Journal pudge's Journal: Scientists Declare that Up is Down; Journalists Believe It 21
CNN sports the headline today, "Obama moves to separate politics, science." How did he supposedly do this? By removing Bush's limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
On what planet is increased funding for scientific research an increased separation of politics and science?
The facts show Obama did the exact opposite of the headline: he further and more deeply entwined politics and science. The more something is funded, the more politics controls it.
The only way to separate politics and science is to get government out of science. I'd support that. (Of course, this is only a necessary, not sufficient, condition for a seperation of science and state.)
There's a perhaps even more disturbing headline on CNN, below the other: "Researchers cheer vote for science. But it's not a vote for science, it's a vote for federal funding of certain scientific research that many people, for very good reason, find unethical. There's nothing about this that is a "vote for science," or anything like it. If anything it's anti-science because it attaches more strings to the research.
And if you have to ask "what strings?," then you're really not paying attention. These are the same people who claim stem cell research in the U.S. was retarded by Bush's policies. Come on, people think: if you didn't rely on government in the first place, then Bush wouldn't have been making the decision to not fund your research
This reminds me of the insane praise that "scientists" gave the court decision that ruled that Intelligent Design is not "science." Whether or not I.D. is science, a court has no business making that determination (and no, whether something is science is not instructive as to whether it's a violation of the Establishment Clause). They applauded the court decision as "for science" just because they agreed with it, when in fact it was anti-science because it installed the court as an arbiter of science.
So when a court comes along and says Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't science, or a President limits spending on science
Of course, it's possible that you know exactly what's going on and that you're merely dishonest. Surely some "scientists" recognize it's all political, and are merely exploiting the system to get what you want.
Naaaaaaah.
As Bastiat wrote, "Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few -- whether farmers, manufacturers, ship owners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so."
Including embryonic stem cell researchers.
I just wish thwy would say "we want that money" instead of nonsensically crowing about this being a vote "for science."
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
You need to spend some time with a scientist... (Score:2)
Pudge,
Dude, what you really need to understand is that many (the majority?) of scientists could give a damn about politics. More importantly, you need to understand the crucial difference between applied and basic science.
Basic science really is about finding the truth and digging into a problem and *understanding* how things work.
Applied science is what most people think science is about; figuring out how to apply what we know to solve a problem or make something.
Industry is all about applied science, but
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, what you really need to understand is that many (the majority?) of scientists could give a damn about politics.
Well, that's not really true. It's only true that they don't care about politics that don't affect them. When it is about giving them money, they care a great deal. The current case is an obvious example to prove the point.
More importantly, you need to understand the crucial difference between applied and basic science.
Done!
This country is where it is today (in a good way), because we invested in basic science on a governmental level.
Incorrect. That implies we would not be here if government had not done it, which I disbelieve, and which you certainly can't come close to demonstrating.
Getting government out of science means that basic science will essentially not get done
Ibid.
If you look at all the corporations that *used* to do basic research, essentially none of them are engaged in basic research including the drug companies.
Right, because they rely on government instead. So if you take away the government funds ... then ... don't make me spel
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's not really true. It's only true that they don't care about politics that don't affect them. When it is about giving them money, they care a great deal. The current case is an obvious example to prove the point.
This was a deliberate case of hamstringing by making it a political issue. Bush barred any university receiving federal funds from performing stem cell research from any cell line outside of the approved cell lines which was scientifically problematic. In essence, he tied the complete f
Re: (Score:2)
This was a deliberate case of hamstringing by making it a political issue. Bush barred any university receiving federal funds from performing stem cell research from any cell line outside of the approved cell lines which was scientifically problematic.
So? By asking for government money in a democratic republic, you are nececssarily accepting that the decisions to fund will be based on things other than science. Which means you are accepting that politics will be a major factor. Let's not pretend this is an isolated case, it's merely the most well-known: you know as well as I do that lobbying is a huge part of the process for what gets funded and what doesn't.
Any time you prevent someone from doing their work, engaging in their passion or preventing them from putting food on the table and feeding their families, you are going to cause problems.
Research projects are de-funded all the time. Politics is always a part of the game when gove
Re: (Score:2)
Then Basic science would give up on embryonic stem cell research, because it doesn't work. To date, all embryonic stem cells have been able to do is grow malignant tumors.
All success in stem cell research has come from adult and umbilical cord cells. Spending Federal money on the embryonic stem cell research is a waste of taxpayer money.
Re: (Score:2)
RailGunner
That is incorrect. You are talking to a bioscientist here who does read the literature. There are a number of projects that have had successful outcomes in cardiac tissue, skeletal muscle, pancreas and more...
There have been some problems with the previously "approved" list of embryonic stem cells due to passage and other bio-technical issues. Not having access to any new lines or new tissue has hurt progress in the field in the US.
If you feel that research in Parkinson's disease, blindness, Al
Re: (Score:2)
If you feel that research in Parkinson's disease, blindness, Alzheimers, neuromuscular disease, diabetes and more is a waste of taxpayer money, then that is your prerogative. Thankfully, the vast majority of Americans feel otherwise.
The vast majority of Americans think a lot of things. Thankfully, we do not have a democracy in this country, though the Democrats would like us to have one, that they might avoid the limitations placed on a republic. One of those limitations, of course, is that the federal government is constitutionally limited to enumerated and implied powers. Research into diseases, generally speaking, is not one of those powers.
It really should go without saying that federal funding of research into Parkinson's disea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any links to the interview(s) where he said this? I find it pretty disturbing that anybody could advocate for killing a human being for research and am surprised that more people haven't condemned him for doing so.
I'm sorry, you read too much into what I said. What I said was that he argued this IMPLICITLY. His argument was, which he has repeated many times, that we should ignore the moral questions of stem cell research and just do it simply because it could save lives. This argument necessarily also means that we should dissect live newborn babies if it would save lives.
He does not actually believe that, but he was arguing for it. He was, of course, really being dishonest, or ignorant. His actual argument -- I
Re: (Score:2)
One of those limitations, of course, is that the federal government is constitutionally limited to enumerated and implied powers. Research into diseases, generally speaking, is not one of those powers.
It really should go without saying that federal funding of research into Parkinson's disease is unconstiutional.
So do you think ANY government research funding is constitutional? If so in what areas and how do you determine if something meets the test?
In any case unconstitutional or not that bridge has been crossed a long time ago.
As a practical matter other countries are heavily funding both basic and applied science. To drop government funding of research is a good way to ensure the US becomes a third-rate country across the board.
Re: (Score:2)
So do you think ANY government research funding is constitutional?
No. Only that federak funding which is not a delegated power of the Constitution to the United States. Obviously, the military is a delegated power to the United States, and the "necessary and proper" clause says that research for the military is legal.
If so in what areas and how do you determine if something meets the test?
The same way we determine how anything is legal under the Tenth Amendment. That is, if you believe in limited government and/or the primacy of the text of the Constitution, you look to see whether a given area is actually in the Constitution, or implied th
Re: (Score:2)
No. Only that federak funding which is not a delegated power of the Constitution to the United States. Obviously, the military is a delegated power to the United States, and the "necessary and proper" clause says that research for the military is legal.
See the problem here is you can't easily tell where research is going to lead you or what areas of research might lead to a breakthrough in another field. Particularly when you are dealing with basic research rather than applied.
Take the early DARPA and NSF funding of the Internet. You say "it would have happened anyway". However the improvements to data networking clearly benefited military communications. Furthermore enabling people engaged in other military research to better communicate and collaborate
Re: (Score:2)
See the problem here is you can't easily tell where research is going to lead you or what areas of research might lead to a breakthrough in another field.
I do not see this as a problem at all. The Constitution does not say, "go ahead and spend money on whatever you want to, because that might help the military someday." It says "go ahead and spend money on the military." If the research is directly related to a military purpose, fine. If not, not fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not see this as a problem at all. The Constitution does not say, "go ahead and spend money on whatever you want to, because that might help the military someday." It says "go ahead and spend money on the military." If the research is directly related to a military purpose, fine. If not, not fine.
See the problem is if you say embryonic stem cell research is too wild blue yonder to be justify spending money on under "funding the military" then a whole heck of a lot of research is cut off as well.
You want a new stealth material for your new fighter. Well turns out you need some advances in material science, so you fund that. Well turns out you need some advances in physics or chemistry so you fund that. Alternately you need to do some computer simulations but the state of the art in the hardware or so
Re: (Score:2)
See the problem is if you say embryonic stem cell research is too wild blue yonder to be justify spending money on under "funding the military" then a whole heck of a lot of research is cut off as well.
Yes, you already said that, and I said, I don't see this as a problem. You have not demonstrated that it IS a problem (your example with the fighter isn't one that shows a problem, since as you described it the research is FOR specific military purpose, and those allowable).
And worse, you've utterly failed to show the most important thing: how you can do what you want to do and still follow the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the creators of that website have no biases, do they? After reading their stated objectives, let me stop myself from laughing. I'll wipe the tears from my eyes and spend a few more minutes reading through it, but come on now... you have to see their bias, right?
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, I personally have no comment about what has produced better results, simply because if research of some type is unethical and immoral, what benefits it produces is irrelevant. And if it is not unethical or immoral, then go ahead, research it all you want, knock yourself out ... as long as you do it privately. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Two things here:
1. Other countries are happily funding embryonic stem cell research. This means any medical advances that such research may produce are likely to primarily benefit biotech companies and the research communities in those countries. Biotech has been a huge competitive advantage for the US, it would be a shame to piss it away.
2. By preventing any institution that was otherwise receiving Federal funds from engaging in embryonic stem cell research you essentially shut down such research in the US
Re: (Score:2)
1. Other countries are happily funding embryonic stem cell research. This means any medical advances that such research may produce are likely to primarily benefit biotech companies and the research communities in those countries. Biotech has been a huge competitive advantage for the US, it would be a shame to piss it away.
Irrelevant if the research is unethical. If South Korea dissects live newborn babies, should we do it too?
2. By preventing any institution that was otherwise receiving Federal funds from engaging in embryonic stem cell research you essentially shut down such research in the US. It is one thing to say "we won't fund X", it is another to say "if you research X you won't get funding for anything else".
Unfortunately, money is fungible. Funding one thing means money is freed up to fund the other thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Favoring adult / umbilical stem cell research is just good science. Favoring embryonic stem cell research is junk science [foxnews.com].