A Return to Scientific Sanity

Superfreak said:
That is the line of thinking of someone who believes the only way for research to be done will be if the FED does it. Again, I point to the example of the embryonic stem cell research. When the Fed decided not to fund it, private money (that believed in the viability of the line) flowed into it.
Click to expand...


Actually, the most beneficial way for research of this type to be done is for the NIH to fund it. We're talking about very basic research here, the type that forms the basis for the development of profitable applications.

At this stage, with no marketable product flowing from the research, NIH funding is the best way for it to be done.
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, the most beneficial way for research of this type to be done is for the NIH to fund it. We're talking about very basic research here, the type that forms the basis for the development of profitable applications.

At this stage, with no marketable product flowing from the research, NIH funding is the best way for it to be done.
Click to expand...

It is this type of idiotic thinking that perpetuates that myth. If you took the government out of the equation do you think all base research would just stop?

Of course companies are not going to fund base research if they know that idiots like you will continue to get the taxpayers to foot the bill for the most risky of the research.
 
Superfreak said:
It is this type of idiotic thinking that perpetuates that myth. If you took the government out of the equation do you think all base research would just stop?

Of course companies are not going to fund base research if they know that idiots like you will continue to get the taxpayers to foot the bill for the most risky of the research.
Click to expand...


So now you want to scrap the entire NIH?

Good luck with that one.
 
Superfreak said:
That is the line of thinking of someone who believes the only way for research to be done will be if the FED does it. Again, I point to the example of the embryonic stem cell research. When the Fed decided not to fund it, private money (that believed in the viability of the line) flowed into it.
Click to expand...

You apparently don't know much about science. Most of the basic science research in this nation is done by our publicly funded State Universities.
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, the most beneficial way for research of this type to be done is for the NIH to fund it. We're talking about very basic research here, the type that forms the basis for the development of profitable applications.

At this stage, with no marketable product flowing from the research, NIH funding is the best way for it to be done.
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time Dung. SF probably would support ID research.
 
Mottleydude said:
You apparently don't know much about science. Most of the basic science research in this nation is done by our publicly funded State Universities.
Click to expand...

Really? No shit.... thanks Captain Obvious.

Now I will ask you the same fundamental question that Dung will not answer....

Do you think that basic research funding would simply dry up if the Fed stopped funding it?

Because that would pretty much kill all future pipelines for the drug companies.

So do you think they will let that happen?
 
Mottleydude said:
You're wasting your time Dung. SF probably would support ID research.
Click to expand...

Given that I am agnostic, you would be wrong.

I also support embryonic stem cell research.... the difference between you and I is that I am not a brainwashed moron that believes if the Fed doesn't fund it that the funding will not occur.
 
Mottleydude said:
You apparently don't know much about science. Most of the basic science research in this nation is done by our publicly funded State Universities.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you made this point, as I was about to do so. Corporate and other private funding sources are almost exclusively results-oriented, and in that sense I mean that there pretty much has to be an end product in sight. This is only possible after usually years of basic research that ultimately lead to the understanding necessary to create that product.

Several years ago there was a modest but reliable private source of funding for schizophrenia research. When NIH funding was squeezed (and it has been, quite painfully, for the past few years) we'd hoped to turn to this private source. We had sound data and ideas, and hoped that in identifying some of the characteristics of the unacceptable side effects of contemporary treatments, we'd be able to contribute to a safer, more therapeutically effective treatment. At about this time, that private source simply ceased funding schizophrenia research. Apparently there continue to be no other sources available at this time.

This situation, unfortunately, is typical. There now are more scientifically sound and valid research proposals submitted to NIH that are NOT funded than that are. The funds simply are not there. And because basic research can sometimes be very slow going, (let's face it, as my mentor said, if it were easy it would already have been done) and big blockbuster results really are the consequence of many people's efforts over a long time because of the complexity of the systems we're attempting to understand, this is not very attractive to private funding sources.

What's the consequence, then? We end up with a population of extremely highly educated, generally very intelligent people who may just leave the field of science, and science loses. Those people will not come back. The growth of scientific knowledge loses. The students that they may have mentored and/or taught lose. Our society (probably most societies, for that matter) values celebrities and sports figures far more highly than science and medicine -- until they need us.
 
Thorn said:
I'm glad that you made this point, as I was about to do so. Corporate and other private funding sources are almost exclusively results-oriented, and in that sense I mean that there pretty much has to be an end product in sight. This is only possible after usually years of basic research that ultimately lead to the understanding necessary to create that product.

Several years ago there was a modest but reliable private source of funding for schizophrenia research. When NIH funding was squeezed (and it has been, quite painfully, for the past few years) we'd hoped to turn to this private source. We had sound data and ideas, and hoped that in identifying some of the characteristics of the unacceptable side effects of contemporary treatments, we'd be able to contribute to a safer, more therapeutically effective treatment. At about this time, that private source simply ceased funding schizophrenia research. Apparently there continue to be no other sources available at this time.

This situation, unfortunately, is typical. There now are more scientifically sound and valid research proposals submitted to NIH that are NOT funded than that are. The funds simply are not there. And because basic research can sometimes be very slow going, (let's face it, as my mentor said, if it were easy it would already have been done) and big blockbuster results really are the consequence of many people's efforts over a long time because of the complexity of the systems we're attempting to understand, this is not very attractive to private funding sources.

What's the consequence, then? We end up with a population of extremely highly educated, generally very intelligent people who may just leave the field of science, and science loses. Those people will not come back. The growth of scientific knowledge loses. The students that they may have mentored and/or taught lose. Our society (probably most societies, for that matter) values celebrities and sports figures far more highly than science and medicine -- until they need us.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with the above. However, as I have shown on the other thread, when you have an ethically controversial research project it tends to generate debate. That debate in the case of embryonic stem cell research led the State and private funding to step up when the Fed stepped out.

Will this happen for every research project... of course not. But then again how many research projects develop this much interest in the media and public spotlight?
 
Superfreak said:
I dont disagree with the above. However, as I have shown on the other thread, when you have an ethically controversial research project it tends to generate debate. That debate in the case of embryonic stem cell research led the State and private funding to step up when the Fed stepped out.

Will this happen for every research project... of course not. But then again how many research projects develop this much interest in the media and public spotlight?
Click to expand...

I think that the likely reason for the private funding (I'll trust your word on this; I'm not familiar with it) in this instance is that there was great hope (and perhaps not a whole lot of comprehension about the drudgery of basic research) on the part of the funders that something usable/marketable would emerge fairly quickly. For example, it was projected that one of the most useful applications arising from this research is likely to be growth of replacement organs that will be organically compatible with the recipient, and so eliminate the problems of rejection and suitable donors, and thus organ shortages.

In science we learn to be ecstatic about very tiny discoveries and advances in our knowledge through our work. Small things amuse ... On the other hand there's tons of room for applied creativity, and this is what attracts me, along with the whole process of discovery and questioning, etc.
 
Thorn said:
I'm glad that you made this point, as I was about to do so. Corporate and other private funding sources are almost exclusively results-oriented, and in that sense I mean that there pretty much has to be an end product in sight. This is only possible after usually years of basic research that ultimately lead to the understanding necessary to create that product.

Several years ago there was a modest but reliable private source of funding for schizophrenia research. When NIH funding was squeezed (and it has been, quite painfully, for the past few years) we'd hoped to turn to this private source. We had sound data and ideas, and hoped that in identifying some of the characteristics of the unacceptable side effects of contemporary treatments, we'd be able to contribute to a safer, more therapeutically effective treatment. At about this time, that private source simply ceased funding schizophrenia research. Apparently there continue to be no other sources available at this time.

This situation, unfortunately, is typical. There now are more scientifically sound and valid research proposals submitted to NIH that are NOT funded than that are. The funds simply are not there. And because basic research can sometimes be very slow going, (let's face it, as my mentor said, if it were easy it would already have been done) and big blockbuster results really are the consequence of many people's efforts over a long time because of the complexity of the systems we're attempting to understand, this is not very attractive to private funding sources.

What's the consequence, then? We end up with a population of extremely highly educated, generally very intelligent people who may just leave the field of science, and science loses. Those people will not come back. The growth of scientific knowledge loses. The students that they may have mentored and/or taught lose. Our society (probably most societies, for that matter) values celebrities and sports figures far more highly than science and medicine -- until they need us.
Click to expand...

Amen sister. I don't know how many times at work I've had to deal with arrogant and condescending business and sales types.....until there's a problem then they come runing to kiss my ass.
 
Thorn said:
I think that the likely reason for the private funding (I'll trust your word on this; I'm not familiar with it) in this instance is that there was great hope (and perhaps not a whole lot of comprehension about the drudgery of basic research) on the part of the funders that something usable/marketable would emerge fairly quickly. For example, it was projected that one of the most useful applications arising from this research is likely to be growth of replacement organs that will be organically compatible with the recipient, and so eliminate the problems of rejection and suitable donors, and thus organ shortages.

In science we learn to be ecstatic about very tiny discoveries and advances in our knowledge through our work. Small things amuse ... On the other hand there's tons of room for applied creativity, and this is what attracts me, along with the whole process of discovery and questioning, etc.
Click to expand...

Well it's as you said. Most private sector research funding is for applied science. Very little funding for basic science comes from the private sector with the exception of private endowments and charitable contributions.

To say that the Private Sector has stepped up to fill in the void in funding on embryonic stem cell research is a misnomer. It really hasn't occured to that degree. Rather most of the cutting edge research in this area is being done overseas and not in the US. That was the essential harm that occurred through the politicization of this issue. Now the US lags behind in this potentially significant area of research.
 
Superfreak said:
Really? No shit.... thanks Captain Obvious.

Now I will ask you the same fundamental question that Dung will not answer....

Do you think that basic research funding would simply dry up if the Fed stopped funding it?

Because that would pretty much kill all future pipelines for the drug companies.

So do you think they will let that happen?
Click to expand...

what a bootstrapper
 
Mottleydude said:
President Obama has over turned the Bush prohibition of funding stem cell research.

This is a clear repudiation of one of the most troubling aspect of the Bush administration. Its politicization of our nations science policy to appease religeous zealots.

In an era where sound science policy is just absolutely essential to our nations interest, national security and economic viability and competativeness it is indeed good news for this nation to see us return to sound and sane science policy.

One of the saddest and most pathetic legacy of the Bush years is how they marginalized the scientist and technologist of this nation. If now we can only emphasize science to youngsters so that they will think that being the next Feinman would be as cool as being the next Eminem or Tiger Woods. There's a lot of systemic damage that needs to be done from the Bush years to restore our reputation in science leadership.
Click to expand...

Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44943

Tell us all about this "sound and sane science policy.".....:321::pke::321:
 
Mottleydude said:
LOL You're going to have to come up with a better source than that wacko boy.

Referencing some lunatic fringe extremist web site is hardly a legitimate source.
Click to expand...
The source doesn't matter. Did you read the article?

The Dickey-Wicker Amdendment that has been included in funding bills for 13 years states:

"None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."
Click to expand...

Seriously, trying to kill the messenger every time is bad argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top