I guess a good argument could be made that the Senate does have a great deal going on, but I would rather have this debate sooner rather than later:
A Senate debate over whether to ease federal restrictions on stem cell research will be put off until next year, an influential senator seeking to relax the rules said Friday.
The lawmaker, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of a subcommittee that oversees spending on health issues, said the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, had agreed to make consideration of a measure governing stem cell research a priority when Congress reconvenes in 2006.
That pledge led Mr. Specter to drop his threat to use a health spending bill to try to lift the ban on federal financing of stem cell research involving destruction of human embryos.
“It would be a logical spot to remove it,” Mr. Specter said of his previous plan, “but it would cause a multifaceted controversy” at a time when the Senate has an abundance of other issues to deal with.
When I say debate, I actually mean fight, because there is no debate for me. A stem cell is not a person, it is not murder, and it is not immoral or amoral to use them. People who make the claim that conducting research on a stem cell that will otherwise be destroyed or discarded is akin to taking a human life have, IMHO, queered this debate so needlessly that it is pointless to even attempt to reason with them. Besides- they only understand brute political force, which is what they are trying to use to impose their moral code on the rest of us, so why ‘debate’ them?
rilkefan
By the time they get around to fighting over this the point will be moot: the South Koreans are making the big advances and putting out the basic patents. Heard a guy across the street at Stanford saying that we would have been there first, no disrespect to the SKs, who are being generous with their licensing agreements and have kindly offered to set up a center in CA to help us use their stuff.
ppGaz
Nobody could have anticipated that these people would turn out to be ridiculous and unreasonable.
To quote you, John: Unbelievable.
Jcricket
I’m 100% with you on this one John. There’s no debate. But all the time we waste in America on pointless “debates” about issues like this, teaching “intelligent design” in school, etc. just means our kids will fall further behind in the skills they need to participate in the world economy. Or that the best opportunities in realms such as science will go to other countries (as rikefan pointed out)
Other countries are laughing at us for how backwards we are.
Zifnab
I mean, it’s already becoming a state-by-state thing. California gave the go-ahead already, and New Jersey is making strides toward funding programes as well.
I mean, the big joke in all of this is similar to the big joke in the abortion debate. Even if you can get passed Roe-ish legal ruling to block the two, you’ll just end up with have and have-not states. The liberal coasts will end up with a booming bio-tech sector, a low-crime population, more money, and a faster cultural advance. The midwest will suffer under its own hubris, stagnate, impoverish itself, and collapse economically. Take a look at states like Alabama and Mississippi – living proof of the backwards nature of the society killing itself from the inside out.
If South Korea can fund a stem cell program, there’s no reason to believe that a coalition of left-wing states can’t do the same.
Barry
Zifnab, you can be sure that the anti-stem cell people will strive to maintain any federal restrictions that they can. Even if they can’t ban it outright, they’ll hobble it; perhaps requiring segregation of facilities so none of ‘their’ money goes to it, with frequent punitive audits.
Darrell
Well, I would ask you not to “queer the debate” by pretending that the only opposition comes from those who claim stem cell = human life. How about those who think that stem cell research would better be handled by non-government pharma and biotech research rather than federal funding? I don’t see your objection to the federal funding aspect of it.. why not? Personally, it creeps me out to think that human embryos would be harvested like mold to conduct scientific research, and I can understand why some would object to using federal funds to conduct such research. At present, federal funds for adult-stem cell research is already been going on, and private research is unrestricted on research using both adult and embyonic stem cells. What then, do you want to “fight” over?
It’s my understanding that the US is tearing to shreds other countries in this field of research. Is there really any honest doubt that the US is the undisputed leader in pharma and biotech research and development?
ppGaz
This is a very very good point. The end result of a relentless divide-and-conquer approach to districting and electoral college manipulation is …. a truly divided country.
If that translated into economic and educational division, then you’d have the Cold Civil War in the US, a war which would obviously be won by the liberal half of the country. That’s where the brains and the money would end up. Frustrated righties would be the ones trying to puff up federal power to achieve their aims … for a while.
Job interview:
Boss: Where did you go to elementary and high school?
Applicant: Kansas.
Boss: We’ll keep your application on file. It was nice meeting you.
Darrell
Yes, because without government funding, nothing would ever get done, right? [/channelling socialist idiot]
Zifnab
??! California alone plans on throwing $3 billion dollars at the stem-cell issue. And I don’t think that includes all the money going to fund Universities and subsidize private industries that indirectly bolster and assist such work. Name one corporation or privately funded charity that could rally that much money. Without government we wouldn’t have railroads, atom bombs, or the airline industry. Channelling about it.
Darrell
What a waste of taxpayer money… no wonder California is on the brink of financial disaster. Buy a clue, ok? $3 billion is chump change for bio/pharma research. And with the government in charge of spending that $3 billion, you’re guaranteed it won’t be spent effectively (affirmative action distributions, political cronies with hands in the cookie jar, ‘favored’ recipients who are unqualified, etc, etc)
Darrell
John, wake up on this issue. The left loves this kind of thing. Find an issue where there is broad agreement: Stem cell research is promising, Racial discrimination is bad, a cure for AIDS is needed.. then demand that the federal government take the lead with a government ‘solution’ usually involving billions or trillions of ill-spent dollars.
tzs
Darrell, notwithstanding your belief about how “right” or “wrong” it is for government to be involved in funding this….
….other countries will. The South Korean gov’t is kicking a lot of support into this. Ditto Singapore (biotech, nanotech, and IT), Japan (ditto)….
So the US can sit around, twiddling its thumbs, waiting for the “free market” to kick in and start pouring out the research funds….and watch while other countries zoom past us, having used their evil socialistic government-supplied funds to jump-start the whole process.
Darrell
Note the derision in putting free market in quotation marks, as if only the federal government could lead us to success in this field of research. Unbelievable.
Yes, the US is “twiddling it’s thumbs” leading the world in embryonic stem cell research (and most other areas of bio/pharma research) while other far less successful countries look to government. Remember when the politicians were all worried about the Japanese taking the high definition tv market because of Japanese govt funding of analog? Those silly private companies in the US who didn’t know better were instead putting their R & D dollars into digital. How’d that one turn out?
Ancient Purple
I find it hard to believe that any objections you might have wouldn’t immediately go by the wayside if California developed a medical treatment that could save your life or the life of a family member based on stem cells developed from using human embryos.
Darrell
Good FP article called “The Great Stem Cell Race” on how the US is dominating foreign competitors in the field of embryonic stem cell research and pharma/bio research in general. You have to register to read the article though.
What I found interesting is that a number of the ‘enlightened’ European nations have significantly more restrictions on embryonic stem cell research than here in the US
then we have this
Sojourner
If we used your argument, I wouldn’t have to pay the salaries of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Rumsfeld, etc. The fact that I have to REALLY creeps me out.
gswift
You don’t understand how pharma research works. It IS the federal government that leads us to success in this. A lot of the grunt work in research like the identification of enzymes, chemical pathways, etc. comes out of research universities. A major source of funds for these research labs are grants from NIH, whose budget is almost 30 billion.
The overwhelming majority of NIH grants to medical schools is in the form of research grants. Here’s the rankings for 2004.
It’s goddamn ridiculous that these funds are restricted from being channeled into embryonic stem cell lines.
VictorRay
Seems awfully presumptuous to me.
bago
How is money spent on R&D a bad thing? Granted, there a large difference between having a neat idea and making it into a product, but having more sources to create new ideas that are public domain so that companies can then make products out of them isn’t a bad thing.
R&D makes the future. There’s no reason to cripple that.
gswift
Spare us this nonsense. At the stem cell stage the cell cluster hasn’t even differentiated into organs. If the embryo splits at this stage you get identical twins.
Equating a 5 day old undifferentiated cell cluster with a human being is ridiculous.
John S.
It’s nice to see Darrell pimping for the further demise of American significance on the world stage.
We are rapidly losing our manufacturing sector, our farming has begun to take a hit due to an increase in imported foods, our customer service/call center work has largely vanished to India, and now he’d like to sit back and watch Asia continue to dominate in technology and R&D.
What the hell will we have left in a decade that this country will actually make? Shall we resign ourselves to being the world leader in manufactured news and entertainment? Will Girls Gone Wild be our chief export under the Darrell plan?
Seeing as how the private sector only looks for short-term profitability and cares little for such things as long-term stability (corporations invented FYIGM), I think it’s a bit naive to look at our insane trade deficits and think that the laissez-faire knight is going to ride in and save the day.
VictorRay
Specter is a fraud and a RINO of the first order. Why not just get it over with and join the Democratic party already?
Zifnab
Specter is probably one of the last great honest Republicans left in office. He still advocates limited government, balanced budgets, and curtailing corruption. Of course, I’m running on a very old-school definition of Republican.
If you’re running on the ‘shill for the wack-job religious right’ platform, then I suppose he would, in fact, be a RINO of the worst sort.
Of course, if Specter were to jump ship, he wouldn’t be the first. In the past five or six years, there have been more than a few Republicans who’ve switched teams unless I’m mistaken.
Darrell
DougJ has morphed again. Some of his parody has been quite entertaining, but lately he’s been too obvious
Jcricket
Darrell obviously has no clue how bio research works. Take it from someone who actually works at a research institution (i.e. me). 80%+ of foundational research is funded by the federal government. Foundational research is stuff like “why do cells divide”, “how does the liver work”). It’s this kind of undirected research that often leads to “sea changes” in how we understand the world, but equally as often leads nowhere. Not to mention even if it does increase our understanding it’s not always immediately applicable to (say) a money-making bio pharmaceutical effort.
When NIH budgets get cut, foundational research suffers, simple as that. With the exception of private foundation donations, no private sector companies step in to fill the gap. Big pharma isn’t generally interested in a scientific advance until it’s well bast the basic sciences point (which can take 10-15 years). Even then they take a big risk and may take another 5 years to gt a drug to market. I’m not arguing that this is a bad thing, pharmaceutical companies would be neglecting their fiduciary duty if they simply funded massive R&D labs with little direction.
There is no one but the government who has the ability to properly fund this kind of non-profit-directed research.
To see a similar trend, look to the computing industry and the gutting of R&D labs at places like IBM, HP, Microsoft, etc. For-profit companies can’t afford to fund the kind of research that may eventually lead to a profitable advancement down the road. Universities are the ones that do the research that leads to truely massive changes in microprocessor architecture, etc.
So yes, the government has a place (shocking, I know), and when properly funded does a good job at encouraging basic research (like stem cell work). Every industrialized country in the world recognizes this. Darrel can keep his head in the sand all he wants, but it will only result in a decrease in America’s ability to lead the world in scientific advancements, not to mention our ability to attract and retain top scientists.
Our insistence on letting the religious right insert its nose into scientific endeavors (see evolution, stem cells, the cervical cancer vaccine, AIDS funding, Plan B) is absolutely at the core of what’s wrong in this country. As John put it, that’s “queering the debate”
Jcricket
Makes me wonder why the remaining Republicans in Democratic states (Chaffee, Snowe, etc.) don’t switch parties. At one point you could argue they were “sticking to the principles” or “retaining influence”. But with the combination being done in their name (by other Republicans) and being shut-out by the far-right trend of the GOP, they’d be better off as Democrats.
tgibbs
The problem is that stem cell research is still at the basic research stage. So why should a company invest? It would be very hard to keep such results proprietary, and even if you could patent them, the patent would likely be running out soon by the time that you could bring products to market. Biotech and Pharm are very risky businesses; companies are going under and being gobbled up by bigger companies right and left. They need investments that are going to pay off in the reasonably short term. They simply can’t afford to invest much in research that has such a slim profit potential.
DougJ
I can’t take “credit” for this one, Darrell.
tzs
Darrell, I LIVED in Japan for more than ten years, working for the Japanese government in the area of science policy (among other things.) The digital vs. analog was a case where the gov’t stepped in too late in the process. Ditto for the 5th generation computer–companies were too far along the “applied research” path to want to share info.
Other areas that have worked out: the ERATO projects, lots of nanotech stuff, lots of MEMS stuff. When it comes to basic research, the Japanese gov’t does quite well. MITI also did a very good job encouraging Japanese bulk chemical companies to move into biotech.
The Japanese gov’t has also been increasing the pressure on companies to come out with “low energy” devices. Guidelines, exhortations to “lower energy”….
…and when gasoline and energy costs continue to go through the roof, guess who will be selling stuff? Ain’t gonna be the US car companies.
Serenity Now
When I say debate, I actually mean fight, because there is no debate for me. A stem cell is not a person, it is not murder, and it is not immoral or amoral to use them.
Fine, but do you have some rational basis for determining when something is a “person” and when an act is “immoral,” or are you making arbitrary assertions?
Btw, who argues that stem cells are persons? I thought the argument is that embryonic stem cell research is immoral because human embryos are persons, and they have to be destroyed to get the stem cells.
Scott M
I’ll second Jcricket’s views, and add a couple from my own perspective:
-I work at a major Midwestern research university, and I can tell you straight up that the majority of students pursuing Ph.D.s in basic research in cell and molecular biology are Asian nationals, many of whom will *not* stay here to work if they get better offers from their home governments.
-Before my current job, I worked for the research division of a MAJOR US pharma company. Most of my coworkers – people with college and advanced degrees – lost their jobs when the company was bought up. US pharma seems to be moving toward a model where they outsource more and more of their R&D to startup biotechs, buying up their innovations when the molecules are ready for phase II trials, where the reach of a global company starts to be an asset. So the highly-trained Ph.D.s that drive innovation have to pray that they come up with something good within five years (ie. before their venture capital funds run out) so that they can sell their innovation to a large corporation which will usher it through human trials, marketing, and distribution. That’s a rotten environment for research innovation, and certainly not one that will persuade foreign-born scientists to stick it out here after they finish their educations.
Joe Carter
When I say debate, I actually mean fight, because there is no debate for me. A stem cell is not a person, it is not murder, and it is not immoral or amoral to use them.
Before you go into the fight, you might want to arm yourself with some basic facts. Your confused claim that anyone believes that a “stem cell” is a “person” would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
I take it that you are referring to embryonic stem cells, which are not human beings but require the killing of a human being (an embryo) in order to obtain them.
Besides- they only understand brute political force, which is what they are trying to use to impose their moral code on the rest of us, so why ‘debate’ them?
The fact that you appear not to even know what a stem cell is does not bode well for your side of the “debate.” But if you did a bit of research you might discover why private funding avoids ESC research in favor of adult stem cells.
It’s apparant that if you want the libertarians/Republicans to fund corporate welfare all it takes is to spark a controversy with the “social conservatives.” Claim that “promising medical research” (i.e., nothing that will actually produce cures) is stymied by the theocrats and you can get them to open their wallets for a big fat boondoggle.
Darrell
Because if it’s a truly promising area of research, they would invest to avoid getting their asses handed to them by competitors, to avoid losing their jobs having to explain why they were standing around picking their noses while competitors were using new research methods which made previous products obsolete. Does this really need to be explained to you? Are you really that stupid?
Dumbass, which is easier for a company to control and protect: A)Proprietary research conducted in their own labs, or B)Research available in the public domain
Do you idiots ever think through your belief system with such faith in the almighty power of the federal govt? Because it doesn’t take much to tear your arguments to shreds.
Brian DeSpain
Stem cells are not derived from embryos at all but rather blastocysts – a collection of undifferentiated cells numbering 50 – 100 cells. This collection of cells doesn’t become an embryo until a little bit further down the process.
Basic scientific research has always been government funded in United States because of the high cost and low ROI. Pharma companies are very good at product development (ie developing a new drug) but this product development is always done on the back of the basic research done by the government. Government research is always public domain in the US so US companies can take advantage of it.
Darrell
The same bureaucrats at MITI who were the architects of Japan’s financial disaster which has kept Japan in an economic funk (real estate collapsed in 1/2 in many parts of Japan, Japanese stock market imploded, etc) for over a decade now??
The results of those failed policies are evidenced by the collapse of the Japanese economy while the US roared ahead. Tell us, how are Japan’s pharma and biotech industries doing compared to America’s??
Your praise of MITI’s ‘accomplishments’ says it all
Brian DeSpain
Darrell You clearly have no idea how basic research works in technology. Basic research allows US companies to spend less time answering basic questions and more time on product development. Government research is in the public domain IN THE UNITED STATES meaning US companies can use it while foreign companies typically either license or cross license with their own developments.
The power of the almighty federal government? Basic research is expensive because there are so many potential wrong paths when researching. You are posting to a web site using HTTP and TCIP networking – all largely developed by basic government research. You have only tore people’s arguments to shreds in your mind.
Ask a research scientist at pharma or aerospace company about the importance of basic research. They will explain it’s an important part of the research environment.
Shygetz
Darrell, your ignorance on this topic (coupled with your obvious belief to have an informed opinion) is staggering. As a lowly employee of what is arguably the largest and most prestigious research outfit in the world, let me tell you that, without Federal funding, not jack would get done in science. The problem is, pharma doesn’t want to spend the money and time to figure out which is the best approach to take to a problem (heck, they usually don’t even know what the problem is); so what they do is let federally-funded academic, governmental, and small business institutions figure out the basic science and put in (usually) in the public domain. Once that is done, the biotech/pharma tries to tie up the loose ends that allow them to develop durgs, treatments, and other products, and make their profits off of that. This does amount to a de facto subsidy of biotech/pharma, but for very good reason. Under your model, we would have to have all of the different companies all doing the exact same basic science (because they wouldn’t tell their competitors about their results) before any of them could even think about generating applications. You wouldn’t have two-dozen companies trying to figure out how to deal with avian flu; you would have two dozen companies using their own epidemiologists with their own data trying to figure out if it was a problem, what was causing it, etc. and not talking to one another about it. There would be no more peer-review of science, because there would be no pressure to publish. Therefore, the science that came out eventually would not only be slow and redundant, but of completely unknown quality. This would KILL the American biotech/pharma industry, and a lot of Americans with it. You would also have a bunch of highly trained academic researchers with nothing to do, and no way to train the next generation of researchers in their labs (as companies are hesitant to spread their proprietary information into the academic community for fear of leaks). Nice going, dumbass, you just killed science in America.
Darrell
Had you said that some government research programs have resulted in important commercial discoveries, you would be standing on solid ground. But to make the incredibly idiotic leap to the conclusion thta “without federal funding, not jack would get done in science” is so idiotic as to not merit a response.. from microchips to wireless technology, to the discovery of new drugs, in Shygetz-world, none of it would have happened without government doing all the heavy lifting. Tell it to Bill Gates dumbass.
Uh yeah, kind of like in every other field of technology which has made the US a WORLD LEADER. Do you think Cisco shares its technology with Juniper and other competitors? Well then, how do they ever innovate without the government telling them what to do?
Darrell
Of course, those “stupid” pharma and biotech companies would NEVER spend R & D in promising areas of research that could make them money. Only the Feds are capable of “directing strategic investment” (like the failed MITI in Japan), which is another way of saying that the feds, spending other people’s money, are going to chase a LOT of dead-end science, and in the process waste billions and trillions while coming up with some useful data which is then seized upon by private pharma. Why should pharma and biotech industries spend their own money on basics when the feds are doing much of their research for them? In other words, Joe Taxpayer subsidizing the wealthy executives at Genentech. that’s fair, right? There is enough capital and inertia in the pharma and biotech industry to do much, if not all of what the govt is doing for them now
Darrell
I think we need government to control strategic investment in wireless technology, because that emerging technology is just too important to leave to private industry.. and after all, Lucent and Cisco are not sharing proprietary research among themselves or other competitors which is “obviously” stifling innovation. It’s clear that only federal reseach can save the US wireless industry from foreign competition. [/dumbass]
DougJ
Darrell, you have no idea what you’re talking about as regards government funding of science. I don’t normally say things like that to you, because I view you as a benign Bushie, who deserves respect, but here you are really making an ass of yourself.
By the way, I am a research scientist.
DougJ
I’ll explain a little more to you, here, Darrell. The government funds basic research. The vast majority of important breakthroughs (Watson and Crick, say, for example) too place with federal funding. Bell Labs had a wonderful history of funding research, but those days are over.
I believe that you *could* turn basic research into a good business model and that someday the likes of Google may do so, but for now, there is very little funding of basic research. Industry-funded research is mostly messing around on the edges of what is important in order to find a specific application. Real scientific progress would grind to a halt without federal funding, at least for now.
It’s difficult for a non-scientist to understand these issues, to understand what the difference between basic research and applied research is. But take it from me — no one, absolutely no one, in the science world, either in industry or elsewhere, advocates cutting federal funding of science. The companies that do a lot of R&D would scream bloody murder if the NIH or NSF were abolished. They depend on breakthrough in basic science for their advances in applied research. It’s that simple.
DougJ
That is actually a fair comment. But the government also subsidizes trucking companies by building roads, etc. Until there is a good business model for building roads and doing basic research, the government must continue to fund it. The alternative is for all technology companies to move to other countries. Would you like that?
Really, Darrell, you do a pretty good job of holding up the Bushie end of arguments here, but you’re sounding like an ass on this topic.
Darrell
In other words, absolutely none of the beneficiaries of this system, both researchers making $$ on the federal dime, as well as the private industry being subsidized, want such cuts to be made
You have not presented one substantive argument to make your case other than “trust me I know what I’m talking about”. Anyone doubting me can re-read DougJ’s last 3 posts
Darrell
Roads are used primarily by noncommercial vehicles. Trucking companies pay a LOT more in road taxes than non-commerical vehicles.. did you know that?
DougJ
Darrell, since you’re accusing me of saying “trust me, I know what I’m talking about” (which I do in this case), then why don’t you cite figures that suggest that trucking companies actually pay enough in taxes to in effect pay their proper share of the maintenance of roads? Is the fact they pay “more” supposed to convince me?
Shygetz
You, sir, are an uninformed commentator.
OK, lets start with microchips–the entire idea of the integrated circuit was developed by–tada–a civil service employee working for the British Ministry of Defense. Geoffrey Dummer, take a bow. It was later made praticable by private industry.
For wireless technology, you just summed up far too many individual achievements to list all at once. So, I’ll go back to the idea that began them all–electromagnetic theory, without which none of the wireless revolution could occur.
As for Bill Gates, without ENIAC and EDSAC, he would be doing something else entirely. Guess what–both of those were developed on the public dole. Not to mention transistors, integrated circuits, etc. that were invented on the public dole.
Wireless uses so many scientific achievements in physics and chemistry that, rather than name any as particularly important (because they all are) I will point you to various references on the electromagnetic theory, as well as the above data on the integrated circuit, and the transistor, which was patented by Dr. Lilienfeld while a scientist at the University of Leipzig and NYU (oh look, public science again!)
Which shows how much you know. You cannot tell in 5 years, or 10 years, or 100 years, what is “dead end” science and what is not. Science is full of stories of people finding amazing things only to find that they were discovered decades ago, but the rest of science was just not to the point where the results made any sense. Even the most seemingly banal science can lead sideways to amazing theoretical and technological innovation. Science is not a history of successes and failures; it is an entire body of knowledge that leads to certain innovations along the way. But the idea that we waste a lot of money on dead-end science is foolish. Just because you can’t forsee what use there is in knowing the exact mechanism that some benign microbe uses to form spores doesn’t mean that it has no use; it only means that you have insufficient knowledge (or imagination) to forsee that use.
Not only are you uninformed, but you can’t read. So, I’ll draw it for you.
Science->technology->product->profit
Got that? Business does technology. Does it better than the public sector in many instances. Business does not do basic science much, and it does not do it particularly well. It is too far removed from profit to be worth the risk, but without it, there is no technology, and therefore no product and profit. American industry is so successful at innovation for a few reasons. First of all, it is because American scientists (largely on the public dole) are so good at science. They are readily available as collaborators and consultants to help American companies bring ideas to fruition. Also, many researchers who start out on the public dole discover something of commercial interest, leave the public sector and form their own companies. Happens all the time, and helps drive this boom in innovation. Without the public labs, these people never would have discovered what they did that drove them into the private sector.
Shygetz
You are. As you type on your computer, using the Internet (DARPA) and probably Windows (Gates wrote his original Altair BASIC interpreter at Harvard), you are bitching about the system that gives you a forum to bitch.
Shygetz
And just to let you know, researchers are not on the federal dime for the money. If you were a researcher on the federal dime, you would know how funny that was.
Darrell
Many are WEALTHY as a result of federal grants. Professors obtain big money grants for research, use grad student for grunt work and pocket the change. You seem to really ‘know’ what you’re talking about Shygetz
DougJ
Not true — there are strict limits on how much professors can get from federal grants in the way of personal salary. The limit is a whopping $18,000 a year, for example, for the National Science Foundation in the hard sciences.
Professors in areas such as finance can make a lot of money consulting, as much as a few thousand a day, but that is for private companies.
Shygetz
You are either deliberately ignorant, or a liar, or a troll. All federal grants are subject to audit–a lot of audit. Pick the granting agency of your choice and look it up if you don’t believe me. Professors do not “pocket” any of the money that they are not budgeted to “pocket.” The money that they are budgeted to pocket is simply their salary. They do get cheap labor from graduate students, but in return the students get training. They spend a large amount of the money on overhead (rent, utilities, consumables) and equipment for the laboratory to conduct experiments. There are wealthy professors, but that tends to be from patents and book royalties (in addition to a reasonable salary that is still usually lower than the private sector). You have ZERO evidence of large-scale fraud, and as such you have comitted libel on a large number of people (possibly myself included–I won’t say). Show evidence of widespread fraud (not of one or two instances that was caught during an audit, but of large-scale fraud) or apologize.
Darrell
Unlike you saying “trust me”, I never made the claim that trucking companies pay enough or overpay their proper share of road maintence. I do know that it’s not unusual for commercial trucking to pay 1/3 or more of total highway fees and taxes despite making up may 2% – 4% of the total vehicles on the road. And a lot of the big money costs like acquistion of right-of-way have nothing to do with the truck’s weight. Again, roads are used primarily by noncommercial users.
You are the one making unsubstantiated claims with no backup like this claim of yours
Given the amount of money paid by the trucking industry in taxes, back up your claim
Shygetz
To clear up what might be a misunderstaning, the salary that a professor gets is not on top of what they make from teaching; usually it replaces money from the university. At least at major research universities, professors in the sciences are expected to defray the cost of their position through grants; failure to get sufficient grants to pay some portion of your salary is grounds for rejection of tenure or failure to promote. So don’t go screaming about “double-dipping”; these people work their asses off to get grants AND teach your dumb-ass kids, all for less money than they could be making at Monsanto or Roche.
DougJ
Darrell, you know that the amount of damage a vehicle does to a road is proportional to its mass, so your argument about truck traffic doesn’t hold water. Nor does it account for the fact that road taxes as a whole don’t cover the cost of keeping up roads.
I’ll provide a link to a study that shows that the government subsidizes the trucking industry later. I can’t do links very well from this unix machine.
Darrell
Yes, hence the heavy disproportionate taxation levied on the “subsidized” trucking industry. And a lot of the infrastructure have to be designed to transport heavy military permit vehicles anyway. Again, right-of-way costs which are a significant portion of total roadway costs, have nothing to do with a trucks weight.
Darrell
Of course, I should apologize for something I never said or implied (large-scale fraud), right dumbass? If you’re really not a complete dumbass, then show me where I suggested large scale fraud in grants? Show us the quote. Way to wind yourself up over your own strawman
Professors obtain big money grants LEGALLY, then legally pays grad students a pittance and pockets the difference. I don’t know about fraud, but a lot of waste
DougJ
That’s neither here nor there. The roads wear down in part because of their use by heavy trucks. So even if the roads were *built* for military vehicles, they are, in effect, *rebuilt* in large part because of heavy trucks.
Your points on this subject are pretty good, though. Why do you go off half-cocked about stuff like science research when you’re perfectly capable of real discussion on other subjects? You’re a tough one to figure. Unless you’re a spoof, too. If you are, then hats off, you’re better at it than I am by a wide stretch.
DougJ
Also, Darrell, you’re right that grad students are used as slave labor. Again, underneath a lot of nonsensical bluster, you sort of know what you’re talking about. I’m beginning to think you are a spoof, too.
Shygetz
Here’s the quote, liar.
Pocketing the difference IS fraud, you moron! When the professors get the grants, they state how much will be spent for salary, how much for employee salary, how much for capital equipment, how much for consumables. Saying that professors “use grad student for grunt work and pocket the change” is saying that they pocket what was originally slated to be spent on employee labor (and equipment, if I take you at your word, but for some reason I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt). They do not pocket any change, as ensured by the audit process (both institutional and federal) and the purchasing process inherent in the grantee system, which you would know if you have any friggin’ clue what you were talking about. But you don’t, so you libeled thousands of hard-working people. I’ve shown you the quote and shown you how it is demonstrably untrue. Are you going to apologize, or show me some data that shows professors “pocket(ing) the change”? Or are you going to be a sniveling, dishonest coward?
BTW, here is the data stating that large trucks underpay for highway usage. http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/janpr/cost.htm
Trucks (and cars to a lesser extent) underpay, pickups and vans overpay.
Darrell
I think I have done a pretty good job of taking you half-wits apart on the issue of “science research” as you have not presented 1 shred of substantive evidence or argument to back up your assertion that I am “sounding like an ass” on that subject
Shygetz
That’s because every time you get your ass kicked, you change the subject and never revisit how you were proven wrong. Cited: how all private technology is based on public science. Cited: How trucks underpay for their road usage/damage. Cited: How you libeled a respected profession with accusations of fraud. DougJ gives you too much credit, and you lost the previous (not insubstantial) amount of respect I had for you.
Darrell
And an estimate on the number of hours/amount of time the prof will need to spend on the project. Prof’s work is then delegated out to the grad students getting paid little or nothing. I imagine that equipment and facilities procured by the profs paid from prior projects can then be billed again for the next project.. do I imagine correctly on the equipment and facilities?
And you have not come CLOSE to backing up your idiotic statement that:
do you ever feel embarassed about your ignorance? just curious
Darrell
Where? Show us the citation which demonstrates how “all” or even most private technology is based on public science. You’re a joke
Darrell
Because I’m pissed off at the waste. Seriously, it takes maybe 30 seconds of googling to find numerous examples like this
And because I know the government has no market incentives not to waste money on funding countless stupid ass projects and dead-end science
RA
When pro-lifers lobby for laws its “brute force”. When baby killing liberals lobby to kill innocent human life because they have the same mindset as 1940 Germans, its just reasonable legislation.
You cannot keep murdering innocent human life and get away with it. People who continue to do this will be brought down and punished.
Kimmitt
Man, I hope that if we ever suffer a “total collapse” of our economy, we remain the second richest country in the world.
Darrell
Nice touch inserting the word “total” into my original quote. How honest of you
DougJ
Okay, you’re clearly spoofing if you think that is dead end research. Neuroendocrinology is an important research area in the life sciences.
You’re not fooling me anymore. There’s no way anyone can cite figures as fluently as you often do and not understand that tests on rats are done with the end goal of determining more about humans. And that is the only grounds on which I can imagine you are criticizing this research.
BTW, Darrell, I personally think that the life sciences *are* overfunded (I’m in the hard sciences, which get very, very little money relative to the life sciences). And don’t get me started on the social sciences.
If you really want to find stuff we all agree shouldn’t be funded, try looking at psychology experiments. There’s really no way for us to ascertain the value of experiments in things like neuroendocrinology, since neither of us is experts in that field.
You’re right, Darrell, that Japan and many other countries over-directed their research spending. You’re on to to something there. The US — especially Republicans — have in the past taken a a wise policy on scientific research, which is to focus on basic research and let awards be decided on merit, rather than what seems pressing right now. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has reversed this policy.
DougJ
Just to elaborate, Darrell — a better understanding of how dopamines work would be very helpful in treating drug addictions, obsessive-compulsive disorders, and other related ailments.
But you know that. You’re just spoofing the idiocy of the right. And doing a damn good job of it.
Darrell
But Doug, Shygetz and many others argue that even if the value of government sponsored research is not apparent now, it could be in the future, so therefore, such wasteful (as of now) government spending should continue unabated, because who knows, it might be useful at some point in the future.. or not.
The govt has almost zero incentive to efficiently pursue which areas of research make the most sense. So surprise, much (most?) government funded research is wasteful as hell, not to mention subsidizing wealthy private industry which should be paying their own bills on the up-front research. After all, the bureaucrats making the decision where to spend these billions and trillions aren’t spending their own money and face no real consequence when bad decisions are made. Who knew rat dopamine production during sexual arousal would never contribute to any worthwhile product to benefit mankind? Oh well, maybe someone will make use of that information in the future, so that money wasn’t wasted after all, right? And so on and so forth
Darrell
But the research I mocked was pointing out rat dopamine production during sexual arousal, an already WELL KNOWN aspect of human sexual arousal. But your just kidding, right? You know, you’re just spoofing the idiocy of the left.. aren’t you?
DougJ
Darrell, you’re sending me to a book called “Why We Love” to explain neuroendocrinology to me? That’s not even a good spoof. Simply because we know something happens doesn’t mean we understand the exact mechanism by which it happens. A lot of biology and other related fields involves trying to understand the exact mechanism by which known phenomena happen.
You’re out of your depth here. But then again, you’re a spoof. And if you think that supporting science research makes me a lefty, then about 90% of the country must be on the left. The public is very supportive of scientific research as a whole.
Darrell: are you an intelligent design guy or a 6,000 year-old earth guy?
DougJ
All right. Fun as always arguing with you Darrell. I’m out of here.
Darrell
First of all you dishonest prick, the name of the book is Why We Love : The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love
DougJ, to explain further, that specific bit of research you are defending had ZERO to do with unserstanding how dopamine might be helpful in treating drug addictions and related ailments as you previously suggested. Zero. As stated clearly
And having received millions in grants to conduct such ‘life changing research’, it has been already been well established that humans also release dopamine during sexual arousal. But you knew all that anyway and were just spoofing the idiocy of the left.. right?
Darrell
I would say 90% of the country would oppose spending taxpayer dollars on wasteful research projects like some of those I already identified
DougJ
I’d love to argue more Darrell, but I’m going home to read Bridget Jones Diary so that I learn more about neuroendocrinology.
Darrell
When you’ve been smacked by the facts and have no argument, this is what’s left
Serenity Now
Brian DeSpain: Stem cells are not derived from embryos at all but rather blastocysts – a collection of undifferentiated cells numbering 50 – 100 cells. This collection of cells doesn’t become an embryo until a little bit further down the process.
Brian, why do you think they’re called “embryonic stem cells“? The blastocyst isn’t distinct from the embryo, it’s one stage in the embryo’s growth.