Comments on: Condoms, Malt Liquor, and Good Research

By: Terry Skaggs

Terry Skaggs — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:13:35 +0000

I find it comical that you actually DEFEND these studies!!! As a male that went thru puberty I can attest that women are more likely to “hook up” after drinking…that’s why most young men try to get their dates drunk! How much did that study cost? You “scientists” are comical, pathetic but comical just the same.

By: Monica Metzler

Monica Metzler — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:04:02 +0000

Nicely done, Chris. I was particularly attuned to this because of Sarah Palin’s egregiously uninformed campaign crack about a very high-tech piece of equipment at Chicago’s Adler Planetarium as being an “overhead projector” although it was a very worthwhile piece of science funding.

One of their Illinois critiques — albeit not science related — was of an NEA grant to Chicago’s Shakespeare Theater (one of the nation’s most respected theater companies) in which they completely confuse, and wrongly associate, a comedy performance done by the Second City Improv troupe that happened to take place in the Shakespeare theater’s space.

I concluded this whole “report” was put together by clueless low-level interns and not fact-checked in any way.
Sigh….

By: Mac Hall

Mac Hall — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:51:20 +0000

To say that the government stimulus package does not include waste is ignorant. What about the feds paying $22,000 for a toilet or putting up a guardrail around a dry lake? http://www.stimuluscigars.com/whatsburning How about researching why Chinese prostitutes drink!! Seriously??!! The colossal waste of MY MONEY and YOUR MONEY is outrageous!

By: Cathy

Cathy — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:43:48 +0000

I knew someone who got the Golden Fleece Award for studying chemicals in plants that kept ants away. It was very good research but so easy to take out of context.

By: Mike Myklin

Mike Myklin — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:23:19 +0000

As a group that supports honey bee research we cannot understand why any elected official would say protecting our food sources is bad. Honey Bees are an integral part of our farming economy even to non-food crops such as cotton. The research for many years has concentrated on increasing honey production – not on the basic science needed to understand our pollinators.

By: David J Kroll

David J Kroll — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:51:39 +0000

Chris, I’d also add that in addition to the jobs created directly by the ARRA grant funds, indirect costs provide support for other jobs that make doing the science possible: pipefitters and facility maintenance personnel, administrative assistants, custodial staff, and all of the other unsung folks who make it possible every day for our academic laboratory to conduct our research.

By: Chris V

Chris V — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:57:01 +0000

Sure LEB, use away! Funny that Coburn doesn’t want to fund the arts either. At least he’s consistent, eh? And dang, I see some typos in my last post too! So it goes.

By: Lee Ellen Benjamin

Lee Ellen Benjamin — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:13:27 +0000

Chris V, may I re-use you comment? “A nation that is rich with capital, but bankrupt in curiosity is in trouble.”

By: Lee Ellen Benjamin

Lee Ellen Benjamin — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:11:50 +0000

Let me also point out that Sen. Coburn was ADAMANT that the Stimulus Funds would not help the arts either. If Science and the Arts are not worth spending our money on, what is?! (Are the folks in Oklahoma dumb and uncouth?) It has been said that marijuana is Oklahoma’s number one cash crop. Maybe we should fund some more marijuana studies to help OK farmers. Indeed, recovery.gov reports that the $2B in Stimulus money that was sent to OK created nearly 9,000 jobs and the nearly $3B that went to AZ created over 12,000 jobs. I can’t see what they have to complain about.

By: Chris V

Chris V — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:36:48 +0000

Sheena, I imagine these Senators would say that instead of “wasting” these funds we should give it back to the people in the form of lower taxes. In their world companies with a lower tax burden would invest in all the truly valuable scientific endeavors. OK. More market-based solutions are great. But this presupposes that 1)the only things worth doing have some market value and 2)we can predict scientific pay-offs. Would market forces alone ever drive development of cures for diseases that don’t affect enough people to be make the treatments marketable? What about inadvertent discoveries of things like penicillin? Or drugs and therapies that have resulted from the convergence of many seemingly disparate basic research fields?

Of course, scientists should be able to defend their work. But to me, a more important, and overlooked point, in these types of discussions is this: in a nation as rich as the United States, shouldn’t there should be ample room for science whose sole mission, put simply, is the pursuit of knowledge? Doesn’t knowledge itself benefit the public good? I think it does, but maybe not. Regardless, this recent embrace of anti-intellectualism by some of our politicians should scare a country that seeks to remain competitive in the 21st century. A nation that is rich with capital but bankrupt in curiosity is in trouble.

PS – I haven’t looked at the list of 100 projects but I’d be surprised if any of the “wasteful” research was being conducted in AZ or OK…Senators usually only welcome funding for their home states when the research is truly important.

By: Eskimo

Eskimo — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:59:41 +0000

This behavior by the Senatorial pair seems to be the answer to the question: how can we Republicans (poorly) imitate Jon Stewart?

By: Sheena Friend

Sheena Friend — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:18:40 +0000

ah typos! “popiticians” should be “politicians”

By: Sheena Friend

Sheena Friend — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:17:00 +0000

Insightful article Chris. I wonder what would Sen. McCain and Coburnsay if they were asked what they would do with the money being “wasted” on these research projects. It’s just insteresting how myopic these popiticians are, especially towards projects they think are “silly.” I do agree with you that each of the above mentioned projects, and probably all the others that were not, can provide valuable information that will be benifitical to the local, national or even global society. What do you think they would do with all these so-called “wasted” funds?