Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The money's already there. The government should continue to invest strongly in science and spend less on war, welfare, and entitlements. And there is a lot of waste in the system that can be cut out, including in science.
On that we generally agree. My only contention is that the money is NOT already there. It's being borrowed at a rate which is not sustainable.
Look, my only point is this thing is almost wholly government funded, and it's known that federal funding is not stable and can change with the wind. To me, these are the kind of things that can be done when the economy and private sector are booming and are flush with cash to support such things. I think we should focus on that first.
On that we generally agree. My only contention is that the money is NOT already there. It's being borrowed at a rate which is not sustainable.
Look, my only point is this thing is almost wholly government funded, and it's known that federal funding is not stable and can change with the wind. To me, these are the kind of things that can be done when the economy and private sector are booming and are flush with cash to support such things. I think we should focus on that first.
UCHC's research is also mostly government funded--so are most research institutions. The funding does not "change with the wind"--I'm not sure where you are getting that characterization. NIH grants are good for 5 years and many professors stay funded under renewed grants for a long time. It is, however, highly competitive. A professor must consistently perform impactful research to remain funded under successive grants.
I think that a recession is a good time for this kind of project because it provides short term jobs, and in the long term it is a strong foundation for private industry. Additionally, we don't know that it is "almost wholly" government funded. The breakdown in the $809M between federal, philanthropic, and self funding is not provided in the article. Jackson gets lots of NIH funding for its research just like UCHC and Yale do, so I'm assuming some of that money is in there. The $291M loan from the state should be very safe, as Jackson Labs has been around forever and has the market on transgenic mice cornered, among other things. The $99M from the state is really the only significant outlay.
Of course, deficit funding is not sustainable. But the hope is that we can prop up the economy in the short term and reap rewards when the economy improves. Do I trust politicians to sock away money for a rainy day fund when things impove? That's a totally different question...
Sorry to bring up the most obvious example, but what if you or your wife has the BRCA mutation? If prophylactic mastectomy saves her life, will you still think that investment in genetics is not smart? And again, we are talking about the United States science industry versus India and China's. I'm sure there will also be British nationals working there.
The mainstream media has you scared of science with their manufactured controversies. Take off that tinfoil hat and think for yourself!
Have you ever thought about the numbers of intentional and accidental mutations and extinctions (not only human) playing with applied genetics may cause? It's an astronomically complicated subject. Do you realize that the best minds in the applied genetics are just playing c&rap shot to cherry pick promising "leads"? They have very little clue what would result from all that tinkering.
That's an accidental aspect of the applied genetics. And there is intentional. I have a news for you, you are not any different than a bug killed by GMO soy plant. Plants, food and medicine can be designed to do all kinds of things to you and your wife. And somehow I have little doubt that great humanitarian Uncle Sam is already working on that (for the sake of "national security" naturally). And then there are "foundations" and "think tanks" who were (and are) pondering eugenics, population and social control issues on the behalf of the "best" and richest among us. Genetics temptation is there. Richest corporations & individuals out of sudden shed serious $ for the Norwegian seed bank. Do they know something you don't? If you have illusions about "ethical entegrity" of science as an institution and scientists as wage slaving individuals, that's not "naive", plainly speaking - that's stupid.
It'd be nice to see fully private funded projects however someone was going to throw in some grants for this project, especially now when states are fighting each other to attract jobs and projects.
The hope is that we can build an environment and industry so that related companies will feel they need to be here for access to supporting companies and workforce to be competitive. We won't need to offer grants or incentives to attract companies, just overall healthy business regulations and tax law. This is a developing field so growing a knowledge base here will give this region an advantage as there just are not many other companies doing this research. Attracting an industry leader is a good way to start. I wouldn't want this project to not happen or be turned down and go somewhere else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
