Science: 1, Republicans: 0

[Enresshou]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-plan-to-kill-science-jobs-bill-with-porn.php

Long story made short, the Republicans tried to kill the renewal of the America Competes Act (which gives a pretty sizable chunk of scientific funding) by slipping in a provision that severely cut the funding of the bill while toughening restrictions on federal employees viewing porn on-the-clock. People couldn't vote against the Republican act to reduce funding without being "soft on porn". The Democrats split the Republican motion into chunks, letting them vote for increased restrictions on federal employees watching porn at work without having to endorse restricted science funding.

Major victory, in my opinion; both in terms of the scientific funding and in defeating this stupid, bullshit "tack shit onto bills to enable pet projects or get them killed" practice. The butthurt of the people who tried to pull that move is sweet.

 

[Iaculus]

The butthurt of the people who tried to pull that move is sweet.

Perhaps it should be filmed? For scientific purposes?

 

[Enresshou]

The butthurt of the people who tried to pull that move is sweet.

Perhaps it should be filmed? For scientific purposes?[/QUOTE]

Someone might be able to get a paper out of it, maybe by studying the effects of noxious stimulation on the posterior region of right-leaning individuals due to failure of ideology.

 

[Dave]

So...just a question here. If this was done to prevent a rider from killing a bill...why has this not been done before?!? With all the pork and bullshit that gets thrown into these things by both sides, why is this just now being used as a tool of governing? I would think it would be a good thing to be able to vote out portions of a bill. So when a good bill gets loaded down by special interests they could say "No" without having to kill the whole bloody bill.

 

[drawn_inward]

So...just a question here. If this was done to prevent a rider from killing a bill...why has this not been done before?!? With all the pork and bullshit that gets thrown into these things by both sides, why is this just now being used as a tool of governing? I would think it would be a good thing to be able to vote out portions of a bill. So when a good bill gets loaded down by special interests they could say "No" without having to kill the whole bloody bill.

THIS!!!!!!!! Pork barrel bullshit pisses me off.

 

[tegid]

why would they want to cut science funding?

---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

So...just a question here. If this was done to prevent a rider from killing a bill...why has this not been done before?!? With all the pork and bullshit that gets thrown into these things by both sides, why is this just now being used as a tool of governing? I would think it would be a good thing to be able to vote out portions of a bill. So when a good bill gets loaded down by special interests they could say "No" without having to kill the whole bloody bill.

Does anyone around know if this is possible as a regular thing (I know it doesn't happen, I'm asking if the 'rules' contemplate it or this was an exception also in this sense)? It should be.

 

[Dave]

Because science answers questions the right would rather cover up. Like the fact that we've been around for millions of years, evolution is real, etc.

A theocracy would fit right in to the Republican's wheelhouse and science funding is not a part of that.

 

[Enresshou]

why would they want to cut science funding?

Because the goals of the Republicans for the past decade or so (and, in large part, politicians in general) have relied on ignorance and a non-existent sense of reasoning and skepticism to achieve their goals. These two things go hand-in-hand, and are a large part of why the Republican policies of the past decade have been so successful: "If you question America, you're a terrorist," "Tax breaks for the wealthy will help the poor (in spite of past evidence)," "Evolution is wrong, as has been shown by Intelligent Design". This line of thought requires a large populace that acts more on emotion than on reasoning, and--surprise surprise--science, as well as skepticism, is one of the traits that Republicans have been trying to dismantle wholesale whenever they get a chance.

Essentially, it's the same reason why tyrants will always go after the press, communications, and artists, and why slave-owners believed literacy corrupts slaves: it's a lot easier to push forward policies that run counter to the peoples' best interests when you're able to convince them it benefits them.

 

[Eriol]

On the devil's advocate stance here, why should government pay for research funding? Basically, they only pay part of it, the result is patented, and "the people" pay for it yet again, rather than something that's freely available. If the government funds it, the result should be open. If private funds it, they get to "keep" it. ANY hybridization should cause the results to go to the people. It's similar to the question "where does all the money that people donate to heart/cancer/whatever go to?" Drugs aren't any cheaper by "public" involvement, so where's the money going, and who's profiting from it?

As for the bills and attachments thing, I'll bet it has to do with the political idea of "I'll support this if you add in this other part on the same bill." If you could vote individually on certain parts, that kind of thing would be a lot harder. I don't know if I support it one way or the other, but that's what I'll bet the reasoning is.

 

[Iaculus]

On the devil's advocate stance here, why should government pay for research funding? Basically, they only pay part of it, the result is patented, and "the people" pay for it yet again, rather than something that's freely available. If the government funds it, the result should be open. If private funds it, they get to "keep" it. ANY hybridization should cause the results to go to the people. It's similar to the question "where does all the money that people donate to heart/cancer/whatever go to?" Drugs aren't any cheaper by "public" involvement, so where's the money going, and who's profiting from it?

As for the bills and attachments thing, I'll bet it has to do with the political idea of "I'll support this if you add in this other part on the same bill." If you could vote individually on certain parts, that kind of thing would be a lot harder. I don't know if I support it one way or the other, but that's what I'll bet the reasoning is.

The advantage of government funding is that it isn't as results-oriented as the private sort, which means that whilst it can't put as much grunt behind a proven/profitable idea as a private firm, it's better at fostering the sort of crazy innovation that those firms will skim the good stuff from. They're symbiotic - one handles the launch, the other the follow-through. Basically, the public funds go towards maintaining diversity of research.

 

[Enresshou]

On the devil's advocate stance here, why should government pay for research funding? Basically, they only pay part of it, the result is patented, and "the people" pay for it yet again, rather than something that's freely available. If the government funds it, the result should be open. If private funds it, they get to "keep" it. ANY hybridization should cause the results to go to the people. It's similar to the question "where does all the money that people donate to heart/cancer/whatever go to?" Drugs aren't any cheaper by "public" involvement, so where's the money going, and who's profiting from it?

As for the bills and attachments thing, I'll bet it has to do with the political idea of "I'll support this if you add in this other part on the same bill." If you could vote individually on certain parts, that kind of thing would be a lot harder. I don't know if I support it one way or the other, but that's what I'll bet the reasoning is.

The advantage of government funding is that it isn't as results-oriented as the private sort, which means that whilst it can't put as much grunt behind a proven/profitable idea as a private firm, it's better at fostering the sort of crazy innovation that those firms will skim the good stuff from. They're symbiotic - one handles the launch, the other the follow-through. Basically, the public funds go towards maintaining diversity of research.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much this. The private sector is nearly entirely results-oriented, which--while not bad in and of itself--rarely lends itself to the type of research that breaks open new fields of inquiry. Prior to their discoveries, you would have never thought to look for the cause of diseases as diverse as cystic fibrosis, schizophrenia, or Huntington's disease in the structure of DNA, as Watson and Crick did. You wouldn't have thought that the road to radio, television, and all of wireless technology would have been found through several obscure equations, as Maxwell did. You wouldn't have thought that an important key to aging would have been found in the gonads of grasshoppers, although the name of the scientist in question eludes me. To find the answers to these questions you need a huge, diverse field of research being conducted; and, unfortunately, there's nowhere near enough charitable for-profit companies to enable this.

 

[Eriol]

I don't debate that there is probably a role for government-funded research, only that the results of this research are basically gobbled up by the PRIVATE interests that are there too. They don't become public domain, or any variant thereof. If somebody wanted to set up government labs that would research things that few (or no) private interests are going for, then I could probably be convinced, but to my perception, that's not the case right now. Right now a scientist gets 40% funding private, and 60% public, and the private interest takes all the patents/copyrights/etc from the work. And if it's dead-end, it's 95%/5%, but the private STILL takes everything. Hence the problem.

 

[drawn_inward]

I didn't know that Republicans were "anti-science." Also, to say that they don't like science funding because they are afraid it will prove their religion wrong is about as short-sighted as you claim the Republicans to be.

I'm Conservative, and a scientist. I know loads of Conservative scientists. I personally don't see why religion/science or conservatism/science have to be mutually exclusive.

What I will agree with, I have seen more science funding under Democrats. That's a shame (for Conservatives). Again, I am a man without a party.

 

[Troll]

I didn't know that Republicans were "anti-science." Also, to say that they don't like science funding because they are afraid it will prove their religion wrong is about as short-sighted as you claim the Republicans to be.

I'm Conservative, and a scientist. I know loads of Conservative scientists. I personally don't see why religion/science or conservatism/science have to be mutually exclusive.

What I will agree with, I have seen more science funding under Democrats. That's a shame (for Conservatives). Again, I am a man without a party.

With political conservatives launching a full out attack on evolution in this country, it's easy to see how some people might paint them as "anti-science" in the same way I hear conservatives describe all liberals as "anti-religion" (or some variation of) despite numerous church-goers on the left.

 

[Chazwozel]

Because science answers questions the right would rather cover up. Like the fact that we've been around for millions of years, evolution is real, etc.

A theocracy would fit right in to the Republican's wheelhouse and science funding is not a part of that.

Like the fact that the Gulf of Mexico is now going to be a toxic waste dump!

 

[Krisken]

I don't debate that there is probably a role for government-funded research, only that the results of this research are basically gobbled up by the PRIVATE interests that are there too. They don't become public domain, or any variant thereof. If somebody wanted to set up government labs that would research things that few (or no) private interests are going for, then I could probably be convinced, but to my perception, that's not the case right now. Right now a scientist gets 40% funding private, and 60% public, and the private interest takes all the patents/copyrights/etc from the work. And if it's dead-end, it's 95%/5%, but the private STILL takes everything. Hence the problem.

I have two words for you: Space Race.

 

[Eriol]

I don't debate that there is probably a role for government-funded research, only that the results of this research are basically gobbled up by the PRIVATE interests that are there too. They don't become public domain, or any variant thereof. If somebody wanted to set up government labs that would research things that few (or no) private interests are going for, then I could probably be convinced, but to my perception, that's not the case right now. Right now a scientist gets 40% funding private, and 60% public, and the private interest takes all the patents/copyrights/etc from the work. And if it's dead-end, it's 95%/5%, but the private STILL takes everything. Hence the problem.

I have two words for you: Space Race.[/QUOTE]
Ya but that actually endorses my assertions. If all the technology coming off of that had been fully owned by private companies, we'd have paid $50 per insulin needle (they only got as small as they have because of that tech). That's obviously not happening, so there was almost-certainly some free release of tech from that. That's how it SHOULD work with government sponsorship, not drugs coming out at $10,000 per dose that are partially government funded. That's the more common case, and what I'm against.

 

[Krisken]

What drug is $10,000 a dose?

 

[SpecialKO]

I think Eriol's just talking about re-hauling the patent system around making sure people don't get rich off public funding that the public doesn't get some kind of proportional trickle-down from.

 

[Eriol]

Sorry, per month: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-07-10-cancer-costs_x.htm

And I remember some story about a drug for a relatively rare cancer that wasn't covered up here in Canada that WAS around that per dose. I'll dig that up when I have more time.

Edit: and ya TeKeo, that's basically it, though spread the philosophy around to more than merely health care. If the government's spending my money on it, I want it to have a clear benefit to the PEOPLE.

 

[Krisken]

I'm sorry Eriol, I'm not seeing where it says the drug was funded in any way by the government.

 

[drifter]

Sorry, per month: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-07-10-cancer-costs_x.htm

And I remember some story about a drug for a relatively rare cancer that wasn't covered up here in Canada that WAS around that per dose. I'll dig that up when I have more time.

Edit: and ya TeKeo, that's basically it, though spread the philosophy around to more than merely health care. If the government's spending my money on it, I want it to have a clear benefit to the PEOPLE.

It does have a clear benefit to the people, if not in the way you want it to.

 

[tegid]

I didn't know that Republicans were "anti-science." Also, to say that they don't like science funding because they are afraid it will prove their religion wrong is about as short-sighted as you claim the Republicans to be.

I'm Conservative, and a scientist. I know loads of Conservative scientists. I personally don't see why religion/science or conservatism/science have to be mutually exclusive.

What I will agree with, I have seen more science funding under Democrats. That's a shame (for Conservatives). Again, I am a man without a party.

Not necessarily true for conservatives or people who vote republican but if we are talking about political parties, besides the difference in funding you already observed I only have one thing to say: Sarah Palin.

 

[Rob King]

I don't know how relevant this is, but the conversation about privately/publically funded research, and absurd costs of medication reminded me of this essay by Michael Crichton.

 

[Dave]

I had no idea the genome was patentable. That seems counter-intuitive.

 

[Element 117]

Here's a fun question. Who here knows how many laws govern this country?

 

[Dave]

ONE MILLION!!

 

[Krisken]

Here's a fun question. Who here knows how many laws govern this country?

Federal laws? State laws? Even if we knew, what would be the point of knowing?

I suppose I'm not sure what you hope to achieve with this question, or even what it has to do with public versus private science funding.

 

[Dave]

To blow our minds, man. To blow our minds.

 

[Krisken]

To blow our minds, man. To blow our minds.

I see. Like "How many roads must a man walk down..." and "what is the sound of one hand clapping".

 

[Eriol]

To blow our minds, man. To blow our minds.

I see. Like "How many roads must a man walk down..." and "what is the sound of one hand clapping".[/QUOTE]
Bart proved that last one easy a LONG time ago.

 

[Necronic]

I do not agree with government funding for science in general, it creates lazy 'pie in the sky' government labs that aren't results driven. I've worked with too many of those and they are a waste of funds.

There are 2 exceptions though:

1) Medical Research. This stuff is way too high risk for most companies to do any significant research in them, government subsidies and research grants are an absolute necessity

2) Military Research. Duh. We need to be stronger than everyone else. Forever. (Civ games really do show you how to rule the world.) Good news for all you pro government research hippies out there though, because military research can cover pretty much anything.

 

[Chazwozel]

I had no idea the genome was patentable. That seems counter-intuitive.

It's not.

 

[Element 117]

Here's a fun question. Who here knows how many laws govern this country?

Federal laws? State laws? Even if we knew, what would be the point of knowing?

I suppose I'm not sure what you hope to achieve with this question, or even what it has to do with public versus private science funding.[/QUOTE]

.

 

[Krisken]

Ok, so you are asking how many laws govern public funding.