Politicizing science

[Lynnie]

I was talking about federally funded basic research.


Let?s assume we do it your way and cut off funding to say 50,000 researchers working in labs doing research across the country in all our major universities. Those folks all find themselves out of work - some find work in private labs doing "narrow" research (research with very specific goals), some will move to other countries where funding is available, others end up working at McDonalds or your local Starbucks. Very few will find additional funding through private philanthropy funds, as those fund are already allocated to existing research. Do you think your plan will have a positive or negative impact on advances in science made in our country?

Also, if you're looking for a second opinion, consider asking someone you trust in the medical industry this question. A family doctor for example - see what they have to say.

And, many of the universities have federal grants whereby the researchers, being PhD candidates have stipends, which are funded by the grant money.

Religion, politics, science/research, traveling in outer space, money! All intertwined.

Medical research will perpetuate with or without federal funding. And, right now, we still have no idea how much federal $$ will be granted on Stem Cell Research.

Does money grow on trees? I sure wish I could pluck a few thousand right now.

 

[6thGen]

I was talking about federally funded basic research.



Yes, but it's not going to be that big a bill.

NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (RePORT)



It's not limited in general, we?re only talking about research limitations in a very discreet area of research. That area also happens to hold a lot of promise. Those road blocks (however small they were) have now been cleared.

As far as applying capitalism to science - the great body of scientific research that takes place has no "winner" - it is basic research that forms the foundation of our understanding. Eliminating this work negatively impacts private research which relies on it.

Let?s assume we do it your way and cut off funding to say 50,000 researchers working in labs doing research across the country in all our major universities. Those folks all find themselves out of work - some find work in private labs doing "narrow" research (research with very specific goals), some will move to other countries where funding is available, others end up working at McDonalds or your local Starbucks. Very few will find additional funding through private philanthropy funds, as those fund are already allocated to existing research. Do you think your plan will have a positive or negative impact on advances in science made in our country?

Also, if you're looking for a second opinion, consider asking someone you trust in the medical industry this question. A family doctor for example - see what they have to say.

When I said federal funding, I meant i/r/t ESCs. In a perfect world, I'd probably cut off federal funding, but I'd also do away with the DoA, DoC, DoE, HHS, HUD, DoL and the DoT, and cut the hell out of taxes, but ceteris paribus, I'm not saying we need to eliminate federal funding. I'm pointing out that based on the highest award given for scientific achievement, private funding has had more success than public funding.

And yes, I know medical professionals would say that cutting off federal funding would be bad for business. So would AIG execs. And until a PhD in the advanced sciences becomes as easy to obtain as an arts history degree, I wouldn't anticipate having one of the labcoats serving me coffee.

 

[30ashopper]

When I said federal funding, I meant i/r/t ESCs. In a perfect world, I'd probably cut off federal funding, but I'd also do away with the DoA, DoC, DoE, HHS, HUD, DoL and the DoT, and cut the hell out of taxes, but ceteris paribus, I'm not saying we need to eliminate federal funding. I'm pointing out that based on the highest award given for scientific achievement, private funding has had more success than public funding.

And yes, I know medical professionals would say that cutting off federal funding would be bad for business. So would AIG execs. And until a PhD in the advanced sciences becomes as easy to obtain as an arts history degree, I wouldn't anticipate having one of the labcoats serving me coffee.

I wonder if a factor in this might be the size of the funding? Not sure.

One question that enters my mind when considering research under the NIH is is it Constitutional? I wonder what part of the Constitution was used to justify the creation of the grants program under the NIH.

 

[6thGen]

I wonder if a factor in this might be the size of the funding? Not sure.

One question that enters my mind when considering research under the NIH is is it Constitutional? I wonder what part of the Constitution was used to justify the creation of the grants program under the NIH.

Article I, Section 8.
Powers of Congress
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries


You can justify it if you stop reading at the first comma.

 

[30ashopper]

Article I, Section 8.
Powers of Congress
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries


You can justify it if you stop reading at the first comma.

Wikipedia has a good blurb on it, it's been around for quite some time -

The predecessor of the NIH began in 1887 as the Laboratory of Hygiene. It grew and was reorganized in 1930 by the Ransdell Act into the National Institute of Health (singular at the time). Today it is one of the world's foremost medical research centers, and the Federal focal point for medical research in the U.S.