There seems to be an assumption in Paul's logic that implies this funding is obligatory and dispensed for the asking. Most successful grantees receive less than 10% of the proposals submitted. Most lesser mortals are far less successful. Each proposal takes months to write and review. If scientists were trying to get rich off government funding we would be far better off taking the value of our investments in time and money to the local casino, where the odds are much better! Or perhaps we should invest in Exxon/Mobil stock...
David Bryant On Oct 20, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Paul Cherubini wrote: > Kelly Decker wrote: >> >> The George C. Marshall Institute has launched a >> new PR campaign to suggest that scientists are biased in their >> findings of >> global climate change due to the fact that there is grant monies >> to study >> global climate change. > >> It's pure talking points for those who do not want to see the >> world make headway against greenhouse gas emissions. > > Kelly, on Oct. 18 Maiken Winter wrote: > > "Here is a call for scientists to address congress about funding > research > on how to best protect species in the face of climate change." > > "it is necessary but not sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas > pollution." > > In other words, scientists are not simply interested in seeing federal > money spent on direct and immediate solutions to greenhouse gas > pollution. They are seeking federal funding to study, monitor and > manage species that might be substantially affected by > climate change - funding that could create or enhance the > professional careers of many hundreds, perhaps thousands of them. > > So naturally a situation like this raises suspicions. > > Paul Cherubini > El Dorado, Calif.
