Yeah, I'll get a job instead, lol.
While I don't philosophically agree with the sentiment what someone making actual policy will tell you is that scientists are, in average, already being payed way more than the "value" they add to "the economy" in their lifetime. There doesn't seem to be a supply crunch for people wanting to pursue a career as a biomedical researcher and the field is highly competitive, as most people on it can tell you.
To change that, being completely blunt and with no nuance, I think three things can help:
- As a society scientists get "moved out of the market". They kinda already are "out of the market" if you think that most of the money they make comes from strategic government grants backed by monetary emission or by discretionary allocation by "illuminated" boards that are sitting on a stash of money that patents from a very small percentage of previous "science" makes.
- We low the barrier for someone to be able to do the "science" we need. Like with music production. A lot of people will be able to self-finance. This is happening with lab equipment but it will likely never happen with research trials and human experimentation.
- More money is thrown to whatever "science" we want in general. Like what happened with space exploration or AI.
I hope a little bit of the three keep on slowly happening and maybe eventually we will reach a breaking point where everyone has access to personalized cutting edge medicine/diet/exercise plans. I don't find it likely but I hope we make progress torwards that in my lifetime.
I bet that we will see some form of this. In some way we already do in the form of recreation drug users, body modification hobbiests, fetishists, and nutropics users.
Due to the way Academia is structured there simply aren't enough jobs, and the more senior people can get stuck just writing grant applications instead of doing actual science.
I'd massively expand the number of National Labs and research institutes so it isn't such a pyramid scheme - and allow budget for some sort of "scrum master" figure to deal with the non-science bureaucratic stuff.
Expanding the grants budget would also help make it less desperate so scientists can focus on doing science and not begging for funds.
Jerry Pournelle, the late science fiction author, mentioned on his own blog that there was a period of time as a psychology PhD student when he, too, lived on monkey chow. However, he did it out of poverty, not out of a spirit of scientific inquiry.
It was unbearable - we later discovered it's what they use to feed prisoners and some zoo animals.
Honestly, vegetables and legumes aren't much more expensive and vastly superior.
Bruh
If you shoot for 5 it might take six. If you shoot for 6 it will take 8. I know you can't read too much into such a short comment, but do some serious introspection. You're setting off like every alarm bell for someone that's about to get absolutely hosed by a doc program.
I'm all for doing serious introspection before (and during!) a PhD, but the comment is way too short to set off many alarm bells for me.
How about one could opt-in to be taxed in state so that money goes out to science. (Where I live there is a tax for a de-facto church if one belongs to that church)
Vote for science.
Earmarked taxes are exactly how we get funds favoring religion. Let your representative represent, but choose them wisely.
As an individual after I've voted, and I still want to contribute some of the earnings I've made, how do I go about that? Is it the best just to start political influencing. Why not directly give money to specific areas of science. Making science a little bit transparent to general public might give motivation for people spend some money that is not distributed similarly as tax payers.
Currently people are supporting e.g. musicians through patron-like systems, why not scientist. I think there could be a risk in that scientist would need to start wasting their time managing some kind of public display of what they do.
There definitely should be a really solid financing from tax only, and it would be horrible if a system was created to undermine that so that you would need public collection of money for projects. I'm not saying that.
The Royal Society funds basic research, and is funded by donations. It's been running since 1660.