World Science Scholars

3.5 Discussion

discussion Discussion
Note

Discussions are a place where registered users can click on Reply to share their ideas and questions that follow from the material we’re covering. All users can view the conversation and indicate their like or dislike for a specific comment.

Viewing 19 reply threads
    • Professor Ghez described the trouble she had early in her career getting the necessary institutional support to conduct an experiment that was seen as unlikely to work. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that her work has proved vital to the advancement of astrophysics. Do you think that scientific institutions should be doing more to support ‘moonshot’ work like this? If so, how?

    • its possible that it is a source for a new dimension and should be studied

    • We should be investing more in research of this kind as there is still so much we don’t understand about the cosmos.

    • E

    • I’m in favor of as much scientific research as possible although I know resources are limited and are allocated according to possible success or commercialization. It is sad to me how un-scientific our country has become, and how much anti-science is broadcast from the highest levels, and how so much future science seems to be moving out of our country.

    • In a recent article I read about the shape of the orbits of the stars that orbits around the super massive black hole and it says that the shape of those orbits is more like “Rosetta” rather than elliptic so is this the black hole that affects or changes the shape of orbits and it also says in that this orbit shift is also predicted by Einstein in his general theory of relativity.

    • Yes, i agree that the investment in this field would be more beneficial for the upcoming research and development in science. Also, women must not be overlooked from such opportunities simply for their gender.

    • Yes I think they should be encouraged as no one knows what surprise is waiting for us to discover it

    • Scientific institutions may not take the risk of lending their resources for such “moonshots” due to lack of funding. What we should do is raise the amount of funds for scientific research. The main reason why anti-scientific or mythological things attract people is that they are presented in a more attractive and understandable way. I think many scientific communities lack that. Large scale science communities should spend some time to attract the general public towards their works.

      For an example imagine collecting funds from people all over the world for a project like the LHC at the first place. Who will want to spend their money to smash electrons or protons that would help scientists confirm the existence of Higgs Boson, which makes no sense to them. Instead of that what if the researchers educate the younger generation about the project and introduce some citizen science projects or workshops for them. Their parents will spend some amount on that, won’t they?

      Video game creators, movie creators, and those who promote anti-science ideas earn all their money from the general public. So why don’t the science communities too get the help from the general public. We have a population of 7.8 billion. A single dollar from half of that will add to a few billion dollars.

    • Yes, I do believe that there are a lot of institutes which can help and should help… and it makes that much more marvelous when it’s somehow done by a woman…

    • Yes, I do believe that there are a lot of institutes which can help and should help… and it makes that much more marvelous when it’s somehow done by a woman…

    • I second the opinion of Arth. So I’m gonna quote Professor Vincent Racaniello: Why do we study flies and worms? Because you never know what’s going to happen.
      So moonshot studies should be considered too, along other lines of research

    • Andrea Ghez’s “moonshot” has proved to be a success story; in science research, there will be a quite number of fails per each success, and because financial resources are limited and finite, the research committees must exist to apply those limited funds to the large numbre of scientific projects … don’t put the blame on such committees, assuming that they assign the funds to the projects in an arms’ lenght terms, their job is necessary and, sometimes, potential success “moonshots” will be missed. Instead of that, let’s use our infinite imagination to find out the ways to increase the research funds out of the public admnistration: let’s motivate/educate the people of this World to consider science as the key to improve as a global society and let’s the private initiatives start working together with the public administrations. We have a couple of examples: the World Science University and the research done to fight the Covid-19

    • Yes they should have more faith in upcoming astrophysicists, and be more willing to give them a hands on opportunity to try their theories.
      Sandokan Sahara-Khan

    • Yes, the relative proportion of blue skies university research should be protected, and relative research outputs for blue skies and more applied research compared and contrasted.

    • Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

      Research and research funding are required to advance science. Not all regimes have this as a priority, but it is a good priority.

      More funding for science can lead to more breakthroughs.

    • However, the Scientific institutions and the Governments can verify and discuss and examine the proposal as many times as required when a brand new and challenging proposal comes before them, instead out rightly rejecting it. They can constitute a special committee only to ensure not to reject a meaningful proposal. As is evident from the history of any science, any proposition / hypothesis first is ridiculed, then theoretized and finally becomes part of every day life. Professor Ghez’s work and her narration of the real story is thrilling and inspiring enough to make next generations to plunge into action.

    • Yes, they should. “How” is a totally different ballgame. Science like almost everything else is highly political. My suggestion is to get the politics out of it (probably impossible) and look at everything with a fresh eye. Since this isn’t likely to happen, I don’t see a way foreward. Veru sad.

    • There was an era with Vannavar Bush and the USA National Science Foundation.

      How that worked was by allowing military hand-me-downs into the Astronomy sector.

      How to make that possible again could redirect military efforts to space, not to Nobel disapproved war.

      So, we allow nuclear science to build a research nuclear reactor on the ISS.

      We allow nuclear space propulsion currently in moratorium.

      This ends the destruction of Canadian Atomic energy nuclear research by terror groups and allows international progress on nuclear star power in the radiation zone it originated it.

      And this updates nuclear and cosmic ray shielding for astronauts that currently concern MIT Prof. Jeffrey.

      The shielding is copper beryllium and boron sulfide clothing for cosmic rays, mostly protons.

      Two bird, one stone, but Nobels may contend this leeway.

      🙂🍵☕🍵🍵

      Attachments:
      You must be logged in to view attached files.
    • Absolutely, scientific institutions should be more proactive in supporting ‘moonshot’ work like Professor Ghez’s early experiment. These high-risk, high-reward endeavors often pave the way for groundbreaking discoveries in science. To facilitate such projects, institutions should establish dedicated funding mechanisms, fostering a culture that encourages risk-taking and learning from failure. Collaboration with industry, philanthropy, and government agencies can also enhance resources and share the risks associated with ambitious research initiatives. By embracing and supporting unconventional ideas, institutions contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge and innovation, ultimately benefiting the broader scientific community and society at large. It’s crucial to emphasize that the outcome of these moonshot endeavors matters less than the process itself. Whether the results align with predictions or not, the insights gained contribute to our understanding, guiding future inquiries and pushing the boundaries of scientific discovery.

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend