spindoc, perhaps the CSIRO's annual report is what you are looking for?

http://www.csiro.au/org/Annual-Report.html

Peter Hume, who funded research, eg. agricultural research before the government funded it?

<< Ludwig, obviously what concerns you is that government funding of science is being used to fund research, and to further purposes that you don’t agree with. That is an argument *against* government funding of science, not in favour of it. >>

Oh dear Peter, you misunderstand me. I’ve made no reference at all about anything that I think government should not be funding within the enormously broad interpretation of science. But I am complaining vehemently about what’s not being funded, and hence about the overall VERY unbalanced funding regime….which is just so strongly skewed towards the supply side of the economic equation.

The rapidly-increasing-with-no-end-in-sight demand side of the equation gets scant little attention.

<< The end for which science is used can never be “unbiased” >>

Agreed. But it certainly could be a whole lot less biased.

continued…

<< You would like funds to go into research intended to reduce consumption and conserve resources; and you consider this the most important thing. >>

No, you really are misunderstanding me terribly. There is a lot of funding going into this sort of thing, along with various other aspects of the supply side of the equation – RRR&E, as I call it: reduce, reuse, recycle and improve efficiency... and all the technological advances that we need to do these things. But this is all geared towards providing resources and a decent quality of life to ever-more people. That is; for an ever-bigger demand base.

It’s getting us nowhere, for as long as this demand base just continues to rapidly expand.

It is a very simple concept. I’m not understanding why you have apparently missed it. I thought I had expressed it very clearly in above posts.

In short; we need our scientific fraternity, and the government funding (and other funding) thereof, to be MUCH more geared towards BALANCING supply and demand, instead of concentrating almost entirely on forever increasing and refining the supply side, while leaving the demand side to rum amok!

Again, isn’t this of critical importance? If we can’t achieve a sustainable society and things are just going to get further and further out of whack, then our quality of life and quality of scientific endeavour along with it is going to crash and burn.

Still doesn't give any reason why any of it should be government-funded. So you can force people into paying for what they don't want?

"So you can force people into paying for what they don't want?"

Yes, but you can also persuade them. For example, I could say, your tax dollars are not going into research, they are going into whatever you think the government should fund.

Whereas my tax dollars are making up what I perceive is a shortfall in research dollars and and too much spent on whatever it is you would like your dollars spent on.

So there, sorted.

Rather a little too much insistence on what "the people" want.

They want what pastor or advertising tells them.

"they" are anybody offended by the above sentence. Almost certainly not people to direct any irreplaceable institution, let alone a nation.

For example what (blokes on minesites) want is women and whiskey, whereas what they need is homelife.

Similarly, supposed adults want more credit, more upgraded consumer goods, clear stratification between themselves and those with lower incomes and greater enforcement of (merely) perceived social norms upon those otherwise unable to vigourously defend their right to differ. As opposed to what they need: enough responsibility for staying alive to engage their minds and to have no energy left over to worry about the Joneses.

simple eh?

Rusty