Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
If both were equal I'd say cut arts funding. My justification being that science has more chance of bringing about solutions for climate change and cancer than the arts does, which is ultimately more beneficial to humanity.
But yeah, depends on current levels, how effectively the money's been spent etc.
but entering hypothetical land, i reckon we should run with "we've been living in a prosperous time where both are receiving just the amount that they need to get by, and we're heading into a recession and need to cut back"
there are so many ridiculous scientific studies funded by the government that have basically no use at all, and are a complete waste of money. On the other hand, there are many ridiculous art projects/bad writers/plays etc etc.
Basically stop funding all that bad stuff.
Cause a lot of it gets made into weapons rather than medicine.
That having been said, ther is some SHIT art out there, plus it shouldnt be up to the gov to decide who gets to show artwork.
i think you get more direct results from arts funding - the majority of pounds spent on arts yield a result. give a theatre company £500 (a guess) and they'll give you a production
give a scientist £5,000,000 (another guess) towards cancer research, and its unlikely that you're actually buying a cure.
obviously a cure for cancer is 99.999999999% likely to be much more important than any play
on the other hand, you can't run a lab without money for chemicals and equipment, but daniel johnston can make incredible tracks with equipment that you could get for about £20.
Surely for that amount, he can fund himself, cheap git.
btw did you ever get going on that chairman mao remix???
Which reminds me, I should really get on and finish it.
For a hint to what it may (or may not) sound like, I actually made a wiki e.p, http://www.mediafire.com/?engjemdbybx
thinking about it (just replace £20 with any reasonable figure).
Art will proliferate with or without government funding. Science, I imagine, less so.
i'd say overall cut arts funding. the arts that i care about most (indie music) dont get funding - just gets shit from licencing laws and stuff
a large amount goes to weapons and high tech electronics research rather than to things that will generally help people.
don't help people.....?
let's discuss this
bionic moths. these people are EVIL.
and its not a disagreement with the principle or anything.
Most of the weapons research is done by Arms companies like BAE et al. Theyre funded via the MOD, rather than through grants, though the EPSRC (an engineering research council) still contributes a fair penny to it.
I'm an artsy rather than a science person, but science is just more important. Also, if all arts funding was private that wouldn't be a disaster, whereas it's important to have public funding for scientific research so it can be steered in a beneficial direction.
how do we as the public get to steer science in a beneficial direction? dont make me be creaky.
but public money can fund research that might not be profitable for private companies to pursue. At universities, for example.
most university science departments are able to run as they do through sponsorship by private companies, and this can be seen in the way it is distributed amongst different areas of research. public money alone wouldn't let them do very much.
indeed we should probably remove all public funding from university science courses for the little good it does; they would carry on regardless because private companies will pay for them.
on the other hand we see that arts courses are underfunded, aren't sponsored by private companies and so the government sees them as a loss, and puts little money into them.
doesn't make a lot of sense really.
they will be more likely to research that which is profitable rather than that which is most beneficial, right? So, public funding prevents scintific research from being purely driven by the profit motive. I think I remember hearing that about half of all rsearch is publicly funded, although that could be rubbish.
I did an arts course at uni. I have no complaints if the philosophy department gets less money then the Biology department - the latter clearly has more potential for contributing to the public good AFAIC.
is steering departments in profitable directions. do you think public or private funding has more influence on what gets taught? i'm not saying all of this funding is bad, but even when beneficial, for instance in medicine, you can be sure that a lot of companies have a fairly strong hold over new discoveries made using their money. anything they can patent they will.
you're right that it should be a major concern. i wouldn't have a problem with science funding if new discoveries were somehow publicly owned, but when money is poured in by multinational medicine companies so that they can use our places of learning to find new drugs, somethings going a bit wrong.
my major objection boils down to the fact that public funding follows private funding. universities try to make their science departments more attractive to private investment contracts by pushing money in their directions. this money is taken away from less lucrative areas of learning, and allows the companies a huge influence over the areas of learning.
like an argument for more public science funding, not less.
but the point i was making up above was that we've already gone too far in the direction of private, and so more public spending probably wouldnt have much effect, so it would be better to give it to arts/humanities because they recieve no private, and less public due to universities pushing money into sciences to inspire contracts.
the furtherance of corporate profits.
i believe i said arts/humanities. of course there's commercialism. but also the opportunity for beauty. just as in the sciences there is opportunity for helping people, or the opportunity to make profits from creating drugs that keep people alive slightly longer rather than creating ones to cure them, and the opportunity to help people through technology rather than creating new weapons. as it is, i suspect most corporate funding of science departments isn't that altruistic. i just wish the funding situation in universities wasn't quite so unfair on those who don't want to work in the sciences.
by developing drugs that work, which is a good thing for us, surely? It's a shame most companies would rather develop drugs for wealthy westerners than retovirals for poor africans, but that's better than nothing right? I know I won't be complaining if a private company makes a killing by finding a cure for parkinsons, which runs in my family.
but surely less public money would mean more private influence, which I don't really want. Don't get me wrong, I think the private sector is really important for science, but they can't be expected to fund unprofitable research for the good of humanity - they aren't all charities.
advances in science are expensive but progressive art doesn't need to be
redirect money from the sciences back to basic english.
Tony Blair is a liar. I have dreadlocks, and a dog on a string.
without science we are fucked
that tried to give you that ultimatum of a choice.....phrasing it like that is a cop out by the person (if its someone wh can make the spending or influence it) so they can try to make something unpopular seem like it is an inevitablity, so that the unpopular decision was actually made by the public........its the sort of question that should not be indulged......anywhere as it enables any governing body to pick up the result and use it as a justification........of course choices arnt just arts or science, they're presenting it that way.....why not arts or science or sport or beurocracy or management consultants or survey information drives? or any other white elephant proijects that the public might rather sacrifice before either science or arts
Because if they cut art funding, I'd lose out.
I believe it is more critical to our well-being (I am principally thinking of medical research).
And I am paid by the MRC.