It looks like Bush and company have found another wedge issue for the upcoming campaign, and Bush’s Propoganda Minister, Karl Rove, is rumbling that Bush might issue the first veto of the administration:
President Bush will likely cast the first veto of his presidency if the Senate, as expected, passes legislation to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, White House aide Karl Rove said today.
“The president is emphatic about this,” Rove – Bush’s top political advisor and architect of his 2000 and 2004 campaigns – said in a meeting with the editorial board of The Denver Post.
The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed the legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del. If the Senate approves the bill it would go to the president’s desk.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who backs the bill, has said he will try to bring it up for a Senate vote soon.
“It is something we would, frankly, like to avoid,” Rove said when asked if the White House would welcome, or dread, vetoing legislation passed by a Republican Congress, especially on so emotional an issue as embryonic stem cell research.
I am not sure how successful this wedge issue will be, as it is my understanding that Bush and Rove are clearly on the wrong side of popular public opinion. However, in election years, what really matters is the base, and this will get them riled up and possibly provide them with the issue they so desparately need. In the meantime, I will let you once again wonder about the moral compass of a group of people who will let this administration do whatever the hell they want to the entirety of the American populace, with the noticable exceptions of Terri Schiavo and undifferentiated globs of cells. At least the fags aren’t getting married.
Ted
Yeah. It appears we’re getting a break this election season.
Steve
Oh no, Bush really means it this time about the veto! Talk about a lack of credibility.
Rudi
He will veto, but beware of the real plan to maintain a Republican majority for the future. They are cloning Rove, Falwell and others to be raised in Utah. This new generation of mutant GOP will lead us into a glorius future.
Inhumans99
From the article: “We were all an embryo at one point, and we ought to as a society be very careful about being callous about the wanton destruction of embryos, of life,” Rove said.”
The above has to be one of the funniest things I have read in years…all together now, no shit sherlock, and here I thought I developed from a piece of driftwood floating in the Pacific Ocean. Seriously, am I the only one who finds that comment of Rove’s to be hillariously over the top (I wonder if he said it with a straight face, or if the audience could tell he was holding back the urge to giggle)?
Steve
We were all an embryo! Who among us does not value embryos? Every day I make a point of calling up an embryo and telling it how much I value it. (But how would you call an embryo, you ask? On a cell phone.)
Put that comment right up there with the “CO2 is life” ad campaign. We all come from embryos! God bless the little embryos.
The Other Steve
The interesting thing about Bush/Republican position on this, is that by banning public funding they are forcing the issue into the private sector.
Well, privately funded money doesn’t involve much in the way of ethical discussions. So companies can and will pretty much anything they want.
If it was public money, then we could have a discussion regarding the wanton destruction of whatever. We could place limitations and such.
But that’s not what they do, so like so many other things, the Republican position on the issue actually makes the problem worse, or at least works contrary to the stated desires of the religious right.
The Other Steve
companies can and will do
I always end up missing words if I don’t proofread. :-(
KC
Keerist! I’m so sick of these goddamned people.
Amen.
Krista
Ba-dum-bump!
srv
What if they just experimented on the gay embyros?
John S.
I always thought the interesting thing about the Bush/Republican position on this is that their culture of life only seems to apply to beings with human DNA and no cognitive thinking ability…
Embryos and people in persistent vegetative states? SAVE THEM!
Homosexuals, civilians and the general adult human population? FUCK THEM!
Andrew
If you kill an embryo, it will never get to grow up to be a girl who has her head cut off and a dog’s head sewn on in its place. Party of life.
Paul Wartenberg
The base regarding stem-cell research is smaller than they think. While the hard-core antiabortionists will oppose anything that sniffs of embryo harvesting, the pro-life-butalso-pro-health crowd (which covers more pro-lifers than the media can attest) will recognize that safeguards can be established to insure people won’t go selling away their fertilized ova for cash and at the same time provide doctors with the chance to develop cures that will improve quality of life.
Just as a side note, is the legislation veto-proof…?
Steve
Come on, I deserve more than one rimshot for that one. It was really bad.
Nutcutter
Bill Frist has apparently seen stem cells frolicking on a video and is sure that they can be treated and brought back to normal, productive lives as … well, stem cells.
Krista
You deserve rotten tomatoes thrown at you for that one, to be frank, but I’m fresh out of those.
stickler
Oh, come on, people. Bush won’t veto this bill even if it passes. Why start now?
He’ll just issue a ‘signing statement’ in the dead of night after signing it, indicating that he ‘interprets’ the law to mean the exact opposite of what it says. And he’ll direct the relevant parts of the Executive Branch to ignore it, or enforce it in a way opposite to its clearly-stated meaning.
Unitary Executive: it’s not just for warmaking any more.
Zifnab
Frist, as a doctor who’s received a great deal of money from other doctors, is actually grudgingly for stem cell research. You’re going to want to watch Sam Brownback and the less business, more bible coalition.
And as a funding issue I don’t think this is a bill Bush can just Unitary Executive around, unless he decides to deploy national guard troops into research labs. Congress is simplying allowing stem cell scientists to take federal money. I suppose Bush could order the Secretary of the Treasury to deny any grants to stem cell researchers using his Unitary Executive powers, but that would be a truly messy fight.
Mr Furious
How many votes to override a veto? Bring it on, Georgie.
S.W. Anderson
Bush’s backward-looking, narrow-minded policy is not only abandoning control of research to the private sector, it’s ensuring researchers in other countries take the lead.
Don’t be surprised if some of those researchers in other countries turn out to be ex-U.S. scientists who’ve said to hell with living through any more of The New Dark Age of Bush and his fundamentalist jihadis.
SeesThroughIt
But what if that embryo is going to grow up to become a terrorist? This is the real conundrum.
CaseyL
It’s a non-issue. Unless another GOP whackjob gets elected in ’08, another bill will pass when Bush isn’t around anymore, and it won’t be vetoed.
As for the Base… y’know, I really don’t think it’s going to make a whole lot of difference if they’re all fluffy and moist in ’06, and even less difference in ’08. Every news story and poll I’ve heard about paints a picture of voters that’re just itching to get into the voting booth and toss the Right right out of power.
Vladi G
We were all a sperm at one point, too. Do they really want to take this to its logical conclusion? I gotta think the lotion and tissue lobby won’t allow that to happen.
stickler
Yeah? I heard those stories all through the summer of 2004, too. And then, wonder of wonders, Ohio (and its curiously whacked-out elections system) came through for the Decider.
Toss the Right out of power? But then this beautiful monolith of State control (espionage, imprisonment without charge, ‘security,’ corruption) would have to share with the other Party!
Damned cheeky. Unlikely, too.
stickler
Oh, and that reminds me:
Whom did our gracious host support in the 2004 election?
Was it “Mr. Change Things?”
Or was it “Mr. More Of The Same, Bitches!”
And a draft-dodger to boot. Yippeee!
Richard 23
Where’s scs? Someone’s gotta speak up for the snowflakes! Or at the very least, change the subject to the murder of Terri by Michael and the dictators in black robes.
Jim Allen
PotD. Quite possibly, PotW.
Jim Allen
But gays aren’t allowed to get married, so they’d have to be illegitimate embryos. We can’t allowed unmarried gays to breed just for medical research!
OCSteve
I think this is exactly right. Even folks I know who have real issues with abortion do not feel the same way about this. You might pick up another small percentage if you talked about harvesting embryos specifically for research, but when it comes to existing embryos that are likely to just get flushed some day I think most people really don’t oppose it.
In terms of existing embryos that are likely to be disposed of – carry the extremists’ thinking to its logical end. Are they going to enact laws that say these embryos have to be implanted in some women and carried to term?
I think a significantly larger portion of the base is likely to say WTF – this is the first time you pull out your veto pen?
Jay C
While I agree with John that Dubya’s threat of a veto over the stem-cell-research-funding issue is a transparent pander to the obsessive antiabortion crowd (for whom the use of the term “embryonic” in any context produces a Pavlovian response): I doubt very much whether it will be a major winner at the polls in November – for either side: it is just too esoteric an issue for most people to contemplate, except in its most simpleton “every-sperm-is-sacred” expression.
The voters who make these cartoonish notions of “life” their rationales for electoral support have probably long since made up their minds about who to vote for: as have, most likely, those who hold more balanced views on the matter.
Vlad
I have to think that the dog’s head story is false. It just has a “Kuwaiti babies” feel to it.
Krista
There’s a good article on Slate about the whole stem-cell controversy, basically asking why all of these people who are opposed to stem-cell research (including the Preznit), are not equally opposed to fertility clinics and the common practice of implanting multiple embryos into the uterus, in the hope that one survives (or as the writer puts it, in the hope that all but one die.)
Santa Claus
Will we allow gays in the military if the only stem cells we can use to clone up the mighty army of conscript-slaves we’ll need for the liberation of Irn, North Korea, and Syria come from gay people?
I envision a future America with a true Army of One: 50-100 million American soldiers, all cloned from the same gay guy. That will give Kim Jong Il something to fret about, particularly if it’s the South Korean research community that perfects the cloning technology for this gay man in the first place.
But we can’t have it both ways. If we want to use teh gay stem cells, we can’t let teh gays marry. But if we don’t let them marry, their stem cells are illegitimate. Which will it be, Mr. President? Gay marriage for the sake of our illegitimate homosexual stem cells, or freedom for the oppressed thralls of the evildoers? We have to stand up for bastard stem cells, because those bastard stem cells will one day give rise to the mighty clone-slave army which will stand up for American freedom. Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists and their allies in the gay marriage community.
Ho ho ho, bitches.
Jim Allen
The part of Santa Claus is being played today by Dennis Hopper.
Jim Allen
And brilliantly, at that.
Andrew
But it feels truthy!
Krista
Santa, you’re dead, remember? Why are you worrying about this shit?
The Other Steve
Actually that’s interesting.
I’m opposed to fertility treatments. Ok, not opposed against the practice, but opposed against the feeling of entitlement.
The Ghost of Santa Claus
Because John and Tim won’t let me post as “The Ghost of Santa Claus.” Maybe they’re in denial or something.
I know I didn’t answer your question. I don’t care. I’m drunk, and it’s Christmastime in Hell. Fetch me another mojito, and make it snappy!
The Ghost of Santa Claus
Holy crap, it looks like they actually approved that one. Never mind then. Carry on, non-dead people!
Paul L.
I am still waiting for John or Tim to tell me of a embryonic stem cell advance that did not turn out to be a fraud.
And Krista you should refer to “embryonic stem cells” instead of “stem cells”.
It appears that those who are pushing for embryonic stem cell research are trying to associate it with the successes/advancements in research using adult stem cells.
I am sick of the critics stating that the Bush administration is against all stem cell reasearch instead of against embryonic stem cell research.
Pb
There’s nothing interesting about that at all–they’re just playing to the base!
Pb
Paul L.,
Ahem.
Incidentally, that took me like 3 seconds. Next time, learn do your own research.
Now carry on, everyone.
Krista
Very well. It still doesn’t, however, answer the question as to why those who are so vehemently opposed to embryonic stem-cell research are not equally opposed to the fertility clinics’ practices of creating large numbers of embryos, a high percentage of which will either die or be frozen.
Andrew
Well done, Pb. This seems to be the modus operandi of the right wing blogosphere: demanding proof of some fairly obvious thing, being presented with proof, and then denying that said proof is really proof, usually with a personal attack.
Pb
Andrew,
Proof just isn’t good enough for some people. Cue Steven Colbert on ‘facts’–but at least his character is honest about it…
Paul L.
I think that applies to both sides of the blogosphere.
We’re All Morons!
Larry Johnson is the master of it.
Larry Johnson, In The News
Thanks for the update Pb. I’ll would be interested in seeing the results with higher animals/humans.
I wonder if they could duplicate the results with adult stem cells.
I do have to point out PETA would object to this testing.
Pb
Paul L.,
Cheers!
Yeah, but what wouldn’t they object to… Put up or shut up, I say. When one of them volunteers to take the place of that rat, then I might start respecting them more.
Andrew
Maybe Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore and the others on the Liberal High Council can convince PETA to let the Democrats use this as an issue.
Steve
Well, some are, I guess. Aren’t there plenty of people who have a problem with IVF?
The more fundamental question is the proper role of government. Should government be funding scientific research? (I think that’s an easy yes.) Should it be government’s role to hold back funding of research that may help certain people, in order not to offend other people’s religious beliefs? I think it’s clear, in any event, which side of the question is a political winner.
Darrell
To what extent government funds scientific research is very much up for debate. This undying leftist belief that only through big government spending can we ever have technological innovation is what leads to much wasteful spending.
Think about it, the government, spending other people’s money, choosing which programs to fund, and which not to fund. Furthermore, this attitude often puts taxpayers funding research which otherwise would have been done by private industry.
John D.
Sigh.
Dude, research is just that — research.
As in “explore beyond the bounds of current knowledge”. We don’t *know* what they’ll find. We can suspect, we can believe, but until such time as the research is performed, *we do not know*.
The USA used to be the leader in both government- and private-funded research. Bell Labs, General Electric Research Labs, Xerox PARC, DARPA, NASA — the list is almost endless. Most of them are now closed or severely curtailed. Why? Well, see, research often costs a whole bunch for limited economic return. Many blind alleys get followed, yielding noting useful. And a great hue and cry arose from the masses who have not the first clue about what science is and how knowledge is gained.
And yet…
The transistor, LEXAN, the microprocessor, the power grid, the telecommunications network, the Internet, the LED, DNA sequencing, the F-15 Eagle, the synchrotron, the cell phone — all of these (and oh, so many more) resulted from private-, government-, or mixed-funded research. There is a blatant public interest in funding of research proposals. *You*, frankly, have absolutely no business deciding what is or is not “wasteful spending” in this regard. Nor do I.
Who does, however, are the people who can both understand the thrust of the research proposal and yet are not directly affiliated with it. Their peers. So, do us all a favor, get your goddamn nose out of an issue where it has no damn business being, and let the people who actually understand both the science and the economic realities do the deciding.
Punchy
Fixed.
Andrew
John D., but what if their peers are gay, or boy scouts?
Pb
Darrell has a point–the government should scrap all that ‘research’ welfare crap and invest it all in Bob Ney’s coin collection instead!
Steve
All I can do is judge by results. I look at our historical track record of funding scientific research, and I look at the state of technology in this country, as compared to other countries who left it up to private investment. It’s been a working formula. Without government subsidies for pharmaceutical research – look, I’m sticking up for corporate welfare here, don’t miss this chance to agree with me – it’s hard to imagine we’d develop one-tenth of the innovative drugs we do. Even with that terrible, terrible tort system we always hear about, somehow we remain the world leader by far.
Some people think everything always gets better if you leave it up to the free market. I’m not faith-based enough for that approach. I work in securities, after all, and I see the difficulties involved in securing private investment for R&D projects. It’s very hard to get money if your research will only pay off in the long term, if at all – it doesn’t matter if the payoff is something as big as curing cancer. The problem is ten times as hard if you take the company public, because public investors want to see returns on the balance sheet, dammit. There are some things that it just makes sense for government to be involved in, and I think our results speak for themselves.
Pb
Steve,
Indeed, it’s instructive to note how money and the corporate philosophy (greed) corrupts the process. And the drug companies are also a great example of this:
Steve
Oh, I don’t question that at all. But we’re not just getting a bunch of new heartburn drugs, we’re also pioneering lifesaving treatments. Sure, no doubt that Viagra and its friends are the big moneymakers, but government funding is what keeps the drug companies from producing ONLY the big moneymakers.
I’m in favor of research subsidies but I also think strong and honest regulation by the FDA is critical. Drug safety is another area that I can’t imagine leaving up to the free market. “Hey, if your drug kills too many people, they’ll stop buying it!” Ugh.
Pb
I suppose that’s a tautology… :)
Darrell
Silly liberal. Some research is wasteful (weren’t there studies on the atmospheric effects of cow flatulence?), other research is more fruitful. Govt research is far less concerned with results.
Furthermore, particularly in the pharmaceutical research area, it seems that taxpayers are funding a lot of research that big pharma is profiting from greatly.. research that big pharma would likely fund themselves if not for the research ‘subsidies’ paid for by Joe Taxpayer. I have a problem with that and liberals don’t.
Darrell
yes, because without the all-wise big daddy federal government making such wise investments, it would never occur to those stupid pharma and biotech companies to do research in treatments for cancer, diabetes, aids, and other afflictions.
Steve
I get the sense I could have a very interesting discussion about this issue. Just not with you.
John D.
A) As I said in a previous go-around we had, I’m not a liberal. Deal with that fact.
B) I’d like you to show where I said all research should be footed by Ye Olde Gov’t. I’ll wait.
C) As I implied in my previous post, you are neither smart enough, well-informed enough, nor educated enough to have any sort of a valid opinion as to what constitutes justifiable research. So butt out.
Do you know why the concept of “peer-reviewed study” is almost revered among scientists? Hint: The fact that it is the polar-opposite of “wild ass guess” has a lot to do with it.
Do you have any data to support your assertion? Why no, you don’t. You have “research that big pharma would likely fund”. You have “it seems that taxpayers”.
You last line is at least partially correct: You have a problem — a pathological inability to support your arguments. You’re simply wasting everyone’s time.
Darrell
Of course dumbass, peer review answers everything, right? The peer review system only acts as a check on the validity of the research, not whether the research was a good idea or whether it was worth the expense. Many, many (most?) federally funded “peer reviewed” research projects are wasteful as hell. Furthermore, a lot of govt researchers make the jump to big $$ positions in the private sectors, causing a huge conflict of interest in this ‘peer reviewed’ process.
Of course, us no-nothing philistine taxpayers should just STFU about the waste according to aholes like you. Because everyone knows how the federal government bureaucrats have such a sterling track record at “understanding” the thrust of the research proposal, whatever the fuck that means
Andrew
Shorter Darrell: How are we going to find the $10 billion a month for Iraq if you liberals keep spending on worthless shit like science?
John D.
What waste? What research grant are we discussing? How was it funded, and for how much? What did the research reveal?
I refer you to point C in my post above. You are unqualified to hold forth on this topic.
Are you trying to prove my point for me, rendering further posts from me unneeded?
Unless you are referring to DARPA, NASA, or a similar agency, you are not talking about “govt researchers”. By far, the majority of government funding is given to private researchers for defense department projects. The allocation of these grants is handled by agencies such as the DoD, NAS, FDA (for medicine), etc.
Is there waste in this process? Yep. Does that mean the process should be abandoned? Hell no. I’m all about efficiency. You’d rather blather on about what “liberals” believe. How about you ask me what I believe, rather than your usual mistargetting of venom?
You want to discuss this? Go learn. Get a valid opinion, based on facts and publicly available data and we can talk. Your usual “assert, assert, assert, lie” tactic is useless here. You are not qualified to judge whether any piece of research was “justified” or “worth the cost” as it stands now. So, go fix it.
(And no, “atmospherics effects of cow flatulence” is not useless research. Ruminant gas is one of the top three sources of methane in our atmosphere — and dear old CH4 is ALSO a greenhouse gas, ranking right up there with CO2.)
Darrell
So sorry for responding in kind to the insults from your prior post – not being “smart enough”, so “butt out”, “don’t you know these studies are peer reviewed you idiot” etc. How unusual for me or anyone else to respond to such thoughtful commentary in less than the most polite terms. What was I thinking?
John D.
I’d say you weren’t thinking.
For starters, I never called you an idiot.
You objectively are not smart enough to handle this discussion. You have yet to state a fact.
You should butt out of this topic because you know nothing about it.
I brought up peer-review in response to your wondering about wasteful research. If a study is peer-reviewed and passed, then the research checks out and was not wasted.
Do try to keep up.
In the interest of fair play, however, I’ll ask you a few simple questions, easily looked up via Google or public data archives.
1) What was the sum total of grant money, across all 26 grant-making arms of the US Government in FY2005?
2) What was the sum total of grant money issued by the NSF in FY2005?
3) How much of the money granted by the NSF in FY2005 was “wasted” in your opinion, and why?
Once you answer these, you’ll at least have a baseline understanding of the matter at hand.
John D.
Perhaps I should unpack my comment about “not smart enough” a bit, since I use that as almost personal shorthand for a much longer, involved concept.
IMHO, we’re all ignorant. There’s lots and lots and lots of stuff we don’t know. “Smart” to me is “intelligent enough to realize this and to take steps to rectify it“. “Stupid” (or “not smart”, when I’m being polite) is either “doesn’t realize this” or “can’t be bothered to attempt to fix it”.
So, I apologize for being overly insulting, instead of the precisely calibrated “Go look it up, you goof” I was aiming for.
Darrell
To be clear, the federal govt. could approve wasteful billion dollar research projects studying rat piss in the which the studies were thoroughly ‘peer reviewed’…you are entirely mistaken in saying that the peer review process means that the research was not “wasted”
John D.
Did we learn something?
Then it was not wasted.
That was the point I was trying to get across to you when I entered the thread. Research is about extending the boundaries of knowledge.
“Was it worth that much?” is an entirely different question. Since you are talking about “billion dollar research projects”, please answer at least questions 1 and 2 I put forth just up thread. You may find the answers illuminating.
John S.
John D.-
As always, I applaud your efforts. Unfortunately, I think you will find that answers that do not conform to Darrell’s pre-conceived notions are not the sort of answers he will be looking for. For instance, you’ve already noticed that he is compelled to brand you a ‘liberal’, because in his mind that is the only sort of person he can fathom would not agree with him.
Anyway, good luck with him.
John D.
OK, it’s been an hour since I posed the 3 question to Darrell, with no answer, other than a hypothetical.
Class is now in session. Sit down, shut up, and learn.
Grants.gov, your one-stop shopping for government grants.
“Grants.gov allows organizations to electronically find and apply for more than $400 billion in Federal grants.”
That’s right, there are more than $400 billion in grants given by the US government yearly, for things ranging from education, health, defense, Homeland Security, all the way to what could be termed “pure science”. The NSF handles that last one.
From the NSF’s own page: “As described in its strategic plan, NSF is the only federal agency whose mission includes support for all fields of fundamental science and engineering, except for medical sciences.”
You want pure science, the pie-in-the-sky studies and research that Darrell pooh-poohs? NSF is your source for it.
NSF FY2005 Budget passed by Congress
Research & Related Activities $4,220.56 million.
That’s right.
$4.220 billion. That’s ALL.
For roughly 7000 grants issued.
4220560000/7000 = a hair over $600K as the mean grant awarded. Kind of a far cry from the “wasteful billion dollar research projects studying rat piss” that Darrell supposed, isn’t it?
Lets be fair, though, and see how these slackers can actually get $600K, shall we? They just have to grovel a bit, right? Well, no.
NSF “How We Work” Page
“Nearly every proposal, whether solicited or unsolicited, receives the same rigorous and objective treatment. It is evaluated by a panel of independent reviewers consisting of scientists, engineers and educators, who do not work at NSF or for the institution that employs the proposing researchers. NSF selects the reviewers from among the national pool of experts in each field and their evaluations are confidential. On average, about 50,000 experts now give their time to serve on review panels each year.”
Hmm. That doesn’t sound right. That almost sounds like there is a vetting process to weed out the worthless proposals.
“NSF’s task of identifying and funding work at the frontiers of science and engineering is not a “top-down” process. NSF operates from the “bottom up,” keeping close track of research around the United States and the world, maintaining constant contact with the research community to identify ever-moving horizons of inquiry, monitoring which areas are most likely to result in spectacular progress and choosing the most promising people to conduct the research.”
Hmm. That doesn’t sound right either. It almost sounds like they attempt to give priority to high-need areas, or ones more likely to produce positive results. That can’t be right, for Darrell has spoken. They must be lying to us. They couldn’t possibly be applying merit reviews or anything of that nature.
So what have we learned?
Just over 1% of the grant money allocated by the US Congress each year goes towards pure science. For one of the 40000 proposals received each year by the NSF to be funded, it has to pass a meritorious review by a panel of experts, who believe that the research proposal is likely to yield good results. And that Darrell has no idea what he’s talking about. Again.
Got it? Quiz on Friday, class dismissed.
Darrell
Well, if you want to frame it in terms of external grants while ignoring the research by government employees to make your point, then please feel free. Ignore all the research dollars spent by EPA scientists, our national laboritories, NASA, etc in order to artificially (and dishonestly?) minimize the true numbers.
And I’m sure those grants authorized by congress would never be used to advanced political agendas, right? Which was exactly my point upthread – the federal goverment, spending other people’s money, has little or no incentive to choose research paths which are efficient.
Yeah, “class dismissed” jackass
John
I’m really, really confused here.
See, research done by the government is in the public domain. And it *is* included in the budgetary figures of the EPA, NASA, DoD, NSF, etc. So, no numbers are being minimized. Frankly, I’m stunned you are accusing me of dishonesty, since I GAVE YOU THE FUCKING LINKS to my primary sources, a feat you have yet to master. I chose the NSF, as it is the pure science department. You want the EPA numbers? Cool. You want NASA numbers? Cool.
EPA FY2005 Performance review
NASA FY2005 budget
Have at it, sparky. I’m sick of doing your research for you.
Can you, at long last, offer any single shred of proof of ANYTHING? Any hard data to support your position?
You claim that “the federal goverment, spending other people’s money, has little or no incentive to choose research paths which are efficient”, offering no proof, and completely ignoring the impetus TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE DOES.
Something like, oh, I don’t know:
The Space Race
The Manhattan Project
GPS network
The Apollo Project
You have this very odd view about how science intersects with the federal government. Frankly, I’m tired of your lies, innuendos and attitude. You’re a complete jackass who refuses to do the slightest work, speaks in sweeping generalizations with absolutely no evidence, and demands limitless evidence from others.
Believe me, anyone who has been following this interchange can easily see who has facts and who has nothing. Best of luck with your disinformation campaign. I’m done playing with you.
Darrell
My ‘controversial’ position as stated on my very first post:
That is the position which has generated so much outrage and venom. WTF are you talking about proof?
John S.
I tried to warn you John, Darrell is a VERY special boy.
Those of us not seeking to prove the theory of leftist scientific foul play through the blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars* have found your factually based information interesting, to say the least.
*A theory feverishly put forth by the esteemed Darrell without a single shred of evidence or source to corroborate (unless you count him quoting himself as a source)
I don’t think it was the baseless and unsubstantiated position you pulled out of your ass so much as you being the typical obtuse asshole we’ve all come to know and ridicule.
tzs
Well, if we don’t do it, someone else will.
Also, one can never know when knowledge from one field will prove to be applicable in another. Or applicable 150 years down the road.
“Relativity” would have been argued to have been totally irrelevant by the Darrells of this world. Then we had this little equation of E=mc^2 and well, the rest is history.
That’s why we do research. Because we never know what is going to prove useful down the road. We don’t know when it’s going to be applicable. We don’t know IF it’s going to be applicable.
And research doesn’t always pan out. You try theories as explanations for things. Sometimes it’s true. Sometimes the wonderful new anomaly turns out to be a chimera as soon as you do more experiments and cut down on the error bars. It wasn’t ever there. In theoretical physics, 80% of the time we were running up blind alleys. I complained to my boyfriend about it. His response? “That’s how it works. Get used to it, or get out of physics.”
Edison tested 100,000 materials before he discovered something suitable as a filament for a light bulb. Darrell, do you consider those 99,999 other test to be the mark of failed research? Edison didn’t think so. He said:” I have not failed. I have discovered 99,999 materials which do not work.”
Let us assume the US government decides to cut back on basic research. We’ll leave it up to the market. Now, ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT which decides to go into basic research–if it desires and keeps its results within its borders–will have a leg up on strategic positioning of having important material. It will be able to help its economy develop faster and further in the application of new technologies to the market, and it will–if it plays its cards properly–potentially have a monopoly on new technology.
That’s a hell of a price for the US to pay for our being purists about “not having the government involved in research.”
Darrell
Scientific researcher caught defrauding millions of dollars of taxpayer money through the ‘peer review’ process
Wasn’t that me upthread who pointed out that the process was fraught with conflicts of interest and politics, a recipe for waste and inefficiency?…and apparently fraud. Academic career advancement is just one of those conflicts. What’s more, after taxpayers subsidize these researchers, many can patent the findings to cash in although taxpayers funded it.
What I find most despicable is the trait which “John D” exhibits on this thread, telling us that only the ‘smart’ scientific community could possbibly understand, so everybody else butt the fuck out. Re-read his comments above to see this glaring tendency. Too many people/suckers tend to let jackasses like this intimidate them. Whoops, look what happens when conflicts of interest collide..the result is bad science. But don’t dare question the research system which spawned it.
Darrell
Although Boeing receives government and private contracts, it is a private business. Airbus, is a consotium of European government research and manufacturing, which should be a sterling examle of tzs’ assertion that govt research would have a ‘leg up’ on strategic positioning. Except that these governments are bleeding red ink while Boeing is making money AND kicking their ass from an engineering standpoint, scientific standpoint, and sales standpoint.. How can that be? Because I thought without these huge government research programs, certainly other governments would exploit our lack of federal investment, right? How’s that theory working out with Boeing vs Big government research?
Randolph Fritz
“in election years, what really matters is the base, and this will get them riled up and possibly provide them with the issue they so desparately need.”
Look, ma, figured it out.
John D.
Before you break your arm patting yourself on the back, perhaps you’d like to explain a few things.
What “conflicts of interest” or “politics” entered into this? He was a guy who faked his data. He was caught by other scientists who could not replicate his experiments.
Amazingly enough, it was the experts in the “scientific community” who forced him OUT of the scientific community. What I said, and what you obviously failed to read, was that you do not have the expertise to judge. You would never have caught this guy. It took people who attempted to replicate his work to do that. Imagine that, experts knowing more about their field than you. Shock.
There are no “conflicts of interest” here. There is greed, stupidity, ego and desire. A research scientist is measured by the volume and quality of the work he or she produces. I never said there should be no oversight — on the contrary, I explained, in great detail what they do to monitor the process. Do you think this guy getting caught is an example of a failure in the process? Historically, any system of funding, whether public or private, has cases of fraud. Imagine that, human beings cheating. Shock.
Do you still insist on misstating what I said, while the words are above for all to see?
You do not know what you are talking about, even at this late stage. Butt out.