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.
Quite so. The private sector will never fund a socially desireable level of basic research simply on account of the old saying: If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn't call it research. You can't project that ANY line of basic research will produce returns equal to what you could get by parking your funds in a bank CD. As the result, only a small fraction of all potentially profitable research projects is actually funded. Perhaps worse, all the paydirt that's struck when a basic research project does come in is immediately locked up in private hands to be doled out to society in whatever manner happens to maximize corporate profits. Public financing on the other hand can fund a much larger proportion of all promising projects, and when paydirt is struck, the benefits can be passed on to society immediately and at low cost.
Spot on.
Quote:
Sort of like going back to grad school after a visit to the 4th grade. To me, it's unconscionable that the Bushies could have gotten away with ignoring science and promoting anti-science (and anti-intellectualism more broadly) for eight long years. No one can calculate the costs, but whatever they are, they are in the significant-to-staggering range and will never be fully recovered.
Unfortunately, that administration cultivated an anti-intellectual/anti-science sentiment among the masses. I have to say though, there is one good thing that came of the frowned upon education policy 'no child left behind act'. Forced standardized tests have bridged the gap between boys and girls in the US in tests for the maths and sciences. Of course, it did nothing but promote disparity for minorities, but I'm pleased, as a woman, that old stereotypes are having the crap slapped out of them.
Quote:
Sometimes the point of putting up a chart or graph is that, since most people either won't or won't be able to read it, it will look like one is really on top of a particular topic.
Well, I always want to give the benefit of the doubt and take the position that I may be reading something incorrectly (simple division). We'll see what he says.
Interesting that you left out the part where human embryos are being used on these human patients.
I and the rest of those who are wary of this are fully aware of the benefits of hte technology. It would be a light year step ahead if we could find a programmable cell to do what we ask it to do. However I do not think that you are aware of the moral implications.
You gloss over the fact that these are fertilized cells. In other words, future people.
not to mention that there was a breakthrough a couple of months ago, finding that they can revert sperm cells of human males back into a stem cell.
bet you would not find many that morally objects to that one, hell you would find many willing participants to donate.
That may come in the future, especially if research continues.
somewhat done.
"Depending on the chemical signals to which they were exposed, the stem cells were able to morph into any other kind of cell, including heart, bone, pancreas, and nerve cells."
and it is a cell that we will not run short of at any point in our future lol.
At least as early as the time of Copernicus and probably much earlier than that.
My question was supposed to be somewhat rhetorical. I will admit though it was poorly phrased as I was considering modern science and politics.
The content of this thread draws attention to the fact that science in the US has been marketed by politicians rather then scientists. Both political sides want to paint the other as wrong on scientific policies regarding stem cells or environmental regulations.
As a scientist whose been around enough despair I can tell you that these aren't the primary concerns we have. Yes, I would love to see the current administration roll back the stem cell regulations. Yes, I would love to see the environmental scientists be given the freedom to publish (I don't think they never had it).
My primary concern is that these two or three publicized research areas are only a fraction of a percent of the total picture. They are also not the most valuable areas of research for economic redevelopment.
My complaint is that the US has a lot of people who have no clue, on both sides, complaining about science policy but is doing nothing to encourage the next generation to pursue these careers.
Science will soon be the next manufacturing in this country if we stay on our current path. Then what will we have left?
Science will soon be the next manufacturing in this country if we stay on our current path. Then what will we have left?
This is a legitimate fear in the face of what has been a long run of rampant anti-intellectualism, and it hardly comes from the hard sciences alone. When the experts on anything are ignored and publicly disparaged for their trouble as intellectual elites who are out of touch with mainstream America, what encouragement is there to the next generation to pursue excellence at anything?
My question was supposed to be somewhat rhetorical. I will admit though it was poorly phrased as I was considering modern science and politics.
The content of this thread draws attention to the fact that science in the US has been marketed by politicians rather then scientists. Both political sides want to paint the other as wrong on scientific policies regarding stem cells or environmental regulations.
As a scientist whose been around enough despair I can tell you that these aren't the primary concerns we have. Yes, I would love to see the current administration roll back the stem cell regulations. Yes, I would love to see the environmental scientists be given the freedom to publish (I don't think they never had it).
My primary concern is that these two or three publicized research areas are only a fraction of a percent of the total picture. They are also not the most valuable areas of research for economic redevelopment.
My complaint is that the US has a lot of people who have no clue, on both sides, complaining about science policy but is doing nothing to encourage the next generation to pursue these careers.
Science will soon be the next manufacturing in this country if we stay on our current path. Then what will we have left?
It was not government that created the automobile, nor the airplane. It was not government that created many of the medical technologies we now use in our daily lives. I say get government the hell out of peoples lives and let them create!
Federal funding was not stopped. Research was not banned.
The only limit was that embryonic stem cell research would have to use existing stem cells. Thats it.
Science has become a joke because of exactly what going on in this thread. People make their opinions based on politics rather than fact. The facts have been posted and ignored on this thread several times.
There IS federal funding for stem cell research. Research has NOT been banned.
I agree that science should be in the hands of scientists but which ones are we talking about?
The science that brought us the Global cooling scare in the 70's?
The science that brought us the Global warming scare in the 90's?
The science that is bringing us global cooling again today?
The science that banned DDT at the cost of millions of lives?
The science that said in the 80's we would run out of fossile fuels by the year 2000?
The science that said by 1996 the majority of people with AIDs would be heterosexual?
The science that can't make up its mind if Pluto's a planet?
The science that gave us cold fusion?
The science that brought us the Y2K fraud?
The science that had to do a study to finally determine that there is more than just a physical difference between men and women?
The science that had to do a study to find out that fat people watch more TV than skinny people?
The science that says eggs are bad, then good, then bad, then good etc.. for you.
The science that said Gilligan couldn't fly with palm fronds tied to his arms?
And so on and so on....
Science and politics are one and the same these days. Liberals try to push their agendas. Conservatives try to push theirs. Anybody that believes a new President will change that is a moron.
Our government is corrupt, science is corrupt and more importantly the media is corrupt. A new President just puts a different face on the same old corruption.
You liberals actually don't mind science growing sheep with two heads, cloning animals, and messing around with God's creatures? You know it is only a matter of time till you have a two headed clone! Think about it.
Wait until you have a tumor, you might change your mind.
I have MS, has not changed my mind one bit about using embryonic stem cells.
duplicate post
Last edited by leilaniguy; 01-24-2009 at 07:03 PM..
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.
