What would you do given the following choice?
- You have two telescopes that between them deliver more science than any other observatory in the world. You can cut the funding for one of them but the cost of the remaining telescope increases so it costs the same as running both together. The result is less science but the amount of money spent doesn't change. Science becomes more expensive.
- You have two telescopes that between them deliver more science than anyone else in the world. You can keep both telescopes running until a cut-off date sometime in the future. It costs the same as running only one of them, but the science is doubled (actually, tripled going by current publication rates).
I'm curious if anyone else comes up with the same decision as the UK STFC, which is to adopt option 1.
6 comments:
I think this image says everything that needs to be said...
http://www.plognark.com/Art/Sketches/Blogsketches/2008/thestupiditburns.jpg
Sigh. Why do we keep putting willfully obtuse people in charge of stuff?
I just blabbed on in the comments section of the last post so I'll leave my lecture on stupid governments out here, but you know I think all of this is just crazy.
Aloha Tom,
These are the same "Number Munchers" that have the bright idea that cutting art & music from education is a bright idea! They have no imagination beyond dollars & cents!
I hope that common sense wins the day and the "Bean Counters" are put in their place.
Mahalo for your hard work!
Chappy
If you google "stfc spending", this blog post is the first hit...
Ha. I should think so too.
P.
This nothing short of stupidity. World-class facilities, operated by dedicated specialists in some of the world's finest astronomical conditions are priceless resources.
If they truly can't afford to keep UKIRT and JCMT operating, it would make far more sense to mothball them and maintain them with skeleton staff until some other funding can be worked out.
Post a Comment