From: Entropyfoe@aol.com
Date: Fri May 17 2002 - 19:45:52 MDT
Robert wrote that "If you spend too much money before you have those things
lined up much of it is simply wasted."
If the things are not ready, the funds will be used to do the necessary
preliminaries. Certainly, the government putting out money for grants, will
stimulate grant writing activity.
And the government is not the only means of kick-starting nanoindustry. IBM
is putting money in and other private ventures are gathering investors.
Yes, determining an optimum is difficult. If we err on the side of more, and
tolerate some 'waste' [which is really technology risk taking, not all ideas
make it to production] we increase the chance of success. Under-spending is
just a delay.
Of course it is a matter of priorities...
-Jay
In a message dated 5/17/2002 8:14:19 AM Central Daylight Time,
bradbury@aeiveos.com writes:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > At 12:34 AM 5/17/02 -0700, Gina fwds:
> >
> > >"......would increase nanotechnology spending at NSF in
> > >2003 from Bush's request of $221 million to $238 million. (SmallTimes
> > >5/14/02)
> > >http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=3750
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> > Wow, Far Sighted Congress plans token 7.7% funding increase to Invest in
> > America's Future! Don't spend it all at once, guys!
>
> Actually Damien, this is a case of "you can't push on a string".
> The same situation arose when America decided to get serious
> about HIV.
> To do technical research on a "new" topic you have to train people,
> build labs, write grants, develop instruments, etc. If you spend
> too much money before you have those things lined up much of it
> is simply wasted.
> How to determine the optimal level of spending is very difficult however.
> Robert
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:10 MST