Slashdot Mirror

Do you think they would still be getting the level of funding had they said "not a problem, nothing to see here"?

Yes. Climatology is a hell of a lot more than just AGW. Without AGW that money would be focused on other things, but I doubt it would be substantially less than it is now. Climate (and its shorter timescale sibling weather) have huge impacts on global economics. Government tends to support studying things have large implications for society even if there isn't some looming doomsday threat.

Additionally, climate science funding (as opposed to global warming related technology expenditures) has averaged about $2 billion/year in 2009 dollars (see Table 1). In contrast the US spent a little over $4 billion on astronomy in FY2010 (see Table 1, pg. 174).

You have a point that technology expenditures (mostly programs to promote energy efficiency and weatherizing buildings) increase total climate-change related spending. However, it's a very very tenuous stretch to claim that researchers would make up AGW in hopes that the government would spend billions on technology projects they have no part in.

Actually, Defense spending is one of the few pieces of government spending which has been trending downward. It picked up again after 9/11, but is still near historical lows. The outrage over the amount of military spending made sense back in the 1960s - if we were at Vietnam War-era spending levels today, the Defense budget would be around $1.2 trillion instead of only $660 billion. Our modern levels of defense spending are only slightly above the world's average if you factor in Japan's GDP (we are obligated by the peace treaty ending WWII to provide for Japan's national defense - a treaty I agree is long overdue for renegotiation). People keep dragging it up sometimes not adjusting for inflation, and sometimes adjusting for inflation but not for economic and population growth. If you compare defense spending as a percentage of GDP, it was on a clear downward trend prior to 9/11 unlike just about every other part of the budget.

It's the social programs (primarily Medicare/Medicaid) which are ballooning out of control and busting the budget. Those are the sacred cows we need to sacrifice (or at least pass some common sense reforms) if we want to get the budget under control.

And another stat I'm sure will throw people here for a loop. It was actually George W. Bush who increased non-DoD science spending the most of modern Presidents (though merely restoring it to 1980s levels as % of GDP).

I mean seriously... a multi-billion-dollar supercollider? How on earth does that get funded? Because a bunch of people who can't tell a fermion from a boson imagine that they're part of a grand human experiment. And maybe, in the grand human scheme of things, it is worth the money, though I personally doubt it. Still, it's the dirty little secret of scientific work: popularizers write a lot of books about stuff that's really of very little earthy interest, in order to attract enough attention to the field of science to keep the actual work going on. The grad students counting bacterial colonies or coming up with new protein folding algorithms or other tedious stuff that slowly an un-telegentically advances understanding.

Particle physics may be popular for selling books but not for US federal funding. Since the 1990s, NIH funding has dwarfed all other nondefense federal research funding in the US. The labs and universities which employ grad students to count bacterial colonies or simulate protein folding are funded by NIH, which gets its money due to promises to develop new treatments for medical conditions and to reduce health care costs. Five percent of NIH funding over the course of ten years would be more than enough for the US to build and operate its own supercollider.

I don't mean to criticize the funding priorities, but only to note that government is more interested in research that has practical applications after all.

Do you have any reputable citations showing professional climatologists engaging in groupthink or responding badly to reasoned criticism? I ask because, once again, your description of the climatology community sounds like a description of a cult... [Dumb Scientist]

You mean like how they circled the wagons around Phil Jones, even when actual bad behavior on his part was discovered? For example: [ShakaUVM]

“This has some similarity to the CRU email theft, where precious little was discovered from among thousands of emails, but a few sentences were plucked out of context, deliberately misinterpreted (like “hide the decline”) and then hyped into “Climategate”.” [RealClimate]

Presumably you meant to say that scientists in general are circling wagons and responding badly to reasoned criticism.

Or you can just read the editor’s comments left in the response sections of RC.org. Just skimming through that above article, here’s an interplay between Pielke and Stefan. [ShakaUVM]

Coincidentally, Pielke Jr. had similar things to say about that interplay. That's the interplay where he asked a bunch of 'questions' like "Was it appropriate for the IPCC to make stuff up about my views?". Then Stefan replied:

Clearly there are different views on this, which is why we called this graph "debatable". But let's keep things in perspective: we're discussing Supplementary Material and a response to one of those 90,000 review comments now, not even the report itself. You've been working hard to scandalize your personal quibbles with IPCC here - how consistent is this with your self-proclaimed role as "honest broker"? Stefan

That link leads to an in-depth comment, and neither seem to constitute "responding badly to reasoned criticism." In fact, it's not clear that Pielke's rant counts as "reasoned criticism" in the first place. As far as I can tell, he's got

FYI, I'm an employee of the nonprofit AAAS, which publishes Science.

These are Science articles, behind Sciencemag.org's paywall, not Nature's. Nature is a completely different journal by someone else.
The original post is linked to one freely-available summary; you can find the rest of the Science summaries linked from the table of contents.
You an also find a good description of this research on AAAS' website in " Science: LCROSS Impact Ejects Minerals and Frozen Water from Crater on the Moon." That contains links to publicly accessible news releases and, at the bottom, links to all 6 summaries.

For those of us where the player won't launch when you click "play video" in the article, here's a direct link to the flash video:

http://sciencevideo.aaas.org/sciencenow/snow_ribbon_250.flv (320x240, 17 seconds, 1.1MB)

From what I'm told (I didn't live during that time, so I don't have firsthand knowledge), we used to have a government that strongly encouraged scientific research and development and considered it part of the greatness of our nation.

The biggest increase in Federal science (non-defense) R&D in recent years happened during Bush's terms. You know, the President who most openly avowed his faith ever since I've been old enough to vote? If you ask the scientist in me, that data seems crippling to any theory that science and religion are contradictory and can't mix.

Bush had many faults, but he got painted as an anti-science President solely because he was religious and killed a couple high-profile science projects (supercollider and stem cell research). As scientists are fond of saying, the facts do not bear that out. He increased funding for the NIH, NSF, and DOE more than any recent President. If you've been assuming he was anti-science all this time, I'd say you need to step back and ask yourself if your anti-religious fervor has become your religion.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences disagrees with you. The American Association for the Advancement of Science disagrees with you. The American Geophysical Union disagrees with you. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disagrees with you. There are many more, but the point is that the scientists actually studying it are generally convinced. Do you have any scientific organizations that agree with you that the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still up in the air?

At this point, I think that climate deniers are very close to creationists. In both cases, there are people and organizations that disagree with the science. They can talk a good talk, but fail in the actual doing of the science. They can ask more questions than can be answered currently, can take quotes (and emails) out of context, they can use the human failures of people involved in the science against them, and any screw ups (and they certainly exist in both cases) are taken as evidence that the entire science is incorrect. But, they are ignoring the basic science as a whole, discarding what we do understand, and blowing the uncertainties way out of proportion, in order to promote an unscientific point of view.

Your point appears to be that there is a consensus that global warming is happening, but there is no consensus that it is a serious problem that we need to do something about.

I think the most respected sicientific organizations in the world, the NAS and AAAS, would disagree on that. I don't know if you consider their view to represent a "consensus," but given their reputation, I think it can fairly be said to represent a thorough reading of the best scientific evidence.

The NAS statement on climate change says, "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated... Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate changes. The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

The AAAS just sent a letter to the senate which says, "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment."

And if you think this CRU hack incident changes any of that, the American Meterological Society disagrees, saying "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."

The reason for this situation is that science funding by the federal government has been more or less flat for about a decade

I was going to give a 'you are full of it' reply, but realized you might actually believe this.
So here is some info on the Federal science funding:
NSF funding history
NIH funding trends
Defence funding (PDF file)

I know it's tough, but we must have competition! Unfortunately, that also means that many (most?) people will have to re-tool... Best of luck with your career though.

Yes precisely. Here we are with massive companies like Exxon that have market caps in the at over 300 billion dollars (1/3 larger than MS, nearly twice apple) with an annual profit of $40 billion that not only have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and to demonstrate that "There is no anthropogenic climate change(TM)" but have been outed as willing to fund that conclusion. The entire budget spent on climage change research in the U.S. is ~$2 billion a year but is spent on research where there is no foregone conclusion. Yet, despite this HUGE disparity in the amount of money that could potentially fund a given conclusion, some significant portion of people STILL believe that data after data and analysis after analysis are the result of some liberal conspiracy to punish the capitalists and put us back into the middle ages and that there's a massive media cover-up of the real data. Its no wonder people denigrate these people as "deniers".

It costs about $150/year to join the AAAS and with that you receive an issue of Science magazine weekly. While some of the articles are dense and very domain-specific, many of the others are not and are (I think) quite accessible to most readers - especially if you read it more or less consistently. Climate change has been covered very thoroughly in Science over the years. So, don't go with (in the most general sense) media, go to a source where the research is being covered at first or second hand and read it/evaluate it for yourself.

It is also a great way to give yourself an education in general science. Though it can be a bit intimidating at first and is certainly a bit overwhelming (the magazine arrives relentlessly - if you've read the previous issue(s) or not).

The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade. They're the party that tries to teach creationism. They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming. They're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research. Why? Because they're for the status quo. There's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican.

I think there's a lot of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that. The recent Bush administration increased federal spending on scientific R&D to its highest levels in 30+ years. The President who decreased it to its lowest level was actually Clinton. But most people (including I suspect most scientists) probably think the opposite because that's what they expect from the preconceived bias you just outlined.

The Half Sigma blog points out a serious flaw in the design of this poll...

There is a Pew research study purporting to poll "scientists." The question I immediately want answered is, what's a "scientist?" The answer, as far as Pew is concerned, is anyone who is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as "Increase diversity in the scientific community," "Use science to advance human rights" (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), "Sustainable Development" and "Women's Collaboration".

You don't in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization. All you need to do is send them $146. School teachers are especially encouraged to join, and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.

Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of "scientists" to poll

I looked to find this "aacs" you refer to. I came up with several organizations:

• American Association of Christian Schools
• American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• American Association of Cosmetology Schools
• Advanced Access Content System
• Annapolis Area Christian School
• Ashtabula Area City Schools

None of those organizations seem particularly scientific to me. Perhaps you meant the AAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. And if we look at their membership requirements for the US we'll see that only students can sign up for full membership at $99 per year. A K-12 teacher would pay $146, the same as the professional rate, though they do have a low-frills option at $99.

The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization

Not sure where you got their goals from, but we'll read their website:

The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
"Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.

The same page continues on with some broad goals:

AAAS Mission
AAAS seeks to "advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people." To fulfill this mission, the AAAS Board has set these broad goals:

* Enhance communication among scientists, engineers, and the public;
* Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use;
* Strengthen support for the science and technology enterprise;
* Provide a voice for science on societal issues;
* Promote the responsible use of science in public policy;
* Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce;
* Foster education in science and technology for everyone;
* Increase public engagement with science and technology; and
* Advance international cooperation in science.

That doesn't really seem particularly liberal or conservative from a political standpoint, unless conservatives have a decidedly anti-science-education standpoint.

Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of "scientists" to poll

I looked to find this "aacs" you refer to. I came up with several organizations:

• American Association of Christian Schools
• American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• American Association of Cosmetology Schools
• Advanced Access Content System
• Annapolis Area Christian School
• Ashtabula Area City Schools

None of those organizations seem particularly scientific to me. Perhaps you meant the AAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. And if we look at their membership requirements for the US we'll see that only students can sign up for full membership at $99 per year. A K-12 teacher would pay $146, the same as the professional rate, though they do have a low-frills option at $99.

The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization

Not sure where you got their goals from, but we'll read their website:

The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
"Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.

The same page continues on with some broad goals:

AAAS Mission
AAAS seeks to "advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people." To fulfill this mission, the AAAS Board has set these broad goals:

* Enhance communication among scientists, engineers, and the public;
* Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use;
* Strengthen support for the science and technology enterprise;
* Provide a voice for science on societal issues;
* Promote the responsible use of science in public policy;
* Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce;
* Foster education in science and technology for everyone;
* Increase public engagement with science and technology; and
* Advance international cooperation in science.

That doesn't really seem particularly liberal or conservative from a political standpoint, unless conservatives have a decidedly anti-science-education standpoint.

The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization

[citation needed]

credit card here: https://pubs.aaas.org/membership/new_member_setup.asp

and you can have it.

The AAAS publishes an annual report on government R&D spending. If you look at it, you see that there is $140 billion per year going into R&D. While it is true that "federal research investments are shrinking as a share of the U.S.
economy," it's simply not true that the government is not funding research.

Bush's PR department was awesome. You just need to catch up with the times.

Bush's PR department was awful. He increased science funding more than any President in modern history, and yet a great majority of people think science research suffered under his administration. Yes there were certain specific high-profile research areas he killed (embryonic stem cells, the superconducting super collider, etc). And yes I despise how he tried to politicize the scientific process. But overall government funding for science research increased about 50% during his terms.

The trick is to cry that everyone's out to get you, and that they only report things in a one-sided manner, but then to make sure that your side is the only one reported. Remember when the Democrats were blocking things in Congress under his administration? How was that possible with a Republican majority?

Right, except the people you think were doing this weren't the ones doing it. It was the people pushing for embryonic stem cell research and the SSC who were doing it. And apparently succeeding since those two projects seem to characterize Bush's science policies in most people's minds, rather than the overall dollar amounts he directed towards scientific research in general.

So now we're almost ten years behind the rest of the world in discovering treatments with what amounts to a silver bullet that can actually replace dying tissues. That means that in the future, you'll have to import the treatments from other countries or fly there for treatment. Due to religion, America loses yet another manufacturing opportunity.

Only if you look at one small narrow area of research. As I already pointed out, funding for scientific research under Bush was massively increased. By your reasoning, that would mean we're far ahead of the rest of the world in lots of other areas. Concentrating attention on only a few areas where we're now behind is just politicking.

The Government has done this because private corporations are not willing to pay for something you just give away free to the public

The one counter-example are private Universities, which do spend their own money on publicly available basic research.

  (source) total basic research spending in universities in 2001 was $20.8 billion. $12.9 billion came from the Federal government, and $7.8 billion came from non-Federal sources.

Institutional funds (e.g. university endowments) are the largest source of non-Federal university basic research spending, followed by industry and state/local funding.

Basic research, of course, pales in comparison with the $250 billion total amount of US R&D done (source).

>Since landing on the moon, what has NASA done?

Hubble plus the stuff you mentioned and then some.

>The landers on Mars are interesting, but I haven't seen much tangible value arise from that exploration.

Tons of PhD thesis's and papers. Also geological data about resources is nothing to sneeze at (Just try getting accurate information about oil and how much is left). The problem is that nobody is living on Mars yet. But going there without knowing where to find any water and other resources is kinda dumb.

Finally lets have a look at R&D spending:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/histda09.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/res06.pdf

Maybe you should better ask what the overblown health spending has done for you.

Play around with this a bit and you will understand.
http://www.who.int/whosis

>Since landing on the moon, what has NASA done?

Hubble plus the stuff you mentioned and then some.

>The landers on Mars are interesting, but I haven't seen much tangible value arise from that exploration.

Tons of PhD thesis's and papers. Also geological data about resources is nothing to sneeze at (Just try getting accurate information about oil and how much is left). The problem is that nobody is living on Mars yet. But going there without knowing where to find any water and other resources is kinda dumb.

Finally lets have a look at R&D spending:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/histda09.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/res06.pdf

Maybe you should better ask what the overblown health spending has done for you.

Play around with this a bit and you will understand.
http://www.who.int/whosis

Since 1945 the AAAS has honored the best reporting on science.

In 2008 the winners are {the envelope, please]:

Large newspaper

Terry McDermott, Los Angeles Times, "Chasing Memory," "[An] ambitious, meticulously reported series on memory and the brain."

Small Newspaper

Kara Platoni, East Bay Express, "In Search of Life," "Introducing her readers to the work of local scientists searching for answers to perhaps the biggest scientific question of all: Are we alone in the universe?"

Magazine

John Carey, Business Week, "Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?"

Television

Joseph McMaster, Gary Johnstone, WGBH/NOVA and Vulcan Productions, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," "A very careful, methodical and sensitive presentation of a vital scientific question, with enormous social and political import. The filmmakers managed to be both clear and accurate with the science, and fair and sensitive to the beliefs of the ID proponents."

Radio

Daniel Grossman, WBUR Boston, "Meltdown: Inside Out," The science .of global warming in ice sheets, mountain glaciers and sea ice."

Online

Stefan Lovgren, National Geographic News, "Megafishes," "The images of the giant ray and the cannibalistic fish hook you, and the narrative reels you in, an entry that introduces an interesting topic in an innovative way. Good content and fine visuals of fish that must be seen to be believed."

Children's Science News

Yoon Shin-Young, Children's Science Donga, [South Korea,] Roadkill, Horror on Roads, The impact of highway roadkills on native species in South Korea...an unusual subject made interesting and educational for young readers."

AAAS Announces Winners of the 2008 AAAS Science Journalism Awards [November 12, 2008]

Washington Post - Children's Book Guild Nonfiction Award

I just wish the USA Today reporter for this story would get his facts straight. AAAS doesn't stand for American Academy of Arts and Sciences; it stands for American Association for the Advancement of Science.

(reposting of previously mangled up comment)

Yes, you are right. There are many ways to induce first order phase transitions in various system, leading to the release or take up of heat.

The special thing about the device in the article is that this phase transition is induced by an electric field, the so called electrocaloric effect. Therefore no movable parts in the system are required. Previously only small temperature differences have been demonstrated in metal oxides (smaller than 10K). By using ferroelectric/antiferroelectric polymers they are apparently able to increase the temperature difference to above 10K, which is a very significant increase.

That said, this of course typical university hype science and practial application faces many engineering and also intrinsic scientific problems. First of all they have not measured the temperature difference, but deduced it indirectly from maxwell relations. In a realistic set up the temperature difference will be lower.

A second problem is intrinsic to the material and has been conveniently neglected: Since the principle relies on a solid insulator the heat conductivitiy is extremely low. (No convection, no electronic heat conduction). This means that you are able to create a temperature gradient, but are not able to transfer a lot of heat, thereby severely limiting the cooling ability.

A third problem is that this effect only works in a very limited temperature range (above 70ÂC). A fourth problem is hysteretic heating due to ferroelectricity...

Link to the original article: click

Listen to the following podcast.

http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_podcast/SciencePodcast_080208.mp3

To sum this podcast up, switching over to biofuels actually has a negative carbon impact on the environment. This is because croplands which are being used as a food land are being converted to fuel land, and as a result the need for other food land is required. When further crop land is created, new land is plowed up to fill the void of 'FOOD' since we are no longer producing food from some of our land anymore.

Plowing up land has a release of carbon into the atmosphere which would require nearly 170 years of use of biofuels to make up for this difference.

Bottom line, if you are going to do it, why NOT try and use something like an electric car. Diesel, or even biofuel, is NOT the long term answer. You are still using resources that, although may be renewable, are still limited. The sun however, is not limited. Harnessing this energy is as clean as it can get.

If you are going to make a drastic change like this, why not do it right the first time?

science is in and has been in for a while.

Maybe you should learn some more about it - there's plenty of references and original source material there for you to read.

I'm glad you brought that up! There are a few different matrices already, and Barack Obama tops them all, in my biased opinion:

http://www.techpresident.com/
TechPresident grades on Internet policy:
Barack Obama: A-
Hillary Clinton: B-
John McCain: C+

http://www.popularmechanics.com/geekthevote08
No real grading system here, but just look at the thorough policy statements by Barack Obama. One easy chart to look at is the policies that each candidate DID NOT ADDRESS:
Barack Obama: -1 = Firearms
Hillary Clinton: -2 = Firearms, Environment
John McCain: -4 = Auto, Infrastructure, Science/Education, Space

http://election2008.aaas.org/comparisons/
No direct grading system here either, but they provide a nice breakdown of all the major Science and Technology policy areas.

I wrote the parent comment. Since I posted it, I've been trying to understand how Ray Kurzweil could say something so foolish as "We'll have intelligent nanobots go into our brains through the capillaries and interact directly with our biological neurons."

Not only is he saying that there will be artificial intelligence in only 21 years, but he is saying that the computers on which the new AI runs will be so small they can travel like cells in our bloodstream, and do useful work based on an extremely advanced understanding of biochemistry and an ability to interact on a molecular level.

There is no evidence that anything like that is happening. It is wild imagining.

I'm guessing that Ray Kurzweil understood correctly that the National Academy of Engineering Grand Challenges for Engineering is a publicity gimmick, and that the committee is a social group. Maybe Mr. Kurzweil decided to try to outdo everyone else in getting publicity. So, he put together the popular prefix nano- and the hot words robots, medicine, and AI. And he was successful. He tricked the BBC into quoting a prediction he himself doesn't believe.

Apparently, Ray Kurzweil interpreted the event as a socially backward macho male competition, and, given that, he won.

The National Academy of Engineering web page, Reverse-engineer the brain, is also wildly nonsensical, but somewhat more restrained, saying: "... further advances are needed...", and "Because each nerve cell receives messages from tens of thousands of others, and circuits of nerve cells link up in complex networks, it is extremely difficult to completely trace the signaling pathways."

There is lying, and then there is creative, energetic pseudo-scientific lying. There is treating other people badly, and then there is using a knowledge of science to take advantage of the shortcomings and weaknesses of other people. I suppose Ray Kurzweil was only getting into the mood of the baloney artistry the National Academy of Engineering created for him. But using baloney artistry to get attention is not only infantile, it is FRAUD.

This is all my opinion. If you can find a more positive interpretation of it, I'm interested.

Ray Kurzweil gave another interview about his imaginings that was rather uninformative, but not so nutty: Interview with Ray Kurzweil about the engineering challenges of the 21st Century (MP3, 6 minutes).

If you had said "Applied Technology and product research should be cut entirely", I'd agree with you. But the private sector already pays the vast majority of that. Further, private industry already pays for a 2/3 majority of all R&D research in the United States: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guitotal.htm As you can see from the graphs, that fraction has been increasing every year, (in real dollar terms!) since the early 1970s. Clearly, private industry DOES see many areas where funding large R&D programs brings it a competitive advantage.

But this does not in any way support the contention that government funded "scientific research" should be cut entirely. There are many areas of research whose outcomes are so uncertain that it doesn't make any sense for private enterprise to finance them, but where the net economic and social benefits are very long term and very positive. Consider research on the germ theory or disease, or the discovery of the electron. Together, those fields for the bedrock of all modern economies. Space exploration and fusion power research are two modern examples where the fundamental research could not possibly be supported directly by private enterprise without governmental assistance. There are other areas related specifically to government responsibilities (defense, law enforcement, environmental stewardship, etc.) where I would expect the government to provide funding. Finally, there are a number of research areas with a large societal benefit, but little to no profit or market advantage, where private actors shouldn't be expected to fill. The modern archetype is vaccine research.

I'm as big a fan of the free market and constitutional restrictions on government action as the next guy, but I still accept that there are areas that there are things, like government funding of fundamental research, that would not be supported but for government intervention.

This has been mentioned in the past by Patrick Ball (see second page) and others as an excuse for human rights violations and a need for human rights agencies or pretty much anyone to move to open source. They'll find some other excuse, sure, but hopefully every little bit of additional freedom helps.

According to the AP newswire video, it's the AAAS (publisher of the journal Science) that did the work.

Here's the news release with photos on their website. There are links to other resources at the bottom of the page.

- RG>

They've developed some educational programs, and have a list of online resources.

One of their programs is Science Books and Films, which sounds like what you're looking for.

I think it's a great idea to get kids reading and writing about science in English class. As a scientist, I wish I was a better writer. The difference between a good scientist and a great one is often communication and an ability to write in a clear, engaging style.

The researchers explained that the transplantation method is simple in concept, though complicated to execute. First, the proteins were stripped from the M. mycoides LC cells, resulting in naked DNA that can be passed between cells. Then this intact DNA was incubated briefly with M. capricolum cells, soaking in a solution that caused the M. capricolum cells to fuse together. As two of these recipient cells fused, they sometimes encapsulated a donor DNA chromosome.

Lartigue, Carole, Glass, John I., Alperovich, Nina, Pieper, Rembert, Parmar, Prashanth P., Hutchison III, Clyde A., Smith, Hamilton O., and Venter, J. Craig. Genome Transplantation in Bacteria: Changing One Species to Another. 3 August 2007, Vo. 317, Science.

Originally published in Science Express on 28 June 2007
Science 3 August 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5838, pp. 632 - 638
DOI: 10.1126/science.1144622

Genome Transplantation in Bacteria: Changing One Species to Another
Carole Lartigue, John I. Glass,* Nina Alperovich, Rembert Pieper, Prashanth P. Parmar, Clyde A. Hutchison, III, Hamilton O. Smith, J. Craig Venter

As a step toward propagation of synthetic genomes, we completely replaced the genome of a bacterial cell with one from another species by transplanting a whole genome as naked DNA. Intact genomic DNA from Mycoplasma mycoides large colony (LC), virtually free of protein, was transplanted into Mycoplasma capricolum cells by polyethylene glycol-mediated transformation. Cells selected for tetracycline resistance, carried by the M. mycoides LC chromosome, contain the complete donor genome and are free of detectable recipient genomic sequences. These cells that result from genome transplantation are phenotypically identical to the M. mycoides LC donor strain as judged by several criteria.

The J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jglass@jcvi.org

Why is it not a scientific theory?

Because we can't test with experiments and replicate the results. Put another way, Why "Intelligent Design" (ID) is not science, or AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory.

No need to apologize -- nitpicking can be a wonderful thing.

Anyway, here is another webpage for you for you to peruse: Emeritus Professor of Geology and Physics, MIT, 1878-1882.

Of course this was the early days. There were fewer places to get degrees, and although the basic system of degrees in the US (bachelors/masters/doctorate) had been worked out, there were more situations where a person might get recognition for important work done outside of a degree program. Nowadays if you are doing research that you plan to make public, you might as well be pursuing an advanced degree if you don't already have one, so that you can get more support for your work.

Reposting now that I recalled my login info...

There is a program through NSF that does almost exactly what you describe, with the added benefit of funding graduate students. It's called GK-12 and is designed to involve science and engineering graduate students in teaching science in public schools. The program at my university focuses on grades 3-5 but other programs focus on different grades. I'm currently involved in the program and I enjoy helping the teachers with whom I work improve their science lessons. We're part technical consultant and part co-teacher, no certificate required, just that you develop and teach the plans together. The grad students get tuition and a stipend and the teachers get the assistance of the grad students and some funding for materials and the like.

It even looks like your university has this program in place for grades 6-8.

Man, I'm cut to the quick by your insult. Oh wait.. I'm not really.
I'm have the company of a lot of morons out there.
They have the same facts- they just don't state the consequences of those facts.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_n2_ v18/ai_17966623
Estimates of the Earth's human carrying capacity (loosely defined as the number of people the planet can support) range from fewer than 1 billion to more than 1 trillion. This enormous spread follows from widely varying concepts, methods, and assumptions. Most frequently, estimates fall between 4 billion and 16 billion. Counting the highest figure when an author gives a range of possibilities, the median estimate is 12 billion. Counting the lowest estimate when an author gives a range, the median estimate is 7.7 billion. The lowest and highest U.N. population projections for 2050 show that within the next century, the world's population could face ***exceedingly difficult choices in trading off human well-being and human numbers***.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/94/940711Arc4 189.html
Optimum human population a third of present, scientists say
STANFORD -- Until cultures change radically, the optimum number of people to exist on the planet at any one time lies in the vicinity of 1.5 billion to 2 billion people, about a third of the present number, three California ecologists estimated in an article published in the journal Population and Environment.
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec16/b65 lec16.htm#HUMAN%20POPULATION%20GROWTH
Several examples of how locally humans will grow until they die.

http://atlas.aaas.org/index.php?part=1&sec=trends
The latest medium projection, produced in 1998, expects world population to reach 8.9 billion in 2050. This is a massive 1.1 billion less than was expected in the projection made in 1990
--Your 11 billion figure is out of date- now it is the "worst case" result of the model. My 9 billion figure is not something I pulled out of my ass. It was the median answer the last time I boned up on this stuff- perhaps it has changed in 7 years but the trend is less - not more.

I could go on. There were only 20,200,000 more hits for the search. Admittedly, probably a lot of them garbage.

I would say it's more "child wage" illegals- they are doing the jobs I used to do as a teenager for under minimum wage. "Slave wage" really couldn't apply to someone who risks death to voluntarily get here and take the job. However, Mexicans- waving *mexican* flags and talking about *retaking* their land is the last thing we need in the US. They are not taking pride in being American. And their core values are so great that they've done a wonderful job with Mexico- right?

Anyway, my view of the future is a world of "mexico cities" where the lucky ones live in a city surrounded by hills covered with paperboard and scrapwood houses. Mexico had a chance. You look at them in movies made in the 50's and they were clean and modern-- they lost it. It's horrible there now- 5 year olds sleeping in piles on the street.

Can someone please mod this down as -1, troll? Because Al Gore himself signed the Kyoto Protocol.

danah boyd, a doctoral student at UC Berkeley and a well-known expert on social networking and adolescent identity development, spoke at the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2006 annual meeting a few months ago about the critical role social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook play in the socialization and identity development of adolescents. In a nutshell, she argues that social networking sites are areas where young people can experiment with their identity in a venue frequented by their peers but (erroroneously) perceived to be sheltered from the prying eyes of authority figures. Thoughtlessly banning social networking sites and environments from public schools and libraries without input from psychologists and others who can testify why and how students actually use these sites would be foolhardy.

danah boyd, a doctoral student at UC Berkeley and a well-known expert on social networking and adolescent identity development, spoke at the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2006 annual meeting a few months ago about the critical role social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook play in the socialization and identity development of adolescents. In a nutshell, she argues that social networking sites are areas where young people can experiment with their identity in a venue frequented by their peers but (erroroneously) perceived to be sheltered from the prying eyes of authority figures. Thoughtlessly banning social networking sites and environments from public schools and libraries without input from psychologists and others who can testify why and how students actually use these sites would be foolhardy.

I think your response shows the deceptiveness and self-centered greed that characterizes special interests.

If you can call my concern for science funding a "special interest" then so be it, but there is nothing deceptive about it. And I find it difficult to understand how you could call my concern for science, education and international progress self-centered.

What you call 'reduced funding' is actually increased funding at a lower rate of growth.

I fail to see how you can see this and this this as simply lower rates of growth. But maybe that's the new math that the Bush administration was talking about.

In an era were federal spending is out of control I would have hoped that growth in the NIH budget could be restrained more.

What would you rather have federal funding spent on? If we are going to be "taxed" at the rates that the Bush administration seems to feel are acceptable, would you not rather have the money go to science funding rather than subsidizing companies like Halliburton?

My guess is that the damage being done is similarly illusory.

Well, our lab has been doing OK, but the 20% cut that many NIH funded labs have endured this year has meant the loss of a significant number of highly skilled jobs that return money in tax revenues. I personally know eleven jobs that have been eliminated as a result of these cuts and beyond that, there are a significant number of positions that could not be filled to begin with. We were planning on hiring two additional positions alone, but are now having to work doubly hard to find the funding we had been already promised in our current budget to hire those two positions.

So, no.... There is no illusion about it.

I think your response shows the deceptiveness and self-centered greed that characterizes special interests.

If you can call my concern for science funding a "special interest" then so be it, but there is nothing deceptive about it. And I find it difficult to understand how you could call my concern for science, education and international progress self-centered.

What you call 'reduced funding' is actually increased funding at a lower rate of growth.

I fail to see how you can see this and this this as simply lower rates of growth. But maybe that's the new math that the Bush administration was talking about.

In an era were federal spending is out of control I would have hoped that growth in the NIH budget could be restrained more.

What would you rather have federal funding spent on? If we are going to be "taxed" at the rates that the Bush administration seems to feel are acceptable, would you not rather have the money go to science funding rather than subsidizing companies like Halliburton?

My guess is that the damage being done is similarly illusory.

Well, our lab has been doing OK, but the 20% cut that many NIH funded labs have endured this year has meant the loss of a significant number of highly skilled jobs that return money in tax revenues. I personally know eleven jobs that have been eliminated as a result of these cuts and beyond that, there are a significant number of positions that could not be filled to begin with. We were planning on hiring two additional positions alone, but are now having to work doubly hard to find the funding we had been already promised in our current budget to hire those two positions.

So, no.... There is no illusion about it.

Ahhhh, spoken like a person who has no real understanding of the history of science. Are you aware that essentially *all* applied scientific knowledge and applications are derived from basic science research? Nuclear power, the Internet, genetics, medicine, and more. Applied research that corporations and private companies are interested in is generally applied research that is only made possible after the basic science work has been done. Through out ALL of mankinds history how much of the basics of scientific advancement have ben primarily funded by the US government? And in the future how much funding is necessary to continue development? Throwing money at scientific community doesn't guarantee advancement in anything, basic or practical. Companies do and will continue to fund basic kinds of scientific research based on the hope that it will lead to practical applications. This is based on the number of existing grants that have been failed to be renewed from senior investigators due to reduced funding, the number of jobs that have been eliminated by even recent cuts this year (many labs have had their grants cut by 20% this year alone), and the number of post-docs that have failed to achieve more permanent academic positions in the past few years. You can mod this redundant because someone has posted this already below, but... doesn't look like the budget is being cut all that much to me at all. In fact it looks like this administration greatly increased it and is now slightly decreasing it.

It is also interesting to note that over two thirds of federally funded research agencies are seeing Presidentially projected decreases in funding through 2011. This is what I am talking about with respect to commitments to science and education.

Hey Otter. Thanks for the response. It would be a mistake to say he threw huge increases in the NIH funding. In reality, he chose to follow the Clinton NIH funding plan for 2002-2003, but then started restricting increases in bioscience funding only to start reducing funding with this years budget in just about every basic science arena in favor of increases in applied research.... in particular weapons research. Obtained from your same reference.

Nobody has claimed it was a funding crisis however. One might be more correct in saying that the priorities of this administration are what is at issue.

Incidentally, here are the actual numbers for this "crisis" in funding.

As for the shortage of funding fallacy-- it is no fallacy. The NIH budget this year isn't good at all. The lack of funding for Academia is more prevelant now than ever before.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Look at this chart from AAAS. Even if you don't read another word of my post, please, please read the chart.

The reason NIH takes cuts this year is to pay for increases in funding for DOE Office of Science and NSF. This will benefit the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, astronomy), which the federal government has largely neglected since 1992.

NIH and the life sciences have done pretty well in funding since 1992, and great things have been done with this money. But it is important to fund basic physical research. The tools and theory developed there are the building blocks that will be used to make future advances in the life sciences.

As for the shortage of funding fallacy-- it is no fallacy. The NIH budget this year isn't good at all. The lack of funding for Academia is more prevelant now than ever before.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Look at this chart from AAAS. Even if you don't read another word of my post, please, please read the chart.

The reason NIH takes cuts this year is to pay for increases in funding for DOE Office of Science and NSF. This will benefit the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, astronomy), which the federal government has largely neglected since 1992.

NIH and the life sciences have done pretty well in funding since 1992, and great things have been done with this money. But it is important to fund basic physical research. The tools and theory developed there are the building blocks that will be used to make future advances in the life sciences.