Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Obama To Allegedly Bring Sanity In Science Back To The White House
gnomexxx
Member Posts: 2,920
This new administration and what's coming up is kinda giving me the creeps. Bush gave me the creeps a lot too, his policies on scientific research included. I'm not feeling the vibe that so many others are getting from this "Obama is Change" dude. I'm a little apprehensive (to say the least). I have a feeling we've just gone from the frying pan into the fire.
Why should the federal government have so much say in what is going on with scientific exploration and research anyways? Has anyone thought to ask that question? Why not quit taxing the hell out of us and let us, the people, donate to the places we see fit for research (without federal restrictions)?
This just seems so wierd to me that a President would hold so much power over something like scientific research. 
==================================================
Reality returns to the White House
From: New Scientist Website
* 27 December 2008 by Peter Aldhous
Barack Obama may have an impossible burden of expectation on his shoulders, but one fervent wish of many US scientists should be easy enough to fulfil: simply lead the nation back into the "reality-based community".
That phrase, famously used by a senior adviser to George W. Bush in a 2002 conversation with the journalist Ron Suskind, epitomised the Bush administration's contempt for those who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality": that is from observation rather than ideology.
Instead, the Bush White House boasted of creating its own reality, and had little time for research that questioned its policies, leading to what some observers characterised as a "war on science". Many top scientific jobs were filled by ideologues, and empirical evidence was ignored or distorted in order to bolster policies such as inaction on global warming, a reluctance to list species as endangered, and an approach to HIV that focused on sexual abstinence.
Scientists were prominent among those cheering Obama's election victory on 4 November. A clear sign of the president-elect's new direction came two weeks later when he sent a video message to a conference on global warming in Beverly Hills, California. "The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear," Obama said. "Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high; the consequences too serious."
No one is predicting a new golden age for science. Money will be tight, and researchers will have to prove their projects' worth. Obama now has to back up his fine words on respecting scientific evidence by making well-chosen appointments, especially to the key job of director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, who serves as the president's science adviser. After Bush was elected in 2000, the post languished unfilled for 10 months - initially because science was low on the president's list of priorities, and later because it was hard to find a qualified scientist willing to take the job.
Obama can send out a strong signal by appointing a science adviser quickly - and admitting that person into his inner political circle. "Before the inauguration would be best, or soon after would be reasonable," says Lesley Stone, executive director of the pressure group Scientists and Engineers for America.
===============================
Comments
Look at some of the scientific research and findings that the Bush Administration repressed and tell me if Obama's strong committment to science still "gives you the creeps."
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
There needs to be some guidance and oversight given to science, in my opinion, when it comes to getting federal grants for research.
I get very pissed when I read about $10 million federally funded research into the mating habits of frogs.
What gives me the creeps is the federal government having a say in what is researched and what is not researched. Bush having that power gives me the creeps. Obama having that power gives me the creeps.
Like I said, why should the President have the power over scientific research???
===============================
Let that guidance and oversight come from donations by us instead of our tax dollars then. This all goes back to the stealing of our wages and then having it funneled into projects we don't agree with or keeping it away from things we do agree with.
I wasn't so keen on Bush keeping funding away from stem cell research. Yet, my money was still taken out of my wages and kept away from these projects. Had I had my way, I would have no problem donating some of my money to projects like that if it weren't being stolen directly from my check each payday.
Oh, and I hear that the frogs are having a lot of trouble lately. I've actually heard that the children's children of today may not even get to see some of the frogs if any that are around right now. So, I think maybe their mating habits are a thing of interest. Actually, the mating habits of any creature is a good thing to know in case they end up getting in trouble. Knowledge is a good thing.
And 10 million to study frogs is chump change considering the state their in right now...
Are frogs on the brink of extinction?
===============================
What gives me the creeps is the federal government having a say in what is researched and what is not researched. Bush having that power gives me the creeps. Obama having that power gives me the creeps.
Like I said, why should the President have the power over scientific research???
He doesn't. And just because something isn't federally funded doesn't mean it's not being researched.
The President himself isn't signing off on every bit of funding, but Obama is going to appoint the right people to properly look into the things that the Bush Administration has ignored, underfunded or skewed.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
A science community run exclusively by charity donations is not likely to excell and would most likely lead to technological regression nationally. I would doubt that many of us go out of our way to donate to science and those that did donate to science in this scenario would most likely develope a monopoly on technology as they had the purse strings.
If you are not being responded to directly, you are probably on my ignore list.
Then come up with a multiple stage system. Some funding comes from the government, but the bulk is voluntary. In the meantime, bounties are offered for significant breakthroughs, particularly those that lead to a useful product/advancement. This would help to ensure that funding doesn't get funneled into useless projects.
Frankly, I would love to see major advancements in the field of genetic modifications. The massive benefits for humanity itself can wait for the religious to see sense, but in the meantime there is so much to be gained from the careful and proper use of a little bit of gene splicing.
For instance, we are having major problems with our atmosphere. Blue-Green algae (also known as cyanobacteria) is and has for a very long time been one of the most efficient CO2 converters in the known world. A carefully designed variation could turn our oceans effectively into an oxygen pump, while providing a new food source for the life there. An organism could also be concieved that splits H2O as a part of natural processes, solving the one major issue with hydrogen powered systems. Cloned organs can eliminate the long lists of people waiting to either die or recieve needed transplants. Modified crops can produce more per acre while needing less upkeep.
The list quite frankly goes on and on
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
The scientific community should be worried, not elated. It doesn't matter who Obama appoints, federal money is going to be tight with so much going out to muli-billion dollar bailouts. If a research project isn't front page news, in the "cool" club, or have really good connections, they just aren't going to get funded federally. On top of all that, private and corporate funding for research is going to be similarly tight.
Ok one thing I need to back up about is the notion that research takes up huge amounts of the federal budget. It doesn't. Social Security, medicare/medicaid and the military take up most of the budget. So the idea that research is "taxing us to death" doesn't match the budgeting reality.
now on to the multistage system. The first post I wrote applies to the multistage system as well. Consider the bounty suggestion. Who is offering these bounties? I am guessing that you don't mean the government since they fund only a small portion in this scenario. So we fall back on wealthy investors. What are they most likely to invest in? Things that benefit them, not necessarily things that benefit humanity. As long as bounties are being posted(presumably by the wealthy) the course of science (and possibly education as a whole) is going to be very limited as these individuals are looking to their own interests. Additionally, as mentioned there is the very real potential for a tech monopoly. If I am a wealthy investor who has discovered a gene treatment that will make people strong, faster, smarter, whatever, I am not going to distribute that to everyone else. I am going to use it on myself and my family(possibly a friend or two) so that I can have a competitive edge against anyone else.
As a consequence, this sort of scenario pretty much ends the Government as it is currently known since those with the money and technology have no compelling reason to share it (or at least all of it, I'm sure viagra or such like would be common enough) and will be able to start assembling their own fiefdoms as the government tech falls further behind technologically. Why bother with a bounty if you can start an empire? That is the end point of this scenario based on human nature. Someone with money will find a piece of tech that gives them power and begin to assert dominance through it.
If you are not being responded to directly, you are probably on my ignore list.
Actually, I think it's the other way around. I think most people don't go out of their way to donate because they just assume, "I'm being taxed, so my taxes are taking care of that."
--------------------------------------
While the debate is primarly should my tax dollars fund a or b. I want a choice if my tax dollars do fund stem cell research. I would hope with this new administration some amazing possilbites of stem cell research can occur with new lines of possiblity opening up.
I hope in my time to see cures for diabetes, degenerative disk disease, spinal cord injuries.
The thought that research could bring these possiblites is exciting to me
Bush's science policies included such knowledge as God's advice. I can't wait to see where Obama takes our countries science research.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
So gnomexx? The government should not have a say what kind of research they will be funding? You certainly are a strange fellah.
I CREATED MYSELF!
"<Claus|Dev> i r pk"
SW:TOR|War40K:DMO|GW2
I think he is just bringing into question why the government funds research at all. Just a guess.
Bush's policies were medieval and have set this country's research back 8 years. God does not speak to the President, he is one of the most ungodly men ever to hold office in the history of this nation.
You missed the point of my message. I don't think the government should have a say what gets funded at all. I think they need not be in the funding business for scientific research.
I think the federal government is way too big and got that way from sticking it's nose in places that it doesn't belong. It needs to quit taxing us to oblivion and then rerouting our earnings into things that we don't agree with or not putting it into places where we think it should go.
My solution is for the government to quit taxing us, let us make the decision where our money goes through donations and charitable contributions, and let the federal governments influence be something that we look at as a historical mistake!
===============================
So you want the government to cease to exist? Are you proposing Anarchy?
If you are not being responded to directly, you are probably on my ignore list.
As far as our federal government is concerned, if it's not global warming, it's not science.
You shouldn't get your hopes up about this Gnome.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Please, you can't just leave it to the people to donate to the work they see fit. We'd be behind so many other countries in a matter of months if that policy were implemented.
Even if people aren't as greedy as I think they are and decided to donate the money that they saved by not being taxed as heavily, the majority of it would go to feeding the hungry and saving homeless kids. That is not a bad thing, but Science would be way underfunded and we'd fall into an even greater recession once other countries realize nothing is going to be coming out of the U.S.
Enough crying about taxes. There are billions of people who would give their left arm to be making over $10,000 a year.
The Official God FAQ
Yeah, glad the government only funds climate change research
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
I supported McCain.
Don't ban, plz. Haha
------------------------------
Man is the loneliest being on earth.
So you want the government to cease to exist? Are you proposing Anarchy?
There was a federal government in this country before the income tax was forced upon us.
I will take this as an opportunity to introduce you to the Libertarian Party (not a party that believes in anarchy) and also point you towards a prominent Constitutionalist think tank. Seriously, check them out and they will show you a new way of approaching problems other than relying on the federal government. It's a brighter future for this country for sure.
Libertarian Party
CATO.Org
===============================
I think I'm a dreamer at times. Then I go and read about the history of this country and I see how people handled things before the income tax was pushed upon us. It was a prosperous nation that had a bright future ahead of it. Now we're a group of people dependent upon the federal government for nearly everything we do.
I have my hopes bashed at times, then I look back and they are lifted again. We've got to get back to the principles that made this country strong and made other countries look to us as a promise for their own futures. Right now we're just a mockery of what we once were.
I almost laugh hysterically when I hear someone say "America, land of the free and home of the brave." Really? We are? How are we free or brave? I know we were.
===============================
So your better answer is to forcefully take peoples income to put into a system proven to be inefficient? You're system is not working. It's been shown time and time again to not work. It's killing our economy, it's nothing but a tool to manipulate people and their behavior, it breeds corruption, it stifles peoples motivation through income redistribution, it most definitely makes people more greedy because their money is stolen from them up front, yet you think it's a better answer than voluntary donations and charitable contributions???????? How?
===============================
Oh, yeah. That would have been a whole lot different.
===============================
