracks the research activities of 46,000 companies. Drug company investment in basic research soared from $3 billion in 2008 to $8.1 billion in 2014, according to the most recent NSF data by business sector. Spending on basic research by all U.S. businesses nearly doubled over that same period, from $13.9 billion to $24.5 billion.

    Basic research comprises only about one-sixth of the country’s spending on all types of R&D, which totaled $499 billion in 2015. Applied makes up another one-sixth, whereas the majority, some $316 billion, is development. Almost all of that is funded by industry and done inhouse, as companies try to convert basic research into new drugs, products, and technologies that they hope will generate profits. (The pharmaceutical and biotech industry, for example, spent a total of $102 billion on research and development in 2015, according to Research!America, an Arlington, Virginia–based advocacy group.)

    Those private sector efforts are now the dominant form of research activity in the United States, with business spending $3 on research for every $1 invested by the U.S. government. In the 1960s the federal government outspent industry by a two-to-one margin, but the balance tipped in 1980.

    Although eye-opening, the NSF business data are not as definitive as agency officials might like. About 30% of the companies that receive the BRDIS don’t respond; in comparison, nearly every university fills out NSF’s survey on research in higher education. And even companies that do return the business survey often ignore the question asking them to divide the company’s overall research investment into basic and applied pots, notes John Jankowski, head of R&D statistics within NSF’s National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics in Arlington.

    The NSF data capture another notable trend: a slow but steady rise in spending on basic research by universities and private foundations. Their combined $22 billion investment in 2015 represents a 25% share of the U.S. total, up from 21% in 2010 and 17% in 1995.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 09:42:00 UTC

  • It’s just a power play to continue to redistribute your share of state income, y

    It’s just a power play to continue to redistribute your share of state income, your reproduction, your inherited institutions, and your civilization to others.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 01:15:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256029472387719169

    Reply addressees: @ASmohk

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256023982874206214

  • The difference is that if those men chose to be other than protesting the power

    The difference is that if those men chose to be other than protesting the power would be out, central dispatch would be off line, the water pressure missing, and everything on fire.

    Children protest. Teens rebel. Men war.
    And cities are sitting ducks.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 00:11:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256013359692070912

    Reply addressees: @itsJeffTiedrich

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255964116138721288

  • OUR THREE SACRED FAITHS Western Civilization and Our Trifunctionalism. Our Three

    OUR THREE SACRED FAITHS

    Western Civilization and Our Trifunctionalism.

    Our Three Sacred Faiths:

    1) The MILITIA of every able bodied man – we are an army,

    2) The LAW, our jury, and our rights – we are unruled because we tolerate only rule of law

    3) Our RELIGION whether Christian (familial), Pagan (martial and historical) or heathen (ancestors and nature).

    No man, no organization, no state, no enemy, may violate these faiths.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-30 16:56:00 UTC

  • “Can you describe the difference between P and Bakunin anarchy. Just reading som

    —“Can you describe the difference between P and Bakunin anarchy. Just reading something and the description seemed very similar to P but seems to simply lack the formalism around reciprocity.—-

    P is a method.

    I use the P-method to explain all group strategies, religions, political systems, and moral intuitions.

    I use P to recommend the optimum political system that has ever been formed – rule of law by natural law.

    I dunno why you would pick Bakunin. This is Bakunin’s fantasy:

    –“The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual.”–Bakunin

    What is true instead?

    Man desires consumption, consumption is increased by opportunity, and opportunity is increased by liberty, but so is irresponsibility. And so is free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, immigration, conversion, conquest, and genocide.

    The state evolved to incrementally suppress local parasitism decreasing local transaction costs, in exchange for paying taxes to pay the cost of decreasing local transaction costs. This made markets possible where only primitive trade previously existed.

    Man is amoral by nature, and pragmatic. By the institution of parenting, acculturation, indoctrination, training, laws, restitution, punishment, and prevention we invest in his domestication.

    Man develops theology, philosophy, ideologies, rationalizations, myths, fantasies, and various other forms of frauds, to attempt to obscure and justify his free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime.

    In order to produce the suppression of free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime, requires a power law of institutions of prevention, investigation, dispute resolution, prosecution, restitution, punishment and prevention.

    In order to produce a market requires a pareto distribution of assets, so that the organization of networks in an market can produce a complex division of labor and its returns without which the terms freedom and liberty have no meaning.

    In order to produce a society that tolerates market competition and the suppression of free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime, requires the resulting distribution of rewards satisfy a marginal nash equilibrium.

    Given three possible means of coercion: force-defense (Military-police, government), trade-boycott(commerce-law), and advocacy+insurance-undermining+ostracization(social,education,religion), elites will combine to use and misuse these skills in a competition.

    Given that Man varies greatly from barely human to superhuman in physical, social, and intellectual ability, and sexual, social, economic, political, and military value, and given the power, pareto, and nash necessities of distributions, man will sort by value to others by his value in those markets – producing networks of competing and overlapping hierarchies that we call sexual, social, economic, and political class.

    As such, rule of law and the independent judiciary provide a market for the suppression of not only individuals and groups of individuals, but elites in all three dimensions of elites, such that sovereignty, liberty and freedom are maintained DESPITE the presence of necessary hierarchies.

    So I consider bakunin like all other idiots as immature, adolescent, vain and ignorant consequences of the industrial revolution and the disregard for the hierarchies in elites of all resulted, and the that these vain, ignorant, immature, adolescent minds gave fertile soil for the false promise of pseudosciences and sophisms of the anti european sense making, and anti-european marxism, neo-marxism, neo-conservatism, libertarianism, postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denial of the foundations of western civlization: that we used markets in everything to defeat regression to the mean by suppressing the reproduction of those that lacked ability to compete in the markets in the service of others.

    In other words, I view these well meaning fools as useful idiots in the destruction of western civlization.

    Which is how I pretty much view everyone. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-27 22:07:00 UTC

  • WE ARE TRYING TO ARTICULATE “NATIONAL COMMONS-ISM” by Luke Weinhagen I have a su

    WE ARE TRYING TO ARTICULATE “NATIONAL COMMONS-ISM”

    by Luke Weinhagen

    I have a suspicion that what many are grasping at within NatSoc is not a socialization of the economy but rather a commonization (not communization) of the government.

    This is what the west was aimed at solving but without full-accounting under P’s complete description of property, government became just another marketable commodity under globalist capitalism.

    What we are really trying to articulate is a form of National Commonsism.

    The resistance to “socializing” any part of our civic under our current model of “governance as commodity” is it effectively means selling whatever was socialized to big interest and international agents. There is no trust.

    National Commonsism == Kinship Capitalism == reciprocity protected by full-accounting



    CD: Always count on luke for genius.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-27 10:53:00 UTC

  • RT @hbdchick: the moral story of the various pandemic reactions we’re seeing is

    RT @hbdchick: the moral story of the various pandemic reactions we’re seeing is (i think, maybe) my favorite: the differences between parti…


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-27 02:25:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254597617918644224

  • THE SECULARIZATION DEBATE Read this: And This Philip S. Gorski (2000) “Historici

    THE SECULARIZATION DEBATE

    Read this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularization

    And This

    Philip S. Gorski (2000) “Historicizing the Secularization Debate: Church, State, and Society in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ca. 1300 to 1700” American Sociological Review (65:1) Special Issue: “Looking Forward, Looking Back: Continuity and Change at the Turn of the Millenium” pp. 138-167 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657295

    The Disciplinary Revolution

    In his 2003 book, The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early Modern Europe,[5] Gorski offers a new explanation for the rise of a strong, centralized nation-state in certain areas of Europe in early Modernity, when other areas were not as successful.[citation needed] Gorski rejects[citation needed] two of the dominant explanations, which are the bellicist explanation, which sees military growth as key to the emergence of strong states, and the neo-Marxist explanation, which sees economic factors as key to the explanation. Instead, Gorski points to the strong influence of religion in the formation of strong states. Specifically, Gorski sees Calvinism as crucial to the emergence of the Netherlands and Prussia as strong, centralized states, because of its emphasis on discipline and public order. The effects of Calvinism could be seen in crime rates, in education, in military effectiveness, in financial responsibility, and many other parts of Dutch and Prussian social life, all of which increased their ability to form bureaucratic states.[citation needed] Where in the Netherlands the effect of Calvinism was from the ground upwards, as most of its population was indeed Calvinist, in Prussia—where most of the population was Lutheran and only the royal house was Calvinist—the effect was from the rulers downwards (to some extent through the Pietist Lutheran movement, which was influenced by Calvinism).[citation needed]


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-26 09:37:00 UTC

  • RELIGION AND THE SECTS Religion combines wisdom literature, rituals, and social

    RELIGION AND THE SECTS

    Religion combines wisdom literature, rituals, and social assembly to create personal, interpersonal, social, and political mindfulness with of a system of intuitive, coherent measurement, that relieves the pre-consious brain of stress about status, conflict, and uncertainty. We gain the elation of the primitive animal running with, hunting, feasting, resting, and safety within the pack (herd). Narratives (stories) using archetypes (expressions of instincts) are the most imprecise but universal and easily understood system of measurement.

    Christianity works. Religion works. Institutions, traditions, laws, and norms work. For the same reason: error elimination on one hand, and norm creation on the other, together which reduce cognitive load, which reduce stress, which maintains self image, which maintains status in interacting with others.

    Of the christian sects it appears that we find the best of something in each group. In evangelical protestantism we find the closest to Jesus’ teachings. In orthodoxy we find the preservation of tradition, and nationalism. In Catholicism we find an attempt at an intellectual and philosophical expansion of the underlying theology. In secular christianity we find the completion of the christian evolution into the via negativa natural law AND via positiva christian love.

    I can quite easily explain what we find as failing in each of those traditions – most of which result in (a) universalism (b) failure to accommodate the fundamental, ritualistic-traditional, phiosophical-moral, and scientific spectrum – and worse, a failure to integrate and retain our martial gods and their teachings – that saved us in the real world when christianity failed.

    I admit when I’m wrong all the time. I make many mistakes (irrelevant) but I err (relevant) very infrequently. Not because I am special but because the P-method makes it very, very, difficult to err.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 20:59:00 UTC

  • OATH (n.) Old English að “oath, judicial swearing, solemn appeal to deity in wit

    OATH (n.)

    Old English að “oath, judicial swearing, solemn appeal to deity in witness of truth or a promise,” from Proto-Germanic *aithaz (source also of Old Norse eiðr, Swedish ed, Old Saxon, Old Frisian eth, Middle Dutch eet, Dutch eed, German eid, Gothic aiþs “oath”), from PIE *oi-to- “an oath” (source also of Old Irish oeth “oath”). Common to Celtic and Germanic, possibly a loan-word from one to the other, but the history is obscure.

    SALIC LAW (/ˈsælᵻk/ or /ˈseɪlᵻk/; Latin: Lex Salica), or Salian Law, was the ancient Salian Frankish civil law code compiled around AD 500 by the first Frankish King, Clovis. Recorded in Latin and in what Dutch linguists describe as one of the earliest known records of Old Dutch. it would remain the basis of Frankish law throughout the early Medieval period, influencing future European legal syste… See More

    COMMON LAW (n.)

    mid-14c., “the customary and unwritten laws of England as embodied in commentaries and old cases” (see common (adj.)), as opposed to statute law. Phrase common law marriage is attested from 1909.

    TESTIFY (v.)

    late 14c., “give legal testimony, affirm the truth of, bear witness to;” of things, c. 1400, “serve as evidence of,” from Anglo-French testifier, from Latin testificari “bear witness, show, demonstrate,” also “call to witness,” from testis “a witness” (see testament) + root of facere “to make” (see factitious). Biblical sense of “openly profess one’s faith and devotion” is attested from 1520s. Related: Testified; testifying; testification.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 12:22:00 UTC