GREENFIELDBOYCE: Who studies shrimp on a treadmill? Biologist Lou Burnnett. He learned about the senator's report when CNN called him.Then, of course, there was the toenail clippings.
Mr. LOU BURNNETT (Biologist): I was pretty irritated.
(Soundbite of laughter)
GREENFIELDBOYCE: He says the half-a-million dollars was actually for a lot of different research on this economically important seafood species. The treadmills were just a small part of it, a way to measure how shrimp respond to changes in water quality. Burnnett says the senator's report was misleading.
Mr. BURNNETT: It suggests that much money was spent on seeing how long a shrimp can run on a treadmill, which was totally out of context.
GREENFIELDBOYCE: Her group has also criticized other government-funded studies, including a National Institutes of Health grant for measuring nicotine exposure in toenail clippings.Nit-picking scientific studies is a time-honored tradition in our nation's Capitol. The late William Proxmire, D-WI, used to have his "Golden Fleece" awards given to most everything from the space program to agriculture subsidies, but he usually saved a few for basic research grants.
Ms. LAFFERTY: They used recovery money, money that was meant to more or less stimulate the economy - interesting use of money, mailing in toenail clippings.
GREENFIELDBOYCE: The deputy director of the National Institutes of Health is Lawrence Tabak. He defended the use of recovery funds. And he says the toenail study has an important goal that its critics didn't mention: trying to assess people's risk of lung cancer.
Mr. LAWRENCE TABAK (Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health): So what's scientifically sound and indeed cost-effective - to collect biospecimens for cancer research - was twisted in what was intended to ridicule an important lifesaving research effort.
We can have a serious, thoughtful debate about whether or not, or how much, to fund basic research through public funds. Since public funds usually go to studies that have relevance for everything from local and regional economies (finding out how shrimp deal with environmental stressers is kind of important to the folks who make their living harvesting the little critters) to public health (one can do an assay of toenail clippings and gain valuable information on all sorts of things, not the least of them being the lingering effects of nicotine addiction and how that may impact the prospects of cancer development). Getting chided by Sarah Palin for allegedly doing something ridiculous should be considered a badge of honor; after all, at least the scientists involved in various studies actually finish what they started.
The reality is this scientific research is carried out for a marvelous reason - it's in the nation's interest to have this information. Since economic growth, sustainable development, public health, and other policy priorities are things about which we need to know, scientific studies of all varieties are an important part of doing things better, more efficiently and cost-effectively, and understanding the various impacts of a variety of environmental and human factors on the country. You want to argue that there is a principle involved here, be my guest. By and large, however, you will not find too many folks who understand (a) how science works, and (b) how politics works that would agree with you.
So, hooray for the study on the correlation between penis size and sexually transmitted disease. More information is always preferable.
21 comments:
If people knew the outcomes of research before they started, there wouldn't be much point. That's why basic research is so important. As Einstein famously said, "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research."
Applied research, on the other hand, usually begins with much narrower questions (will this work, or won't it?) so the potential utility is easier to get a handle on.
Mostly stories like this illustrate not just the abject stupidity of some people and their desperate need to turn everything partisan (which wasn't in question to begin with) but the bad job we scientists often do in communicating our work with the much larger, rational portion of the public and the awful job we often do in educating students about what doing real science is really like. Instead of offering science classes that teach how science is done, too often we offer history classes on what has been done.
I Guess 2006 Was Too Far Back To Remember.
The Democrats were pretty upset about government funded research when Republicans where in charge and now Republicans are upset with government funded research when Democrats are in charge.
Maybe we should write a government check to pay a researcher to find a pattern.
No ones against research, but government funded research is a different story. If the study was worthwhile it wouldn't need government support.
I don't remember saying anything about parties here. Oh, yeah, except for explicitly mentioning one politician's part - the late Sen. William Proxmire, who was a DEMOCRAT. I mentioned Sarah Palin, of course, but I honestly don't consider her a member of a political party. Like Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, she is a member of a party of one.
Alan's lament about scientists' communication skills is, I think, also as old as complaints about silly scientific experiments. If people had any idea how silly some stuff really sounded - let's see what happens when we put this bread mold in with some bacteria; I'm gonna boil this milk then cool it again real fast and see what happens; I'm gonna travel around the world on a sailing ship and catalog all the neat stuff I find, like the finches in the Galapagos - most science wouldn't get done. Which is, like Alan, I think funding basic research is an integral part of being a great nation.
I assume you're talking about Pasture, Magellan and Darwin. Pasture and Darwin were privately funded and Magellan was funded by foreign investors (Spanish Crown.)
2out of 3 were private and I don't know about the third. My knowledge of 16th century economics is lacking
Oh my God, Edwin, you are obtuse. I don't care who funded them. That was not the point. The point was, rather, that scientific research sounds silly.
And, no, my examples were Arthur Fleming, who left some bread mold in a petri dish over a weekend by accident, only to discover it had killed all the bacteria in it. The other examples were, indeed, Darwin and Pasteur (not Pasture). Pasteur had other weird ideas, like injecting live viruses in to people to create an immuno-response. He also said that illness was caused by little tiny critters invading our bodies, and that the human body created its own little critters to fight them off. People laughed at him. How silly!
Alexander (not Arthur) Fleming :)
But seriously, no one is against research only government funding of fringe research.
There is no such thing as fringe research, Edwin, the main point which you keep missing.
government checks for everyone
If it ain't "fringe", it probably *isn't* research, Eddie. That's the whole point.
But I'm prepared to take you seriously just this once if you're willing to actually put your money where your mouth is.
So here's the deal. If you're really so against government funded research, then stop using, this instant, anything that came about as a result of government funded research.
Including the internet, so we don't have to read your drivel.
With your next comment here you will demonstrate that you don't really believe what you say, you just comment to have something to do.
Check. Mate.
kthxbai.
Alan, just because you use the internet to research penis size doesn't make the two equal.
I suppose that's supposed to make sense. But like everything else Eddie writes, it's a swing and a miss.
But thanks for proving my point, Eddie. You use the Internet, which was developed using government funded research.
yet you defend the penis study.
So if you use the internet then you're on board with defense spending?
if its research then its not fringe???
your circular logic is amazing, I can tell you are a scientist. pfft
Of course I defend the penis size study. It was a public health study on the correlation between penis size and STDs.
Even if it wasn't in the pursuit of a public good, most research not matter how abstruse and odd, had implications for our public life. By definition, it is a public good to be supported, Eddie.
Unless you are made uncomfortable talking about penis size . . .
I'd reply, Eddie, but you, as usual, make no sense whatsoever.
BTW, since this "if its research then its not fringe???" is exactly the opposite of what I actually said, I'm not surprised you're confused. Try reading what I actually write, instead of what the voices in your head are telling you.
In any event, clearly you're in favor of government funded research, so I'm not sure why you're bothering to try to pretend you're not. I don't believe you.
I've come to the conclusion that Ed, Art, the whole lot of them, really don't believe what they write. It's a game, pure and simple. I mean, seriously. I've even kind of told Art that I no longer believe he believes the stuff he types, he just enjoys trying to tweak folks, most especially Dan, who feeds the beast post after post.
One thing it's important to remember here: I use my real name, my real identity, and as I am quite vocal, including being on FB with over 300 of my closest friends, any inconsistency would be found out pretty easily. These guys, on the other hand - for all I know they could be 22-year-old women, or from India, or whatever.
Yup. I've long suspected half of them are simply sock-puppets anyway (and I wouldn't just limit it to Ed, Art & cronies.)
Given their inability to actually demonstrate any proof that they believe what they say (for example, Eddie could demonstrate his beliefs in the evils of government funded research by throwing out every electronic device in his house because a huge amount of the technology therein was developed through government funded grants), their remarkable ability to contradict themselves -- often in just once sentence, and their anonymity I think it is pretty clear that this is the blog equivalent of pro-wrestling and the whole thing is fake.
This is why so many blogs don't allow anonymous comments. Actually having to take responsibility for one's comments significantly reduces the phonies with their trolling.
As we've seen, you or Dan could write a post about the sky being blue and these guys would spend 100 comments nitpicking and disagreeing that there even is a sky in the first place, for no other reason than for something to do, whether they actually believed anything they wrote or not.
Yup. Dan's whole post explaining how he changed his mind regarding same-sex marriage went exactly as I predicted. Whether or not Art really believes anything he wrote is immaterial to my prediction; rather, too many years experience interacting allowed me to be fairly accurate in describing how Art would respond.
The best, though, are always the demands for proof of our accusations that, say, someone like Art contradicts himself - sometimes in the same sentence. I offer proof and Art says, "That doesn't mean what you think it means, so it doesn't count." Children play games like that. Eddie has gotten a little better, but the point about electronics is a good one.
Shoot, I hope he doesn't use Google as a search engine, because it was developed by graduate students operating under federal education money, with a University that received assistance for supporting graduate student housing, and after they initially developed it, applied for and received small business money to help them fund further development. Not to mention patent protection, tax breaks, and the occasional massage from anti-trust judges.
Yeah, Eddie, you're right, why should anyone ever get federal money? Toss that calculator from Texas Instruments out the window, because the company was a spin off from Texas-based aerospace companies back in the days of serious investment in space exploration. These guys exist because of federal dollars - kind of like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Halliburton (well, in their case, not just the US government, but a whole lot of them), their only real customer is the government.
There's even a name for it - Military Keynesianism.
I think you're been dumb on purpose. The only thing I can't figure out is why.
Your opinion is there is never a wrong reason to do government funded research because there has been successful government funded research in the past. Thats just retarded (no offense Alan)
Google was never federally funded research, Stanford is a private school and i'm willing to bet Larry Page and Sergey Brin were on academic scholarships and didn't take student loans. The idea that you just assume everyones on welfare is quite telling. Some people can be successful without the Governments help. Try it, who knows
Nearly all the examples you've come up with have been private research. That should tell you something.
ok im done, you guys go back to penis and std studying.
See, Geoffrey, if Eddie actually believed what he says, he'd either know, or take the time to find out that most grad students (particularly in science, engineering, and IT) are supported by federal funds from exactly the sorts of research grants we're discussing (which are not loans, nor are they scholarships) and that private schools receive this money just like public ones do (in fact Stanford, with it's reputation in technical fields receives gagillions of dollars of such funding.)
But he doesn't actually believe what he says, so he takes no time to learn about how grad school actually works, a topic he clearly knows nothing about. and, he's so intent on throwing water balloons, he's not interested in learning.
Like a two year old, he shoves his fingers in his ears and shouts, "I'm not listening!!"
"Your opinion is there is never a wrong reason to do government funded research because there has been successful government funded research in the past."
No. It isn't. But you don't really believe that's our opinion, anyway. You're just playing games again.
Post a Comment