Arizona State University Pimp Slaps John McCain with Class.

[Alyrium Denryle]

He was unaware the majority universities of his state hosted leading researchers of ants. This is surprising? No matter how large it is, the subject matter is, for most folks, pretty esoteric; even unapproachable. Research into super-organisms may make dollars and cents, but it's unglamorous, and unlikely to rise to the attention of anybody not closely tied to either the issue, or the university's science department.

It may be esoteric, but he fucking represents the state and it is his fucking JOB to know what is going on in the universities there when he is going to be making funding decisions.

Reducing the funding given to the agencies which make those decisions appears to be exactly what Coburn and McCain have in mind. It's imperfect to try and target specific projects by proxy, but all they can do.

And if they try, the full weight of the National Academy, AAAS etc will come down on their shoulders. It may not mean much in terms of votes directly, but there is a good chunk of political pressure there, and you can be damn sure that Universities will go ballistic, student groups will protest, and there will be marching in the streets.

Then there is the fact that he will be surrendering our scientific supremacy to the chinese.

The science itself should not be politicized, but there is no reason that the benefits -- or lack thereof -- should not receive scrutiny from those who steward public funds.

And what sort of scrutiny would that be? I have not seen anything that even remotely resembles honest scrutiny.

Why are you so surprised that he rushed to render judgment?

This and the "scrutiny" you refer to are mutually exclusive.

The consensus here appears to be that all science is worthwhile, all the time. You don't seem to be taking into account that the federal government has plenty of other competing, urgent debts.

Yes. Cutting the WHOPPING 6 billion annual budget of the NSF. That will relieve so much financial burden

The Naval Academy is, as I understand it, one of the most rigorous educational institutions on earth, although John McCain did not achieve high marks or honors.

That does not change the fact that my freshman biology students know more about how science works and the merit of that research than McCain and the Senator from Oklahoma... and that is not saying much

More to the point, you seem incapable of understanding that McCain has a responsibility to decide whether we ought to spend money on research grants, or other priorities, including servicing the national debt. He isn't depriving money from "The Sciences" for no reason other than because he is a ghoulish Republican.

No. he is just an idiot. Coburn on the other hand definitely is doing just that.

I expect him to spend money in a reasonable manner, balancing probable outcomes.

Which is not what he is trying to do here. He is using the sciences as a vehicle to attack the Obama administration.

[Gil Hamilton]

He's a politician. Why are you so surprised that he rushed to render judgment? Senators and Congressmen stake their careers on making gut calls; we tend to perceive those who ask for more time, or all the facts, as wishy-washy. I don't like it, but I also don't see how we're going to fix it anytime soon. It's unremarkable, at this point.

Why not simply state that he can't comment on the issue because he hasn't studied it? It's the truth, it's direct, and it doesn't reveal his profound ignorance.

Of course, you are a conservative, so you think that using your gut more than you brain is important. Why can't you just admit that McCain is simply wrong and get over it rather than defend his incompetance?

The only thing they can do is turn down the flow of money, hoping that it encourages what they would consider "wiser" decisions on the part of the bodies that dispense that money. Again, with the possible exception of the scientific studies coming onto the chopping block, some of which may not, in fact, be worthwhile, I don't see much to complain about. The consensus here appears to be that all science is worthwhile, all the time. You don't seem to be taking into account that the federal government has plenty of other competing, urgent debts. Some science is a luxury we may, or may not, be able to afford, depending on the circumstances.

Which is not how it works. Cutting money to an already money starved agencies only means shutting down good research. While all science is worthwhile, that's not even the issue. The issue is that John McCain is going using political weight on things he knows nothing about. If he knows nothing about how research works, he should back off and he certainly shouldn't be out there making public statements declaring important environmental research to his own state as unworthy out of simply not knowing better.

Prove that McCain and Coburn feel that way. Prove that I do. If you can't, we can dismiss your remark as non-sequitor.

I don't use the limited political power I have to further Creatonism; I use it to vote for individuals whom I think will address correctly those issues which I think are most important and most superable. If they support the Creationist's agenda -- and they tend to -- that's unfortunate fallout.

How is it you ask me to prove something and then immediately thereafter STATE that you frequently use all the political power you have to support the Creationist agenda? Are you allergic to taking responsibility?

I would like to see some discussion of the practical benefits of paleontology, should you know of any. I have to guess that there might have been some breakthroughs in our understanding of geology arising from the search for, and discovery of, the bones of animals recently and long extinct, but nothing in the way of medical breakthroughs. I am, however, aware of a recent venture by American tycoon John Hammond in Costa Rica...

You are full of shit. Paleontology strongly demonstrates the mechanisms and conditions of evolution of living systems, by providing the physical evidence to support the continued generational change in those systems. How else are you supposed to get trends in physiology, anatomy, et cetera for modern life if you do not extend that data backwards?

The Naval Academy is, as I understand it, one of the most rigorous educational institutions on earth, although John McCain did not achieve high marks or honors.

No, he quite nearly washed out because he was a terrible student who was more concerned with being a navy jock than education. Besides, the Naval Academy is barely an educational institution. It doesn't contribute any research at all, let alone do good research.

More to the point, you seem incapable of understanding that McCain has a responsibility to decide whether we ought to spend money on research grants, or other priorities, including servicing the national debt. He isn't depriving money from "The Sciences" for no reason other than because he is a ghoulish Republican.

He's doing it out of his own ignorance. I'll agree with Aly that Coburn on the other hand does it because he's a religious conservative asswipe.

Your claim that he is fallible because he did not achieve high marks in school is spurious. I trust you would not automatically credit my opinions with greater weight than anyone else's on this board, though I graduated from Johns Hopkins summa cum laude? Shall I snub my nose at those who do not have a Master's Degree, though one member of this community previously evinced shock that I do not. I do not expect John McCain to know much about good and bad research; I expect him to spend money in a reasonable manner, balancing probable outcomes. As far as I can tell, much of the money in question in the original article was badly misspent. McCain and Coburn may eventually fire from the hip; there could be collateral damage in the Academies. If it is too great, they will have won my criticism. If not, my praise.

It isn't spurious. I don't care about your education, what I do care about is competance. I would defer to John McCain's experience when it comes to operating a jet fighter. However, I strongly believe that if you are put in control of something, you should know a damn thing about it. One thing that plagues industry and something that engineers/scientists/technicians dread is when they get a manager who has no technical competance in the field and still feels the need to try to run things despite their incompetence. McCain trying to choke the life out of research... er... what was it you called it? forcing agencies to make "wiser" decisions by not giving them the resources to fund good research... when he doesn't know a damn thing about science or research due to his massively deficient background IS a problem. He has no place trying to starve out anyone's research, because he isn't remotely informed on any sort of research. He demonstrates that he should back off by the statements he made in the article in the OP, where he openly states that important superorganism research with clear application to his own state isn't worth funding. If research important to his state and constituents isn't worth funding in his view, he clearly lacks the competence to make funding decisions about anyone's research. Yet you defend him.

Or do you think policy decisions made by people who honestly have no good idea about what they are actually affecting is a good idea? This I suppose goes back to your notion that politicians should use their gut rather than even be marginally informed about what they are doing, huh?

[wolveraptor]

I don't know why anyone believes scientists are eager to waste their time on projects that study useless or irrelevant phenomena. What possible reason would they have for studying something that benefits no one? I'm not saying that all scientific research is of equal importance to the public, but really, shouldn't we be deferring to the professionals in matters like this?

[Tanasinn]

What it boils down to for these people is that they're far too stupid to understand the value of scientific research, and therefore assume that it's worthless.

Frankly, I'd like to ship them and their Bibles off to a desert to live like the bronze age savages they so badly want to be, but you can't always get what you want.

[Akhlut]

If one reads the original article, Republicans are (correctly) concerned about the merit of spending taxpayer dollars on a geothermal energy system for a shopping mall in decline;

Our economy is driven by consumerism. By reducing both the strain on existing power grids and reducing the overhead the mall needs, it is less likely to shut down and more likely to continually service its community and hopefully have some boost on the economy. If it works, then this can be expanded to other malls, thus boosting the economy even more. If it fails, then it's only one mall.

on paleontology (which, while interesting, pales in importance to research on living organisms);

Knowledge of historic evolutionary trends is helpful pretty much all the time.

and on political theater.

What is this political theater? A production designed to get more people interested in civics and government? Hard to say if it is good or bad without knowledge of what it is (like, you know, John McCain in the article)

Why is a dinner cruise out of the Port of Chicago receiving money for counter-terrorism operations?

Should someone bring a bomb onboard, that could be problematic. Or, if the ship is taken and rammed into a harbor, marina, or the like, that could cause some problems too, I'd think. Perhaps cost even more money then what is being spent now as a preventative measure, perhaps.

Skepticism of the study of ants in particular may not be borne out, after further consideration, but looking before you spend is just good, sound judgment.

Which, by all appearances, McCain did not do aside from just looking at it and going "we're spending money on ANT STUDIES?!?! JAYZUZ CHRIST!"

[MKSheppard]

Besides, the Naval Academy is barely an educational institution. It doesn't contribute any research at all, let alone do good research.

You of course will back this incredible claim up?

I've visited USNA in person and they have quite a lot of nice things there.



Aero, hydro, etc engineering programs. This is from Rickover Hall, BTW.

[MKSheppard]

It is a peer reviewed process and frankly the congress has Zero competence or even authority to decide which proposals get funding. If they start getting involved, science becomes a political hot potato.

You're what, 15-20 years too late for the Superconducting Super Collider -- the only remnants are some pieces in the Smithsonian, and a big hole in Texas. You're also 40 years too late for the SST -- the only remnants are a mockup of the Boeing 2707 somewhere in a museum somewhere.

Politics and congress has always interfered with science.

Speaking bluntly, I wish a lot of squishy science would die in a fire so that funding can go back to hard science -- I want the power that powers my 40" plasmotron to come from a multi-gigawatt nuclear plant; and to be able to actually commute from Washington DC to London in 90 minutes and eat cheap airline food at 100,000 feet; and eventually book a room in the Hilton Lunar Grand before I die.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Politics and congress has always interfered with science.

That was not funded under federal agencies, but rather directly through act of congress if I remember correctly. You can go eat your shoes now.

I wish a lot of squishy science would die in a fire so that funding can go back to hard science

And what exactly are you defining as hard science you thick skulled ignoramus? Oh, thats right. Engineering. Which is about all the naval academy does.

Those sorts of ventures get their fair share of funding from state and federal agencies, as well as private entities and are already pretty much saturated. Throwing more money at them (save for in cases where congress has directly defunded something) will not make your modern conveniences come any faster you short sighted selfish little pig.

[MKSheppard]

And what exactly are you defining as hard science you thick skulled ignoramus? Oh, thats right. Engineering.

Engineering makes modern marvels, to pardon the pun from the Hitler Channel.

Those sorts of ventures get their fair share of funding from state and federal agencies, as well as private entities and are already pretty much saturated.

Actually, they're pretty undersaturated. BIG SCIENCE has all but died out; with it only reappearing in places like China, and their Three Gorges Dam Project -- I am visiting the place one day, to marvel at the Sheer Engineering Feat of the thing.

[Axis Kast]

It may be esoteric, but he fucking represents the state and it is his fucking JOB to know what is going on in the universities there when he is going to be making funding decisions.

It is John McCain's job to have a general understanding of the products and services available in the state which he represents. Demanding that he know that there is a fund of world-class knowledge on superorganisms? I'll give him a pass, thanks. He's got enough on his plate. This is what briefings are for.

Then there is the fact that he will be surrendering our scientific supremacy to the chinese.

He will not be doing anything of the sort. This kind of self-congratulatory scare tactic is exactly what prompted me to post in this thread. Cutting funding to discrete projects is not "surrendering our scientific supremacy." You go on to compound your error by behaving as if the money in question will not be used for some other socially beneficial purpose.

And what sort of scrutiny would that be? I have not seen anything that even remotely resembles honest scrutiny.

I made a general remark about how politics should work. If McCain cuts before he looks, he deserves your criticism (and mine). Not that it takes much to pass quick judgment on a lot of what was discussed in the article. More on that later.

Yes. Cutting the WHOPPING 6 billion annual budget of the NSF. That will relieve so much financial burden

Your statement is the equivalent of saying that we should throw money to science without first considering the costs and benefits of doing so. That isn't at all a credit to your powers of reason.

Which is not what he is trying to do here. He is using the sciences as a vehicle to attack the Obama administration.

If the Obama administration allowed a dinner cruise in Chicago to pick up $1 million for counter-terrorism, it deserves some criticism.

Why not simply state that he can't comment on the issue because he hasn't studied it? It's the truth, it's direct, and it doesn't reveal his profound ignorance.

That would be preferable, but it's also unrealistic. Politicians build reputations on making judgments. If you're going to criticize the nature of our political system, fine. I concede that it would be preferable for McCain to withhold comment. However, I'm not going to be surprised, or outraged, when he doesn't.

Which is not how it works. Cutting money to an already money starved agencies only means shutting down good research.

Sometimes, that good research isn't as important as other priorities. We're fighting two wars on the other side of the world; the economy is in a bad way; the national infrastructure needs maintenance, restoration, or replacement; healthcare costs are skyrocketing; etc. The opinion put forth by Aly -- that another dollar for science is a dollar well-spent, and not missed anywhere else -- is indefensible.

How is it you ask me to prove something and then immediately thereafter STATE that you frequently use all the political power you have to support the Creationist agenda? Are you allergic to taking responsibility?

Are you a union man? Do you vote Democrat? By your logic, you use all the political power you have to support the union agenda. That's a ridiculous argument, based on the ability to overgeneralize because of the architecture of our political system.

You are full of shit. Paleontology strongly demonstrates the mechanisms and conditions of evolution of living systems, by providing the physical evidence to support the continued generational change in those systems. How else are you supposed to get trends in physiology, anatomy, et cetera for modern life if you do not extend that data backwards?

Please point me to some enriching studies.

Besides, the Naval Academy is barely an educational institution. It doesn't contribute any research at all, let alone do good research.

No; not an educational institution at all. It only trains hundreds of engineers every year. You're an elitist, pure and simple. Like Aly, you seem to believe that all science is good science, all the time -- as if there aren't trade-offs, and every dollar grows on a tree.

Our economy is driven by consumerism. By reducing both the strain on existing power grids and reducing the overhead the mall needs, it is less likely to shut down and more likely to continually service its community and hopefully have some boost on the economy. If it works, then this can be expanded to other malls, thus boosting the economy even more. If it fails, then it's only one mall.

Using similar mental gymnastics, I can make you a case for just about anything. Our society doesn't need another shopping mall; they provide no essential goods or services. That shopping mall is assuredly not the only point of purchase for useful goods and services in the community. If it couldn't sustain itself, and it doesn't provide anything essential, what am I being asked to pay so that it can have a state-of-the-art generator? How can you be sure that it is going to have the same effects as a pilot program? Why shouldn't I be concerned about its possible failure? Because it's only "one more dollar?" We don't have enough of them as it is.

Knowledge of historic evolutionary trends is helpful pretty much all the time.

Show me how it is more helpful than servicing the debt, or funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What is this political theater? A production designed to get more people interested in civics and government? Hard to say if it is good or bad without knowledge of what it is (like, you know, John McCain in the article)

Prove to me that you've done a study to validate that this theater is providing a valuable public service that brings about tangible gains for the nation. I am not interested in spending money on maybe-so's. You wouldn't let me fight wars on maybe-so's.

Should someone bring a bomb onboard, that could be problematic. Or, if the ship is taken and rammed into a harbor, marina, or the like, that could cause some problems too, I'd think. Perhaps cost even more money then what is being spent now as a preventative measure, perhaps.

Marginal impact, low probability. That money could be spent on more vulnerable communities.

Which, by all appearances, McCain did not do aside from just looking at it and going "we're spending money on ANT STUDIES?!?! JAYZUZ CHRIST!"

More like, "Look at this stuff we're spending money on!" He fired a rhetorical shotgun; the ant studies were one of many targets, most of which were indeed outrageous white elephants.

[Surlethe]

I don't know why anyone believes scientists are eager to waste their time on projects that study useless or irrelevant phenomena. What possible reason would they have for studying something that benefits no one? I'm not saying that all scientific research is of equal importance to the public, but really, shouldn't we be deferring to the professionals in matters like this?

Useless or irrelevant as compared to what? I hate to break this to you, but quite a bit of science and mathematics is study of stuff that might only someday possibly be of use to the public. Take, for example, studies of the shape of the universe: how does it tangibly benefit humanity now to know that the universe is a Poincare homology sphere? How does knowing the number of arms of the Milky Way tangibly benefit humanity now? Perhaps someday, in the far-off science fiction future, these might have practical applications; at this point, it's little more than knowledge for knowledge's sake. Scientists study them because they're interesting, fun, and help push forward humanity's knowledge, but that's not the same as hard-nosed judgement of what could birth new useful technology in the near future.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Actually, they're pretty undersaturated. BIG SCIENCE has all but died out; with it only reappearing in places like China, and their Three Gorges Dam Project -- I am visiting the place one day, to marvel at the Sheer Engineering Feat of the thing.

And you base this one what? Your extensive knowledge of research? Oh wait, you define science as engineering. The big sexy science is still going on. CERN is operating, fundamental questions about The Universe are being answered, Genomes are being sequenced annotated and yes, engineered. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about, and ought shut your trap.

It is John McCain's job to have a general understanding of the products and services available in the state which he represents. Demanding that he know that there is a fund of world-class knowledge on superorganisms? I'll give him a pass, thanks. He's got enough on his plate. This is what briefings are for.

And he never seems to have gotten one before he started passing judgment on research going on his state. For Fuck's Sake, Bert regularly appears on NOVA with "Arizona State University" plastered all over the bottom of the screen. You cannot go into a bookstore and escape his books. The least he could have done was look into what the research was actually on, you know maybe send Bert an email. He didnt bother. That basic level of diligence is his motherfucking job.

He will not be doing anything of the sort. This kind of self-congratulatory scare tactic is exactly what prompted me to post in this thread. Cutting funding to discrete projects is not "surrendering our scientific supremacy." You go on to compound your error by behaving as if the money in question will not be used for some other socially beneficial purpose.

It will be exactly what happens if he does the only thing within the power of congress to do. Cut funding to the grant-giving agencies in the hopes of as you say "forcing them to make wiser funding decisions". Do you have any idea how hard it is to get grants these days? For any given grant proposal I submit, I have between a 2 and 9% chance of success and my research is Cheap. Major research universities depend on those funds (because they negotiate the paying of overhead costs with the NSF etc) to build new buildings, hire faculty, and to keep existing faculty. Only about half of the money going to a specific project actually reaches that project. The other half keeps the lights on.

What means if funds get cut? Tuition across the nation gets raised pricing smart students out of an education, good faculty with strong publishing records but who's research does not bring in millions in grants (Read: Almost all of basic non-medical biology, with the exception of social insect research) will get the axe, fewer undergraduates will get research positions in labs decreasing the quality of their education. I can go on and on and on. Cutting funds to the NSF et al will not create wiser funding decisions. It will strangle science.

Your statement is the equivalent of saying that we should throw money to science without first considering the costs and benefits of doing so.

No. It is not. It was implicitly a statement about those same costs and benefits. The NSFs annual budget is the equivalent of a whopping 2 weeks in Iraq. The benefits we gain from it are massive even if they are somewhat long term, and if individual projects sometimes have little immediate use. That is the NSFs mission though. To fund Pure Research for the betterment of our understanding of the universe. This is a matter of marginal costs and benefits. Cutting that 6 billion wont help our budget shortfall by any meaningful amount. What it will do is strangle research that exists for the betterment and enlightenment of mankind. Finding a fraction of that 6 billion to cut elsewhere would have much lower social costs.

If the Obama administration allowed a dinner cruise in Chicago to pick up $1 million for counter-terrorism, it deserves some criticism.

And that is not what I am referring to. That was not funded by the NSF, NIH etc. Lets do compare apples to apples.

We're fighting two wars on the other side of the world; the economy is in a bad way; the national infrastructure needs maintenance, restoration, or replacement; healthcare costs are skyrocketing; etc. The opinion put forth by Aly -- that another dollar for science is a dollar well-spent, and not missed anywhere else -- is indefensible.

And cutting a portion of 6 billion (for the NSF, another 20 or so for the NIH... but I bet you wont say we should cut medical research) will help absolutely none of those.

Please point me to some enriching studies.

The entire fucking discipline. Run a Web of Science search.

Like Aly, you seem to believe that all science is good science, all the time -- as if there aren't trade-offs, and every dollar grows on a tree.

You can put down the torch and stop burning Mr. Scarecrow anytime now. Of course there are tradeoffs. But the total cost of NSF funded research is equivalent to 20 dollars annually from every person. In other words, a night at the theater or a pizza and movie night at home. The costs of that are small. The benefits are of course the unimaginably noble goal of trying to yank the stinking mass of humanity out of the darkness of ignorance and definitely beats movie night, or the 2-3 B2 bombers that could be manufactured with that money, or 2 weeks of pain and death in iraq. It would be a drop in the bucket of our Republican Caused Healthcare and Infrastructure Clusterfucks.

Show me how it is more helpful than servicing the debt, or funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

6 billion... to service... how many trillion? As for wars... what wars exactly? Afghanistan I can see... but OH THAT'S RIGHT... Iraq, the war we lied to get into and have managed so incompetently that it has cost us the entire NSFs budget every 2 weeks for the past 6.5 years. What tangible benefit do we get from that again? Dead people, more terrorists, the erosion of our civil liberties... Hmmmm

[Tellos]

Now I will grant you that we need research but your attack on engineering seems like you look down upon the profession. Is engineering so bad? I know e do not do as much research as somebody locked in a lab but we do perform research I know before I make a network I research what it is going to be used for and what functions it must be able to perform and what resources I will require as well as standards and protocols I will use. While yes McCain should have gotten a better briefing on the subject you seem to hold government officials to a standard that nobody could honestly attain. So do we need government officials schooled in War, eccanomics, business, science, politics, other countries histories and cultures, space and a host of other subjects? If so we have a small list of which to vote from for congressmen.

[Bakustra]

Now I will grant you that we need research but your attack on engineering seems like you look down upon the profession. Is engineering so bad? I know e do not do as much research as somebody locked in a lab but we do perform research I know before I make a network I research what it is going to be used for and what functions it must be able to perform and what resources I will require as well as standards and protocols I will use. While yes McCain should have gotten a better briefing on the subject you seem to hold government officials to a standard that nobody could honestly attain. So do we need government officials schooled in War, eccanomics, business, science, politics, other countries histories and cultures, space and a host of other subjects? If so we have a small list of which to vote from for congressmen.

It is not an attack on engineering so much as an attack on Shep's dismissal of the biological and social sciences in favor of more nuclear power/weaponry, [sarcasm]because nothing at all can be important when it comes to medicine or genetics.[/sarcasm]

McCain shouldn't necessarily have to be aware of the ASU lab's premier status amongst social insect research, but his aides should, and they should be willing to brief him about that before he makes a statement on scientific matters or budget matters that involve science, and he should be willing to listen to them. All members of Congress have such aides, and it is their job to keep their boss informed on matters that he may not have any personal knowledge of. I am pretty sure that that is what Alyrium means, or else Congress would have to shut up about any and all science beyond the gen-ed college level, which would be an amusing, but not realistic or practical situation.

[Akhlut]

Our economy is driven by consumerism. By reducing both the strain on existing power grids and reducing the overhead the mall needs, it is less likely to shut down and more likely to continually service its community and hopefully have some boost on the economy. If it works, then this can be expanded to other malls, thus boosting the economy even more. If it fails, then it's only one mall.

Using similar mental gymnastics, I can make you a case for just about anything. Our society doesn't need another shopping mall; they provide no essential goods or services.

Agreed, but, as I said, consumerism is the engine driving modern America. That it should be gutted and replaced with something else is not the current topic of discussion, though.

That shopping mall is assuredly not the only point of purchase for useful goods and services in the community. If it couldn't sustain itself, and it doesn't provide anything essential, what am I being asked to pay so that it can have a state-of-the-art generator? How can you be sure that it is going to have the same effects as a pilot program? Why shouldn't I be concerned about its possible failure? Because it's only "one more dollar?" We don't have enough of them as it is.

I honestly don't know much about this project nor have that much vested interest in it, I was mostly just illustrating possible benefits of such a project. As I don't feel like devoting the time necessary to do a shitload of research regarding this, I will just say that this dovetails into the greater repetoire of things that most people would bray on about being wasteful spending without understanding the consequences behind it.

Knowledge of historic evolutionary trends is helpful pretty much all the time.

Show me how it is more helpful than servicing the debt, or funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You see, the US government can afford to spend money on more then one thing at a time, and as paleontology research grants are going to be relative peanuts in comparison to say, DoD pork funds, why not start slashing that shit first? I have neither the time nor the ability to do a line item analysis of everything in the US budget and justify its existence or cutting its funding, however, I will say that paleontology research in the US is more important then, say, further cash being dumped into the Osprey vehicle.

At anyrate, discovery of things like fossilized gastrulae help us to understand developmental biology more (which is itself very important to modern biotechnology, which is becoming an important and cutting edge part of the American economy), whereas study of ancient climate change (last paragraph) helps us to understand how that affects ecosystems and how we might better take care of them (obviously important in this day and age).

There's also the fact that, as with a number of scientific discoveries, we won't know how it will affect our development before we find it. Paleontology a century ago helped prove evolution and look how much that has changed the face of agriculture and medicine, while the discovery of dinosaurs has itself proved to be an enormous money maker, with the vast amounts of dinosaur-related toys, movies, and games of all sorts (which also helps to act as a gateway to kids for science, which can lead to an interest in biology; I know dinosaurs certainly interested me in the subject, leading to me getting a BS in biology).

What is this political theater? A production designed to get more people interested in civics and government? Hard to say if it is good or bad without knowledge of what it is (like, you know, John McCain in the article)

Prove to me that you've done a study to validate that this theater is providing a valuable public service that brings about tangible gains for the nation. I am not interested in spending money on maybe-so's. You wouldn't let me fight wars on maybe-so's.

As I said, I have no clue what it is, so I'm not even going to comment on potential funding for it. If it's useful, fund it. If not, don't.

As for fighting wars versus funding, say, political theater: one is a much more enormous expenditure and leads to loss of life and limb, whereas the other is a much cheaper expense without such dangers, as well as the fact that it is much easier to cease spending if it is apparent nothing is being done.

Should someone bring a bomb onboard, that could be problematic. Or, if the ship is taken and rammed into a harbor, marina, or the like, that could cause some problems too, I'd think. Perhaps cost even more money then what is being spent now as a preventative measure, perhaps.

Marginal impact, low probability. That money could be spent on more vulnerable communities.

Great Lakes shipping is of vital national interest to the country. A ruined harbor in Chicago is going to fuck up the Midwest's (and, by extension, the rest of America's) economy a lot more then ensuring it's safety, fuckwit.

I base this on the fact that businesses in the Chicago area over $685 million due to the Port of Chicago. So, yes, security is important, even if the chance of it occurring is low. I mean, shit, it was a low chance for a group of terrorists to gain control over 4 airplanes and direct three of them into buildings of national importance, right? So, obviously, we don't need to secure our airplanes because of the low vulnerability of them, right?

Which, by all appearances, McCain did not do aside from just looking at it and going "we're spending money on ANT STUDIES?!?! JAYZUZ CHRIST!"

More like, "Look at this stuff we're spending money on!" He fired a rhetorical shotgun; the ant studies were one of many targets, most of which were indeed outrageous white elephants.

Ant studies are indeed helpful, though. Eusocial insects are of vital importance to the fruit industry as well as land management, both of which are important to the national economy.

[Anguirus]

I've been watching this thread spool out in pretty much stunned silence. And here all this time I thought that one of my very few fundamental points of agreement with American conservatives was that we need to fund basic research.

Lots of countries have brain drain. In large part, these brains are draining here, and they're staying. This is not an abstract thing...this is people in my lab right now. More than half of them are from South America, and they aren't in much of a hurry to get back...one of them, Juan Santos, just got his Ph. D and accepted a faculty position at an American university. This sucks for those countries, but it's rather awesome for this country's economy and its reputation as the place to be if you want to make earthshaking discoveries.

If the NSF had its throat slit and politicians started attempting to micromanage where science money was going, I would start learning to speak Mandarin. It's more than hard enough to get money.

And forgive the anecdote, again, but as far as paleontology goes, according to the students I've talked to nearly everyone works to some extent on living organisms. They are answering questions about how extant organisms evolved and developed over time. Paleontology is one of the cornerstones of the knowledge we do have about evolution and phylogeny. And for those of us who care about America's reputation, ever since Cope and Marsh (if not before) American paleontologists have been at the forefront of the world, drawing back the curtain on a past more wild and stunning than the architects of Genesis could ever have dreamed.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is not an attack on engineering so much as an attack on Shep's dismissal of the biological and social sciences in favor of more nuclear power/weaponry, [sarcasm]because nothing at all can be important when it comes to medicine or genetics.[/sarcasm]

McCain shouldn't necessarily have to be aware of the ASU lab's premier status amongst social insect research, but his aides should, and they should be willing to brief him about that before he makes a statement on scientific matters or budget matters that involve science, and he should be willing to listen to them. All members of Congress have such aides, and it is their job to keep their boss informed on matters that he may not have any personal knowledge of. I am pretty sure that that is what Alyrium means, or else Congress would have to shut up about any and all science beyond the gen-ed college level, which would be an amusing, but not realistic or practical situation.

Nail--->Head.

He should have been briefed, or when looking into all of the funding he wanted to classify as waste, he could have gone to the university website and looked it up. He did none of those things.

You are correct with the engineering as well. Shep dismisses all science that is not high energy physics with a uranium component or massive feats of civil engineering as worthless. He is an idiot.

[Samuel]

Using similar mental gymnastics, I can make you a case for just about anything. Our society doesn't need another shopping mall; they provide no essential goods or services.

Actually they do. They provide a convinient location to browse from a large number of goods and services. Retail efficiency is important unless you think customers will simply buy all their items from the manufacturers.