Yes, such unpredictable paths occur all the time. For example, Alan Cormack
won the 1979 Nobel prize in physiology for his work which underpins computer
reconstruction of CAT scans and MRI. Cormack's original purpose had nothing
to do with physiology; rather, his purpose was to analyze data from
Anecdotal evidence abounds to show that basic research selected and funded
by the Federal government has produced enormous benefits. For example, at
the Department of Energy, papers have been prepared over the years to
present this evidence, and the compiled papers are now available via the
web.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 05:16:11PM -0700, john hull wrote:
> The economic benefits of this separation [between Applied and Basic
> researchers] outweighs the cost of paying for basic research.
How is this separation a benefit at all?
Not separating them will mean that they can better cooperate wit
> From: Warnick, Walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"In the natural sciences, basic research at
universities tends to be funded by the Federal
government... Basic research funded by corporations
is very small."
Which hits on my original remark: if we have two types
of scientists, Basic & Applied, and if b
In a message dated 10/15/02 11:54:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< While there is a lot of nutty stuff in academia >>
Does that mean there are many nutty professors? I thought there were only
two--Jerry Lewis and Eddie Murphy. :) If there are many, how could we model
the market for them
Fears that some incident or other will trigger a
global crash have cropped up off and on for many years--such as the Asian
currency devaluations or Greenspan's emergency bailout of that big hedge fund
some years back. Are these fears more or less groundless, or is the world
economy really s
- Original Message -
From: Warnick, Walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In the natural sciences, basic research at universities tends to be funded
> by the Federal government. > Basic research funded by corporations is
very small. >
> Walt Warnick
This has always been my impression. I suppose
> friend had a paper go three rounds at AER and that took 3 years. I
> wouldn't be surprised if a lot of bad papers get rejected quickly and
> that would bring down the average turn around time a lot.
That is indeed the case. Journals get many papers of low quality, and it's
easy to reject the b
OK, but I've never had a paper turned around in less than 6 months (and
often it has taken up to a year) at any journal except the QJE. Also,
you can't divide time to publish by 3 since most of the time there is
only 1 revise and resubmit and in my experience more papers are accepted
on the first
In the natural sciences, basic research at universities tends to be funded
by the Federal government. The funds come through grants from a number of
agencies, the largest funders being the National Institutes of Health, the
National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy.
Much basic re
10 matches
Mail list logo
