Hi What most of the comments indicate is that it is difficult for a non-expert to judge the merits of a project, especially just on the basis of its title. That presumably is why we depend heavily on peer review. It would be nice to hear politicians express some confidence in that process, rather than suggesting that somehow scientists (academics in general?) require micro-management (policing) by politicians in no position to evaluate the merits of individual projects.
Even some of the discussion here is somewhat disconcerting. We strive to justify the research on the basis of some practical end (e.g., controlling fruit fly infestations somewhere). In doing so, we run the risk of communicating that such practical ends are a useful criteria by which to evaluate research. A number of years ago Comroe and Dripps (I think these are right names) demonstrated that much of the knowledge on which medical advances depend is in fact derived from basic research with no particular objective other than understanding the systems under study. Hence, knowledge per se is valuable, although we might not be able to specify at the time what that value might be. I cannot any longer link it to any source, but I remember hearing/reading/?? a number of years ago an assertion that our treatment of cancer would be much further along if more of the money dedicated to "curing" cancer had been devoted to basic biological science. And cancer research is probably not the most egregious example of our striving for a "cure / application / immediate benefit" running ahead of the basic science, as much cancer-funded research would probably qualify as basic. To use the Palin education of children with autism example, I suspect that any substantial funds devoted to that end would ultimately fund work based on questionable claims and approaches to education of autistic children. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Psychology University of Winnipeg Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 CANADA >>> "Shearon, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 26-Oct-08 9:19 PM >>> Rick That's true. I do think that it wasn't terribly out of line for anyone to take what she said as dismissive of research in general and specifically of that funded by earmarks. On the whole she seemed to be saying that. She also implied that the only increased spending a McCain-Palin administration would lead to is on education for children with special needs and she specifically mentioned autism (although this did seem to contradict something her running mate has said repeatedly). Thus, many inferred the connection she seemed to make however deniable it may have been since its original presentation. Either she meant to say that or she spoke rather poorly/ambiguously and, having heard the entire original, I tend to think it was reasonable to perceive the dismissive tone. What is troubling to those conducting basic science, I think, is that we could be electing any administration that was both uninformed and equally certain they know what is and isn't good science. On the other hand, given the fiscal realities and the almost certainty of a Democratically dominated House and Senate, I really wonder how much meaning such statements have beyond the usual pandering we witness among most/all politicians a week before an election- unless she does have some secret plan to control the Senate. . . . ;) Tim _______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology The College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker -----Original Message----- From: Rick Froman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 10/26/2008 6:39 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE: [tips] Sarah Palin on genetics research Good point and jumping to conclusions on either side doesn't really reflect the scientific mindset. Research should be evaluated on its own merits not just because it involves fruit flies or it is criticized by someone whom we believe to be anti-science. My problem with the original statement was the assumption on the sites that Stephen linked that since fruit flies have been used to isolate issues relative to autism that the research cited by Palin must be valuable. Maybe so, maybe not but the fact that research uses fruit flies and fruit flies have been used to make important breakthroughs, isn't really a valid argument. I know that the irony may have seemed irresistible but I think that the reality may not fit the story so well. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
