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.
I've seen two threads so far attacking Palin on the fruit fly issue. Public funding of open ended research is, and always has been, a black hole for our tax dollars. The claims these researchers make about the research they are performing is usually fanciful at best. The request for cash will always have some current health issue attached to it like breast cancer, Lupus, HIV/AIDS or Autism. It's a good ploy. If lawmakers oppose the grants, they oppose research on HIV/AIDS or Autism. One never hears these people state that the research they would like to have funded will have some entirely commercial application like growing hair or giving old guys woodies. Now we are to fund a study of the reproductive cycle of fruit flies, OK. But prove that the study has merit before my tax dollars are dumped into it. If all we are really doing is creating commercial products that control fruit flies, let the restaurant and bar industry pay for the research. I would like to see accountability before my money is spent. How about you?
Please keep to the original subject. Their are probably twenty other threads available for Bush bashing. Please not here.
"We employ a passive, post-hoc justification for our activities to compensate for the lack of a valid system of performance metrics. We take a narrow view of our responsibility to society in the transformations that we cause. We have no foresight or planning operation in place that would tell us how to define, measure, or achieve greater success."
"No group of humans is completely honest: dishonest window-cleaners steal DVD-players; dishonest scientists invent data. Both—if not caught—profit from their dishonesty. There is no question that we need mechanisms for making dishonest research less likely and for investigating cases that arise, but how much, at what stage, and who should do it?"
"My main concern is not that some doctors and some researchers are dishonest, because in any profession there will be some dishonest people. My main concern is that within the medical profession there is a failure to deal with the misconduct and that is illustrated in the examples I will present."
Nanorobotics This is an American site that is about 5 years old. They are working right now at the macro level and injecting activated cells to the brain cancer cells, so they are moving along. Anyway, science is good. Intellectualism is good. Common sense is good until it starts limiting discovery and options. America will lead the world again in innovation only if we are able to make these discoveries.
Coolest thing in that link is that all those cool self cleaning windows are a result of this science. GOOOOOOOOOOO NANOs.
Everyone doing publicly funded research will make the same claims about their research. Why is this different?
Human studies are the last leg in any of this research. You don't study it in humans until it is at least safe, then you look for efficacy. Sometimes, this takes decades. If you don't understand it, learn about it before you mock it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
If a legitimate medical innovation grows hair or give old guys woodies, I say great! That is as long as some sort of accountability is in play. Everyone doing publicly funded research says the same things. It could cure AIDS! What is different about the fruit fly study?
They aren't always saying it will cure AIDS, they are saying it might. You have to build your foundation first.
Nanorobotics This is an American site that is about 5 years old. They are working right now at the macro level and injecting activated cells to the brain cancer cells, so they are moving along. Anyway, science is good. Intellectualism is good. Common sense is good until it starts limiting discovery and options. America will lead the world again in innovation only if we are able to make these discoveries.
Coolest thing in that link is that all those cool self cleaning windows are a result of this science. GOOOOOOOOOOO NANOs.
I guess I was overly optimistic about the left's ability to stick to a single subject when thier are so many republicans who need mud thrown at them.
"Now we are to fund a study of the reproductive cycle of fruit flies, OK. But prove that the study has merit before my tax dollars are dumped into it. If all we are really doing is creating commercial products that control fruit flies, let the restaurant and bar industry pay for the research. I would like to see accountability before my money is spent. How about you?"
Human studies are the last leg in any of this research. You don't study it in humans until it is at least safe, then you look for efficacy. Sometimes, this takes decades. If you don't understand it, learn about it before you mock it.
They aren't always saying it will cure AIDS, they are saying it might. You have to build your foundation first.
Thank you Captain Obvious! You get todays NS award.
Most government funded science is:
1. Peer Reviewed by an outside panel of scientists, as well as an internal panel
2. Subject to high statistical standards
3. Subject to regular, rigorous reporting deadlines
4. Subject to project manager site visits
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.
