What are we debating? Science is a huge ass field. Astrophysics? Big bang theory? Evolution? Nuclear power vs. other rnewables? The environment? All of these come down to science on some level.

Sorry, was typing my what do we debate while you were typing your suggestions.

2) Many people from developing countries are now entering academia in western countries. Is this a good development? Is it a mechanism to select the best and brightest, do we set double standards?
3) How far have we advanced the great sciences / disciplines related to sciences such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. How much remains to be done? Is it true that every question opens new questions, or are we getting to some definitive goal?
Discuss

No problem. You can pick any one of these, or all of them, depending how much time you have. Or take a fourth.

I thought the Nobel Prize is always awarded for old research. I mean, Einstein only got it in 1921

It is, but it may say something about the state of science in 1921 that Einstein's discoveries in (1905?) were rewarded.

The idea of the Nobel is to recognize discoveries that have withstood the test of time. In the past, a lot of Nobel-winning research was discredited after receiving the award, like in 1926 when the Nobel in Medicine went to a researcher who "discovered" a parasite that cured cancer. Good science stands up over time, and the Nobel serves to recognize that.

Generally, the Nobel prize is for groundbreaking but established/proven/confirmed research where there is no doubt as to it's veracity *and* when it has had some real world impact. This year's was for gene therapy research that one of the recipients was actually receiving and passed just the weekend before it was announced. I knwo there is some controversy as to whether he'll get it posthumously, but they had selected him when he was still alive (I doubt they picked the recipient's the morning they gave it out) so they can do it and not break their own rules.

How about the State of Science today? Are the Nobel Prizes that were awarded actually bringing us to a defined point? What are the limits of genetic research? Can we just scan a foetus' genetic code in the future and predict what he'll look like, whether he prefers ketchup to garlic sauce and what diseases he risks?

my dads a nobel laureate so i guess i should weigh in

I'm excited to see a new person start a science thread.

I think these are all good questions, although I'm not convinced they're worthy of a full debate.

1) As people have said, it is not uncommon for the Nobel Prize to be awarded well after the discovery. In fact, it's the norm. it takes time to determine whether or not a discovery is worthy of the Prize and if it's taking longer than it used to, I think that's indicative of discoveries becoming harder to verify, not that there are fewer of them.

2) The more scientists the better is my belief. People from different parts of the world have different ways of thinking and may approach a problem from a new perspective. That is never a bad thing. I'm not aware of the double standards you're referring to.

3) The last 100 years have been very interesting for science. One of the most interesting in history, imho. Quantum Mechanics, Flight, Transistor, Internet, the list goes on and on.

Every door we open opens several more. Why is QM probabilistic? What is mass? What is gravity? String Theory leaves more questions unanswered than answered. Our work is never done.

Certainly in the UK experimental science is very much on the decline. This goes all the way from adolescents in school, up through university and, to some extent, post-grads too. I am not sure how internationally widespread this problem is.

@Thucy no that means your dad should weigh in.
@abgemacht of course you are free to drop those subjects you don't think are worthy of a debate and I am happy to hear your voice on those you do think worthy (what's your background?)
@fullhamish I'll come back to that.

I don't think experimental science taking a back seat is a huge problem. Things are more complicated and, quite frankly, a lot of experimental work involves luck/accidents. That's not a good way to do science. Computational Modeling is becoming more important in science, which is good. It's cheaper than experiments and requires a higher level of understanding of the fundamentals.

That isn't to say experiments aren't critically important; they are. But, we are in a new age with new problems and new tools and need to act accordingly

@abgemacht

Perhaps worthy was the wrong word. I just meant I didn't expect a wide variety of answers to your questions.

I'm getting a Masters in Electrical Engineering. My research focuses on computational nanoelectronics.

From a laymans perspective, experimental science in the US seems to be (purely what appearances are, not necessarily what reality is) anyhow, it seems to be focused on the biomedical field of research. New drugs and treatment therapies, looking for that magic blocker/inhibitor or some new magic bullet to fight a disease or regrow damaged tissue via cloning. As I said, that is purely from the lay person's perspective. Now, I know of new experimental research in the fields of computing that involve chemical and/or crystal storage that may yield results in the next 5, 10 or 20 years, but it is small incomparison to the medical research.

LOL

@ *redhouse*

@abgemacht
what do you think about these problems in science? One thing that has always fascinated me is the calculation of Arrhenius' frequency factor (sorry for the detail) in chemistry, that seems not at all accessible by any models I know of.

I'll admit I'm only familiar with Arrhenius from wikipedia. What exactly is the problem with solving that equation? It seems rather straight forward.

"in science" = "in chemistry"

And, what is your background, since I told you mine : )

ok i asked him what he thought and he said:

"its ok i guess."

then i said

"ok thanks dad"

and next he said

"no problem anytime son. want to go get some pizza."

I said no, im not hungry. He said he was going to get some himself at any rate. Thats where he is now.

Ow the equation is straight forward, but you seem to need experiments to get the numerical data for "A". But that is distracting, we can open a new thread on the value of the Arrhenius value.
Is your question correct? Do more computations not also invite more experiments?

LOL! Thucy, you slay me!

Oh, I see, you're talking about the factor β. Well, rarely are models made a priori (mine are : )). I see no problem with using experimental results to assist with modeling. At some point, I would have to imagine, someone will understand what β really is.

I'm doing a PhD vaguely related to polymer chemistry.

' Abge-
''Computational Modeling is becoming more important in science, which is good. It's cheaper than experiments and requires a higher level of understanding of the fundamentals.''

All computational models, that I know of, require ''real world'' data inputs. These are derived directly from experimental data, without these the whole process is built on assumptive sand.

Yes, models invite more experiments *but* they should be used to *guide* the experiments. In the past, people have wasted a lot of time with experiments because they didn't know where to start. Modeling can give us a starting point, so fewer experiments, that produce better results, are needed .

@ful

See my response to red. Using experimental evidence doesn't mean models are useless. You can take initial data and perturb it to model other things. 1 experiment gives you 100's for free.