SOPA Creator Now In Charge of NSF Grants 307
sl4shd0rk writes "Remember SOPA? If not, perhaps the name Lamar Smith will ring a bell. The U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology chose Smith to Chair as an overseer for the National Science Foundation's funding process. Smith is preparing a bill (PDF) which will require that every grant must benefit 'national defense,' be of 'utmost importance to society,' and not be 'duplicative of other research.' Duplicating research seems reasonable until you consider that this could also mean the NSF will not provide funding for research once someone has already provided results — manufactured or otherwise. A strange target since there is a process in place which makes an effort to limit duplicate funding already. The first and second requirements, even when read in context, still miss the point of basic research. If we were absolutely without-a-doubt-certain of the results, there would be little point in doing the research in the first place."
Job (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It just got easier for companies like Pfizer and Monsanto too, now that they don't have to worry about any government-funded researchers trying to compete with their for-profit research.
Re:Job (Score:5, Insightful)
It got harder for them, because now they have to do the basic research themselves.
but who should duplicate... (Score:2)
duplicating is critical for science...but I could understand if the NSF wants to focus on novel experiments/research, and leave the duplicating to other organizations who's interest has been peaked. The national security stuff is BS. Having a strong research culture and scientific knowledge is critical to our national security.
The purpose of research (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of research is to create evidence when we make a case for something we want. We *will* duplicate research programs so that we have an increased chance of getting the results we are paying for. But once those reqults are acquired, no further research is needed.
Smoking is good for you.
Re:The purpose of research (Score:5, Funny)
Now, come on, be fair. There really isn't any good data that fossil fuels are going to run out soon at current usage rates, and renewable energy sources will by nature always cost at least 17x as much. We don't need any more research, all that climate change nonsense has been debunked already.
Also, switching to renewables would cost jobs*, and the sun doesn't have an infinite supply of energy either so if we take too much it will cool and the whole planet will die.
* in my state
Re:The purpose of research (Score:5, Funny)
Research shows that we could extend it's life by turning it off at night or when we're not at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The purpose of research (Score:4, Funny)
See? All the research has already been done!
Close the NSF!
Re: (Score:2)
The sun has finite energy.
Is that different from "the sun doesn't have an infinite supply of energy"?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought this was meant to be funny, it's quite scary that it's modded interesting.
You do know that "taking energy" from the sun in the form of solar power doesn't actually cause it to cool down right?
Correct. Solar energy doesn't cause the sun to cool down any more than it was cooling down already. Solar energy merely affects the amount of the sun's energy which gets absorbed by the Earth, the affects of which have not been researched, but affecting weather is probably pretty high up on the list.
Re:The purpose of research (Score:5, Interesting)
Heh. Back in the day they encouraged pregnant women to smoke, it reduced the baby's weight and made deliveries easier. I'm glad we did more research on that topic...
ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:5, Interesting)
A certain set of Republican politicians are very opposed to the National Science Foundation, as far as I can tell for two reasons:
1. For some politicians (and grassroots conservatives), they oppose some of the actual research being done. For example, they do not want to fund global-warming research, do not want to fund studies of gun violence, and do not particularly want there to be social-science research into issues such as racism or economic inequality.
2. For other politicians, it's just a convenient source of material for people who want to pose as cutting government spending without having to propose serious cuts any of the programs that take up more significant parts of the budget, because those are either too popular and/or politically too well-connected. Instead they just try to make political hay out of finding a few programs in the single-digit millions which they can attack as "frivolous". So, for example, Tom Coburn compiles an annual list of NSF-funded research projects he considers frivolous. You know, frivolous stuff like robotics research [ieee.org].
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:5, Interesting)
For some politicians (and grassroots conservatives), they oppose some of the actual research being done.
And that right there is one of America's biggest problems: A significant number of people, spurred on by a certain television network and their religious organizations, actively do everything they can to remain ignorant of the world around them.
Some other research they really don't want to fund: pretty much all paleontology, non-fossil fuel energy sources, and what various industrial chemicals do to people.
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether to fund paleontology with tax dollars is a legitimate question. I happen to think dinosaurs rock and I can afford to pay my share of Jack Horner's salary, but a reasonable person might feel that the money could be better spent maintaining bridges or something.
I would welcome that kind of discussion. What I don't welcome is political maneuvering to hijack a federal agency to serve a minority interest.
Re: (Score:3)
Whether to fund paleontology with tax dollars is a legitimate question. I happen to think dinosaurs rock and I can afford to pay my share of Jack Horner's salary, but a reasonable person might feel that the money could be better spent maintaining bridges or something.
I would welcome that kind of discussion. What I don't welcome is political maneuvering to hijack a federal agency to serve a minority interest.
While cutting funding for paleontology to fund repairing bridges might sound reasonable, odds are, the funds siphoned away most likely won't be used to repair those bridges. Not when there's an election around the corner and there's pork to spread to buy votes. Not when defense contractors need their corporate welfare fix.
Re: (Score:3)
That's also a legitimate discussion. :-) I am not such an idealist to think that realpolitik doesn't matter, but neither am I such a cynic to think that arguments about the public's interests and priorities carry no weight whatsoever.
I would point out that arguing "if we cut funding for X, the money won't actually benefit Y" is not a strong argument for continuing to fund X. Perhaps the money is better wasted on Y. :-)
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:5, Informative)
Except they aren't going to cut NSF funding to do something useful like repair bridges. They'll instead spend $436 million on tanks the Army doesn't want or some other BS.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/29/1932931/army-tanks-spending/?mobile=nc [thinkprogress.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful in your defence of democracy: You may well find the sensible interests are the minority.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure you would be pleased if your idea of "sensible interests" always prevailed. I am not sure I would be. (No offense intended toward you, I'm just willing to bet we disagree on something major). I'll take democracy, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
This may be true, but mostly due to ignorance.
Actual, factual public discussions on the issues might change things for the better.
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:4, Insightful)
do you see how one turns into a fight and the other does not?
I could point out that some research on both sides are utterly crap. funding the study of beetles migration habits? yeah I dont think we need to waste money on that one
Re: (Score:3)
"would you switch over to solar if the cost was close to the same as you pay for energy today?"
Your question also has a slant - that cost is the only concern in switching to solar. If you're talking solar on their house, you omit the parts about the ugly panels, the batteries required, the cost of and maintenance on the panels and batteries, etc. If you're talking utility-provided solar, then there's the issue of great swaths of land covered in solar cells, the cost to the utility to convert, building-size
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:5, Informative)
I could point out that some research on both sides are utterly crap. funding the study of beetles migration habits? yeah I dont think we need to waste money on that one
Unless you care about how it could affect agricultural production. The boll weevil alone does $300 million in damage to cotton crops. The bark beetle and elm leaf beetle carry Dutch elm disease, which has devastated elm trees in both Europe and North America. Another beetle damages potato crops in Idaho. On the other hand, there are beetles that eat pests and the dung beetle saves the cattle industry $380 million every year in dung disposal costs.
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the pine beetle is killing off huge swaths of pine forest in the Rocky Mountains.
It does actually matter to some folks.
Re: (Score:3)
I could point out that some research on both sides are utterly crap. funding the study of beetles migration habits? yeah I dont think we need to waste money on that one
As others point out, beetles are actually very economically important and you're showing the problem of lay people judging research, namely the benefits of research often aren't immediately obvious
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:4, Insightful)
libertarian = moron.
Re: (Score:3)
Interestingly enough, your stereotype seems just about as dogmatic as what you blame them for. America's *real* biggest problem is the sort of divisive forces you promote. It's always a matter of 'us versus them' for you guys. Meanwhile, the people who understand and promote this principle profit immensely at your expense and they won't even thank you for helping them do so with comments such as the one you made.
I know you want to cheer for whatever team you think you're on. I'm sure you're absolutely c
Re: (Score:2)
Not all 'good points' are actually good points.
Like if you think getting education spending under control is one of 'our' biggest priorities. Fuck, it's not even in the top 100.
Re: (Score:3)
They actually have good points.
On some issues, they have some good points. For instance, I agree that self-restraint and moderation are good principles of personal behavior, and while I don't think the government needs to force people into following them, it's a wise course of action for any individual. I agree that religious groups can be and sometimes are a force for civic and personal improvement. I agree that children do best in stable families. I agree that government can be overly restrictive at times.
Did you know fox news actually does carry news?
Yes, of course it does. I neve
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to fund research on gun violence either.
The problem ISN'T guns. It's the culture of people. We have a culture of violence in the US as much as we woud like to deny it. We glorify it in so many ways -- in the media, the movies, TV shows and pop music. Without that culture, the interest in guns would decrease with the exception of those who use them as intended -- as tools and defense. And without guns, the violence would change adjust.
Presently, we have beating by hand, foot, bludgeon, knife, sword, gun and by larger things such as automobile. To take away things from people who are innocent is punishment of the innocent. Can that really be justified because a particular means is demonized?
At the end of the day, violence takes many, many forms. To address the problem by separating the means is frivolous.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are crazy if you think availability doesn't play in. Ever [thedailyshow.com] heard [thedailyshow.com] of Australia [thedailyshow.com]? Yes, it's a people problem, but so is drunk driving. Fixing it means attacking it from all angles, both the tech and the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that if you had a gun in your possession, that it would increase the liklihood that you would become a violent threat to the public? Availability of a thing does not change the character of a person.
There are examples to the contrary as well.
Would you feel safer if police didn't have guns? I would. There is a problem with government having too many guns and the arming of government increases at a ridiculous rate. Did you know the social security administration is an armed government police
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:5, Insightful)
If an individual had a gun, it would neither make that person more or less likely to be violent, but it would ensure that violence of any kind involving that person is more likely to involve a gun.
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh...no mod points, but this is really the problem. If I'm of a mind to carry a gun around, it likely means I'm of a mind to use one should a problem arise. And that threshold of when I pull out my gun varies between people. Some people need to be threatened with a gun themselves; others only require your foot to get stepped on accidentally, or a dirty look. Without a gun, their only response is a likely non-lethal shouting match or at worst a fist fight (which last longer than a gun battle and are more apt to be stopped by the audience, with the audience surviving the attempt). With a gun, someone is likely to die.
Guns have their place, but it isn't in your waistband, nor strapped to your back in an open-carry town. Those bozos carrying round rifles to inform people of their rights generated a bunch of 911 calls. Because, you know, you're carrying around rifles in the street. That's a culture change no one wants, thanks.
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:4, Informative)
Where do we stop, then? A knife is more dangerous than a baseball bat. A bat is more dangerous than a stick. A stick is more dangerous than fists. Fists are more dangerous than feet.
So ... are guns the magical "okay, we cut it off at guns!" place? What about swords? Switchblades? Oh wait, those are illegal in some states, too. And, I might add, clearly I would be far more dangerous carrying my switchblade than I would my hunting knife ....
It is these sorts of arguments that, IMO, make me want to own a gun (which I do). Why? Because you're convincing me that, if push comes to shove, the guy who doesn't care about the law that may try to kill me to take whatever they want is probably not going to care that the gun increases his ability for violence. I'd like to meet him where he is, if I have to.
And that's not even the 2nd amendment (which isn't really about self-defense-from-criminals). :)
And before I get painted as a crazy, gun-toting, gun-LOVING, tea-party conservative lunatic... I'm more libertarian and I own a single gun, and it's a rifle. I prefer my large dog; he's a very good deterrent. Also, I don't like violence and would absolutely hate to have to shoot my gun at someone. Not having been in the military, I cannot imagine what it would be like to have killed someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, so as much as I hate to say this, referencing the Daily Show for facts is the liberal's answer to quoting Rush Limbaugh. Those shows are entertainment -- everything is taken out of context for humor or to drive home a point which may or may not be salient. John Stewart knows his stuff, certainly, and I am in no way comparing him to Mr. Limbaugh in terms of knowledge, but don't think for a minute that he presents an unbiased view of things. I'm betting the reason the gun laws were so successful in Australia has nothing to do with the laws themselves -- it has to do with the culture (as someone said). People weren't randomly killing each other en masse or in major gang warfare daily like we do here in the US of A (or however the media is presenting it).
Because, seriously. You might need a gun in Australia, but it's for the man-eating spiders.
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to fund research on gun violence either.
The problem ISN'T guns. It's the culture of people. ...
Without that culture, the interest in guns would decrease with the exception of those who use them as intended -- as tools and defense. And without guns, the violence would change adjust.
See, figuring out whether or not that's true is what the research is for.
Re: (Score:2)
Pssshaw, haven't you heard of this "Common Sense" thing. It's apparently a powerful portent, because any time I share research I've read about with conservatives, they tell me Common Sense has predicted its falsity. Clearly this magic crystal ball will also show you everything about guns and their sociological implications without any of that expensive research nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Logic and philosophy, a.k.a. the educated man's common sense, had a good run of things. That was back when there were four elements, light traveled through the ether, and heat was a fluid.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean making it true or not, to suit the current politicians agenda is what the research is for.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to fund research on gun violence either.
The problem ISN'T guns.
So you've already made up your mind, and you're opposed to research that might provide evidence that would force you to change your mind? Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
When a city or state enacts draconian gun control laws - crime goes up. When a city or state relaxes gun control laws - crime goes down.
Awesome. It's not like the borders between states are wide fucking open. The USA isn't the USSR (other similarities notwithstanding) and there's no internal borders, so people can wander over to another state with no gun control laws worth being called such and take a truckload of guns back to their home state, dodging the laws of the latter. Gun control (or control of any other readily transportable good) is completely and totally pointless at any level below national.
But no, use a non-functional implem
Re: (Score:2)
The problem ISN'T guns. It's the culture of people. We have a culture of violence in the US as much as we woud like to deny it. We glorify it in so many ways -- in the media, the movies, TV shows and pop music. Without that culture, the interest in guns would decrease with the exception of those who use them as intended -- as tools and defense. And without guns, the violence would change adjust.
That's a hypothesis. You're doing the first part of research on gun violence right now. Unfortunately, it's the second part that's a lot harder, more expensive, and ultimately, worth anything at all. Without the second part, the first part is only worth the paper (or webpage) it's written on.
Re: (Score:2)
Well congratulations then, that's actually been passed into law. [wikipedia.org] It's nearly impossible for academics to get the raw data they would need to do research, entirely due to that one amendment to some random bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:4, Insightful)
That's silly. If you really believe that guns don't cause the violence, and people just use the tools available to do their violence, than you should believe that a study on gun violence would confirm that.
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score:4, Insightful)
Mexico may have strict gun laws. Not sure they actually have strict gun control though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That was an intense response.
Actually it was a bold, all-caps response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US culture stops at the US border. We have expectations based on our family, our religion, our neighborhood, our states, our laws and, yes, even and especially our racial/ethnic diversity and distribution.
We have a LOT of prisoners in the US. We have a lot of problems in the US. And increasingly, we have a lot of unhappy people due to factors which, among others, include the increasingly unequal distribution of wealth. It's an extremely complex thing which cannot be narrowed down to a single cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the NSF have budget constraints? Do they have to determine which proposals get funded and which don't, or do they fund as much as they want? How do they prioritize their selections? Should those defining the budget have any input on the priorities? These seem pertinent questions that I see neither discussed nor addressed.
Re: (Score:2)
A certain set of Republican politicians are very opposed to the National Science Foundation, as far as I can tell for two reasons:
1. For some politicians (and grassroots conservatives), they oppose some of the actual research being done. For example, they do not want to fund global-warming research, do not want to fund studies of gun violence, and do not particularly want there to be social-science research into issues such as racism or economic inequality.
2. For other politicians, it's just a convenient source of material for people who want to pose as cutting government spending without having to propose serious cuts any of the programs that take up more significant parts of the budget, because those are either too popular and/or politically too well-connected. Instead they just try to make political hay out of finding a few programs in the single-digit millions which they can attack as "frivolous". So, for example, Tom Coburn compiles an annual list of NSF-funded research projects he considers frivolous. You know, frivolous stuff like robotics research [ieee.org].
It might be worth pointing out that Lama Smith is opposed to abortion, and thus most likely anything to do with stem cell research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith#Tenure [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It might be worth pointing out that Lama Smith is opposed to abortion, and thus most likely anything to do with stem cell research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith#Tenure [wikipedia.org]
Thankfully, research on those subjects probably falls under the NIH's umbrella, rather than the NSF.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, there's even a bigger problem with Smith being in charge of the NSF budget. The dude's a Christian Scientist, but not a real scientist. I'm Mormon with my BS in Applied Physics, so I can get the religious vs scientific belief issues. But here's a dude who's whole religion rejects science outright. Up until recently, they'd rather let people die, suffer needlessly through debilitating diseases, or become permanently disabled because "they weren't believing right" and if they wanted to be healed they
Re: (Score:2)
You know, frivolous stuff like robotics research.
I understand that he may not understand everything, but a lot of what is in his list is frivolous. Here is another NSF-funded robotics research "project": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hwBOBeDFHw [youtube.com] If they want to play, then they can do it on the universities' dimes. The universities certainly charge enough to pay for this.
Referencing some more from here: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.serve&File_id=2dccf06d-65fe-4087-b58d-b43ff68987fa [senate.gov]
How to do real science (Score:5, Interesting)
Science is nothing without replication. If you are building an experimental approach based on some result, you have to replicate it before building on this result any further, otherwise your method might be flawed.
To make this clear - let's say some lab produced a result that chemical A is a carcinogen. And I want to test whether this depends on other factors, e.g. genetic background, immune system response, whatever. I will first replicate the result before going on, otherwise I don't have a method. It's that simple.
People in these positions have to be scientist, or at least have had a scientific training, this is a good example of why.
Re: (Score:3)
It is sort of funny in an unsettling way that commenters got worked up about that, and not about
every grant must benefit 'national defense'
which truly sounds batshit crazy. I'd expect that of an Iranian or Norky minister, but not of someone overseeing research funding in a civilized country.
Re: (Score:3)
every grant must benefit 'national defense'
Because it doesn't sound so crazy in its original context where it's nationally funded and only one of a group of qualifications that are joined by logical ors, not logical ands.
Re: (Score:2)
as long as they add "and must not benefit national offence" it might not be so bad.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what is meant by duplication. If two groups are researching the same thing using the same means regarding the same factors, then that is doing something in parallel. I can see that as a (possible) waste of money that could be used to research something else concurrently. Only slight related, when it is different agencies funding the same party, then you have fraud: http://www.nature.com/news/duplicate-grant-case-puts-funders-under-pressure-1.9984 [nature.com]
Replication is different and would not fall
Re: (Score:2)
Parallel research is not necessarily a waste unless the two research projects are iden
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
Alas, the 'national defense' bit is by far the less problematic portion:
"(1) is in the interests of the United States to
advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare,
and to secure the national defense by promoting the
progress of science;"
Ok, so (1) doesn't include noble goals like "Science, because knowing shit is awesome!"; but it's vacuous enough that nearly anything fits. If it is 'science' it probably helps you(or may help you in the future) manipulate the world in some way, and any positive manipulations count as 'national health, prosperity, or welfare' and any negative ones can be dropped on people we dislike and called 'national defense'.
"(2) is the finest quality, is ground breaking,
and answers questions or solves problems that are of
utmost importance to society at large;"
Here's where it goes downhill: Basic Research, motherfucker, have you heard of it? Contrary to what the movies might have led you to believe, 'science' isn't something that a single multidisciplinarian genius brings from test tube to field-ready superpower within a 10 minute montage set in a 'laboratory' that looks more like a small datacenter set up to impress visitors. And, when a given piece of research is the lucky one to go down in history as "Dr. Somebody Invented X", the writeup will have about a zillion papers of the form "A banal and seemingly pointless characterization of bandgap somethingorother in ionized flebatonium" that seemed like pointless noodling until they turned out to be useful.
C'mon, Lamar, I realize that not much gets past your shit-eating grin and incredible density; but surely you don't imagine that scientists who could be out raking in the nobels and lucrative startup stock by cranking out world-altering research of staggering utility are just holding out on us, and sequencing random beetle genomes because grantwriting is just so much fun? If there were plenty of 'groundbreaking' research that 'answers questions or solves problems of utmost importance to society at large' scientists would be shiving one another with broken Erlenmeyer flasks to be the first to do it. Guess what, most of science is just prep work for the good stuff, much of which we don't even know will be the good stuff until we've already done the prep work.
Clause 1 is just babble, of no real consequence(except perhaps to make paper abstracts and grant proposals even more vaguely optimistic); but clause 2 essentially provides unlimited scope to defund absolutely anything that isn't the final stages of a successful R&D exercise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Informative)
2) The discovery of green fluorescent protein, one of the most widely used tools in molecular biology. From wikipedia: "In the 1960s and 1970s, GFP, along with the separate luminescent protein aequorin, was first purified from Aequorea victoria and its properties studied by Osamu Shimomura. . . However, its utility as a tool for molecular biologists did not begin to be realized until 1992 when Douglas Prasher reported the cloning and nucleotide sequence of wtGFP in Gene.[6] The funding for this project had run out, so Prasher sent cDNA samples to several labs. The lab of Martin Chalfie expressed the coding sequence of wtGFP, with the first few amino acids deleted, in heterologous cells of E. coli and C. elegans, publishing the results in Science in 1994."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sure half the research outlined here wouldn't have happened [wikipedia.org] if people had been funded only with principles like the ones in this bill. I mean, what the hell kind of national defense benefits could there be from experiments like firing protons at the nucleus of lithium atoms or trying to fuse light nuclei together? And what possible benefit could there be to society at large of investigating the possibility of neutron-initiated chain reactions with uranium nuclei? It's all a bunch of Jewish physicists
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget good old Conservapedia [conservapedia.com]! The wikipedia clone for people who think that "Relativity", the concept from physics, is related to "Relativism", the philsophical rejection of the concept of moral absolutes...
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon, Lamar, I realize that not much gets past your shit-eating grin and incredible density; but surely you don't imagine that scientists who could be out raking in the nobels and lucrative startup stock by cranking out world-altering research of staggering utility are just holding out on us, and sequencing random beetle genomes because grantwriting is just so much fun? If there were plenty of 'groundbreaking' research that 'answers questions or solves problems of utmost importance to society at large' scientists would be shiving one another with broken Erlenmeyer flasks to be the first to do it.
Not me. I miss out on all the groundbreaking research because of my demanding studies of which flasks make the best shivs. But once my experiments are complete I'll show them. Yes, then I'll show them all...
Re: (Score:2)
Volumetric flasks make the best shivs. That was the subject of my thesis.
Re: (Score:2)
Very well put. I often have this problem when talking to people about space exploration.
"Why should we go to space? Why do we need to do research out there? What will I get out of it?"
That's the thing. We don't know what we'll get out of it until we get it.
Re: (Score:2)
People like Smith revel in their evil, and promote ignorance and inequality with full intent. "Incredible density" would be an improvement for them.
Patriot Science (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong?
Look at the upside (Score:2)
With a Republican in charge, there will be plenty of grant money for anyone looking for conduct research to disprove evolution or global warming.
Learning from History... (Score:5, Informative)
For those that have even a fragment of history, you'll remember that the middle east used to be a center of learning and science.
In the days of the crusades, their scientific knowledge far outstripped that of Europe (there's a reason the numerals we use today are called "arabic numerals".
So, what happened to change that? Did Europe suddenly invest massively in science to go toe to toe? Alas not. Religious zealots got in places of power, and started to dictate that the progress of science was "against the will of god" (as the priesthood didn't understand it, so it scared them, and anything that scares a religious zealot is "against the will of god"). The role of religion in Europe started to lessen, allowing scientific method to progress apace and advancement to occur.
There's a reason ethics committees exist for scientific projects; the lay-people on them are a voice for the average person: They force the people doing pure science to think carefully about ramifications of performing experimentation in a particular fashion (is the experiment ethical? Can the way it's performed in a different way, not affecting the core of the theory, that is ethical?). The professionals are there to ensure the science is actually valid and to pick out the ones sloppily created that are mathematically wrong, or are unable by structure to draw the conclusions they're looking for from the experiments performed.
I'm vaguely hopeful that this incursion of zealotry into the workings of scientific progress can be rooted out and cast aside, but from the path that the US has been following towards a combination between a corporate feudalism headed by a close to a theocracy (what are the chances of an atheist being elected president these days, since the pledge of allegiance was altered in 1954 to include the "under god" segment; no, for you younger ones, that wasn't part of the original, and was tagged on for political ends), it's not a certainty. That's somewhat worrying really.
Re:Learning from History... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why we need research, even in the soft sciences like history. Without such research it's trivial for put forth ideas that sound self evident and they become 'truth'.
This series of articles suggests it was economic collapse and not religious dogma. http://www.history-science-technology.com/articles/articles%208.htm [history-sc...nology.com]
I don't know which is true, they both sound plausible. The fact is science is good and it should not be retarded in the name of religion or short term economic relief.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Learning from History... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yada yada yada, science and religion incompatible, religion a heinous evil, science the hope of mankind, etc, etc.
At different periods of time and in different places, religion and science have had different relationships. At the time when the Arabs conquered India and absorbed the Arabic-Hindu numeral system, they were heavily Islamic. Likewise, Alhazen's optics, and Sina's work on medicine were performed while their political system was dominated by Islam.
Likewise, in Europe, much early scientific work was done by clerics (as they were most likely to be literate). Much of their work was predicated on the notion that the world was rational and organised - a philosophy that flowed from their religious belief (that God was a god of order, and thus the universe itself must be ordered). Their investigations were into exploring the order God had created.
Even now, pretty much everywhere apart from the USA, there's little conflict. It's the USA that's birthed both southern baptists and the new atheist movement. Your religion, politics and science have become so intertwined, that there's almost no issue that isn't considered to touch on all three. But everywhere else in the Western world, you don't see these issues: other countries don't have court cases over whether or not to teach evolution; they just teach it.
You're right in that there's a decline in science when secular power is held by people who are threatened by the truth - but that's not necessarily a religion problem. Both religious and secular leaders have opposed scientific conclusions, because it undermined their authority, or ran counter to their own interests (this philosophy implies that I, the king, do not have a divine mandate to rule - suppress it! This science implies that my oil tycoon buddies are screwing up the world - suppress it!). The common element is always political power, not religion. If you're looking for an enemy for science, politics is a much more suitable target than religion.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're looking for an enemy for science, politics is a much more suitable target than religion.
Except we can't get rid of "politics." We can educate people which helps a bit, but there will always be people scared of progress. They'll take organized religion and use it as a bat against science and progress, since it's a very effective bat. Take away religion and science has a much better chance of prevailing even though the actors have not changed. Kind of like an angry 16 year old and an adult locked in the room. If the teen is armed with a bat, the rational adult stands a much poorer chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the teenager's in a room of infinite bats. If it's not religion, it's philosophy, or nationalism, or self-interest, or fear of change, or any of a hundred other levers that have been demonstrably proved able to manipulate human beings. You can't cure a disease just by treating the symptoms; the root cause must be addressed. And while politics can never be done away with, it can be limited and contained - like the American constitution tried (and failed) to do.
every grant must benefit 'national defense,' (Score:2)
So the tiny-brained people have taken over at last!
Re: (Score:2)
The "national defense" has been a tempting way to fund science, at least since 2000. In many cases it's been easier to make up some way to tie proposed research to defense and fund it that way, than to compete for the ever shrinking funds the NSF has.
Unfortunately, that route has big problems. Military people can't let be. Many are paranoid control freaks, and they've got to control the research. They will insist on such things as that all the data and equipment must be kept at military bases. Then y
Duplicative Congress (Score:3, Interesting)
One could plausibly argue that, since citizens are represented by two Senators and a Representative to the House, that half of the Senate and all of the House are duplicative and can be eliminated. It would certainly reduce cost and improve efficiency.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Life, the Universe, Everything (Score:2)
The above title represents the ONLY question to be answered by groundbreaking science that will be funded by the NSF from this point on (unless of course it involves new ways to blow stuff up).
So title every grant proposal with "Life The Universe, Everything" and genius politicians will grant you funds to pursue your "science". It's not like they ever actually READ those proposals, just the title, so go ahead and investigate beetle dung like you always have, just be ready to prove how it relates to everythi
About benefitting national defense (Score:5, Interesting)
This was addressed by Robert Wilson, the director of Fermilab, while addressing the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_R._Wilson)
It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.
This is why... (Score:2)
You don't put luddites with an IQ of near-zero in charge of science and finance.
Their agenda (Score:2)
Actual Bill (Score:4, Informative)
(a) is in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science
(b) is not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies.
Now, we can argue whether that is good or not, but I am so tired of summaries which are blatantly trying to mislead us, like we are children who can't understand the actual words in the bill.
Re:idiots, idiots everywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
* They help our business interests.
* They appeal to our religious convictions.
* They look good and sound good on the local TV.
* We think no wrong of them because it's always the other idiots outside our districts that are the problem all over the country.
* We actually think these people care for us and buy in to the bull in the campaign ads.
Uninformed and uneducated voters are killing the country. They scream about kicking carrier politicians out but never really start with their own house while expecting somoene else to do it elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
that's not something we can research.
Re:idiots, idiots everywhere. (Score:5, Informative)
"We" didn't. My state voted 54% to 45% for democratic representatives, due to gerrymandering in 2010, that resulted in 9 republican reps and 4 democratic ones.
They have power because they have power, and use that power to maintain power.
Re: (Score:2)
How do we as a nation let these clowns have any sort of power.
I like Jon Stewart's send-up [crooksandliars.com] of another professional congressional 'ktard. (Sorry, eight minutes long, and you have to watch the whole thing to see the full depth of the idiocy. But then it's Jon Stewart, so you may want to invest the eight minutes anyway.)
Re:National Defense!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even better, the pentagon/military already funds their own basic research, that's what DARPA is all about -- the NSF is supposed to be separate for NON MILITARY purposes. So now everything is all about supporting the Military Industrial Complex.
Re: (Score:3)
Even better, the pentagon/military already funds their own basic research, that's what DARPA is all about -- the NSF is supposed to be separate for NON MILITARY purposes. So now everything is all about supporting the Military Industrial Complex.
Now?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lamar Smith is stupid fucking douchebag. I think that's all that needs be said, no need to get into specifics.