Stalling science threatens every domain of modern life

Sep 28, 2012 by Alan I. Leshner And Kent Kresa

The looming "sequestration," across-the-board budget cuts that were never really meant to happen, could cripple key areas of science by slashing federal investment in research and development by an estimated 8.4 percent between now and 2017. That is not good for science, but it is also bad for an economy whose growth is driven by advances in science and technology.

At a time when federal R&D funding has already declined 10 percent in real dollars since 2010, indiscriminate spending cuts would further stall essential studies, with potential impacts on medical research, food safety, energy independence, national security, and efforts to come to grips with climate change. There are few aspects of modern life that are not touched by science, and the federal role in promoting innovative research across diverse fields must not be compromised.

Consider some of the benefits to date: NASA's many spinoff technologies have included a robotic arm that helps surgeons perform less-invasive surgeries, a device that stabilizes heart-transplant patients until a donor can be found, and sensors for detecting chemical warfare agents. Other federally funded research has given rise to the Google search engine, liquid-crystal displays, magnetic storage drives, and global positioning systems. The Human Genome Project, which cost the federal government $3.8 billion between 1990 and 2003, or $5.6 billion in 2010 dollars, has generated an economic payoff of $796 billion, according to a study by Battelle Memorial Institute. Advances resulting from the project have encompassed human health, agriculture, forensics, veterinary medicine, and more.

If broad-axe budget cuts happen, few research fields will remain unscathed. Vital projects related to cancer, cyber security, weather-monitoring, and other national concerns would be endangered as federal agencies scramble to reduce or terminate programs, cut overhead costs, and slash capital spending. States that receive federal R&D money would feel the pain. California could lose $7.3 billion in reduced R&D funding from the Defense Department alone over the next five years and $11.3 billion overall. Texas could lose $2.8 billion overall, Florida $1.6 billion and Washington $1.7 billion.

Slowing scientific progress seems a particularly bad idea for the United States at the same time that other countries are rapidly increasing their R&D investments. Since 1999, China's support for science, for example, has grown 10 times faster, as a percentage of its , or gross domestic product, compared with the United States. We also now invest a smaller share of our economy on R&D than Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, and Finland.

The pending sequestration, mandating nearly $1 trillion in indiscriminate spending cuts over the next decade, would cut defense R&D by 9.1 percent and nondefense R&D by 7.4 percent over the first five years, assuming budget reductions are distributed equally. This slash-and-burn approach to trimming the federal deficit was originally intended only as a worst-case or default position. While many Republican and Democrats alike fear the "fiscal cliff" that looms, continuing political inaction will make it a reality.

The Budget Control Act, signed into law in August 2011, set forth a two-step process for trimming the nation's $1.1 trillion annual deficit. A supercommittee's failure to agree on a deficit-reduction plan launched the countdown to a second, emergency stop-gap measure: automatic sequestration. Sweeping budget cuts will go into effect in January unless Congress takes action during the upcoming lame-duck session.

A new analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science looked at two possible sequestration scenarios being discussed on Capitol Hill: Cuts to nondefense research areas only or cuts affecting science programs in both defense and nondefense agencies. If the cuts are unbalanced, with lawmakers declining trims to defense spending and shifting them to nondefense programs, some civilian agencies could lose up to up to 17.5% of their R&D funding by 2017, the analysis found. The National Institutes of Health, for example, would lose $26.1 billion over five years rather than $11.3 billion under an equal-distribution scenario.

Of great concern is the likelihood that drastic cuts to science, particularly over a ten-year period, would further discourage a group of potential young innovators who already face profound challenges. Tight budgets mean longer intervals between graduate school and the first research grant (generally viewed as the measure of when a scientist's career starts). The graying of grantees for the National Institutes of Health already is well underway. In 1980, researchers got a first NIH grant at an average age of 36. By 2008, the average age was 42, according to a study published last year.

Yes, seem necessary and unavoidable. But deficit reduction must be wise. Applying sequestration as a blunt fiscal instrument would have dramatic and long-lasting consequences for the U.S. research effort. If the nation is to remain a global leader in the kinds of innovation that fuel economic progress and job growth, Congress and the President must work together to protect the federal investment in .

Explore further: Will rapprochement mean new research collaborations between Cuba and the U.S.?

More information:
Alan Leshner is the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science. Kent Kresa is chairman emeritus of Northrop Grumman Corporation and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the California Institute of Technology.

Journal reference: Science search and more info website

4.1 /5 (14 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Republicans could scale back US science budgets

Nov 10, 2010

Budgets for scientific research in the United States could be scaled back with the return of a Republican-majority in Congress as conservatives aim to slash spending to reduce the ballooning deficit.

Proposed U.S. budget cuts target science

Mar 08, 2011

A "Sputnik moment" or a "kaputnik" one for U.S. science? With a federal budget battle showdown under way, science looks like collateral damage, say former federal officials, with proposed cuts to research that they consider ...

Recommended for you

Study: Alcatraz inmates could have survived escape

Dec 17, 2014

The three prisoners who escaped from Alcatraz in one of the most famous and elaborate prison breaks in U.S. history could have survived and made it to land, scientists concluded in a recent study.

User comments : 52

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (20) Sep 28, 2012
There's plenty of good science out there which can be done on the cheap. The biggest threat to science is the widespread refusal to question textbook theory within highly uncertain disciplines like cosmology and astrophysics. The theories in these disciplines are foundational insofar as they set the stage for questions in other domains. If there exists a foundational error in how we view the universe, this mistaken concept will not remain contained in that discipline. It will affect the questions which we ask in those other disciplines.

An excellent example is the refusal to consider that the electric force is more fundamental than gravity in astrophysics. This worldview trickles into biology, where it is then assumed that mechanical pumps and channels are responsible for transporting ions over cell membranes. But, Gerald Pollack and Gilbert Ling have argued for decades now that the cell's cytoplasm is in fact a gel, which naturally creates ionic gradients.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (17) Sep 28, 2012
We could decide to use this funding crisis as an opportunity to try to settle such long-standing debates, for there are many relatively cheap experiments which could be done to address them. And the results could have incredible impact upon applied sciences like medicine.

There are many curious observations which suggest that radioactive decay rates might be affected in unexpected ways. Perform a search on "nuclear half-life modification technology".

There are also hints that high-intensity electrical discharges might actually be capable of petrification. Perform a search on "milton clear silica tree stump petrified".

There are also a large number of hints that cosmic plasmas might be conducting vast amounts of electricity. See the work of Gerrit Verschuur. If it is true that cosmic plasmas behave much like laboratory plasmas, and that plasmas scale over enormous magnitudes, then we could perform laboratory experimentation on astrophysical plasmas using low-cost terrellas.
Mungaman
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2012
Hey Hannes why stop at two entries? You're thoughts are insightful and important and totally awesome... really.
Lawrence Engineer
4.1 / 5 (17) Sep 28, 2012
The reductions in spending coming will have no net positive public purpose benefit but will result from a four year long temper tantrum by the current right wing conservative element currently in political office. These same folks could care less what reductions in R&D occur, because their fundamental core belief is religious philosophy that refutes much of science and current educational theory. Their motto, "We are a bunch of dumb bunnies and it's OK because god made us that way, so there". Science is just so much black magic.
Sean_W
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2012
These cuts will seem tiny when things get much, much worse.
YawningDog
5 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2012
Go rent the DVD "Idiocracy" and you'll see where the Cabal has us headed.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2012
Correct.

"These cuts will seem tiny when things get much, much worse." - Sean_W

Conservative Economic policies either pushed by Congress or a Romney presidency are a form of national suicide, and America will soon enter a 2 or 3 decade long economic depression, as the mistakes of the last depression are repeated by the Republicans.

Science will take a back seat in America, and American scientists will leave the country for better research environments in the Pacific Rim.

America will eventually recover economically, but it will emerge behind india economically and as a model of failure that will teach the world what NOT to emulate.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Sep 28, 2012
What enabled modern science are governments that began to respect the liberty of the individual. Scientists had the liberty to work and if desired, profit from their work.
Now governments are destroying that liberty with their socialist policies. And too many scientists support those policies.
They are reaping what they have sown.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2012
Also Correct.
Correct again...

"The reductions in spending coming will have no net positive public purpose..." - Lawrence

Republicans have told me that since funding science is not in the U.S. Constitution, doing so is illegal and must be stopped.

They also tell me that once the evil government gets out of the business of funding scientific research then Corporations will take over, just like the did in that Never, Never fantasy land they live in.

But that is OK, because, Americas voted for these Republican Traitors knowing full well what their policies were. And if America vanishes as a nation because of those Conservative policies, then that is what Americans must want.

VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (13) Sep 28, 2012
Poor Mindless Ryggtard...

Modren Science started in the Arab states before the time of Christ, and while your ancestors were still counting their sheep by dropping stones into a box, one stone for each sheep, the Arabs were inventing astronomy, algebra, trigonometry, comparative anatomy, logic, and written law.

"What enabled modern science are governments that began to respect the liberty of the individual" - RyggTard

Clearly you know NOTHING about the history of science. Just as you know practically NOTHING about anything else you comment on.
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 28, 2012
It isn't socialist policies that are the behind the calls to cut spending on science.

Those are Republican and Libertarian policies.

"Now governments are destroying that liberty with their socialist policies." - RyggTard
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 29, 2012
IMO science has enough of money, it's just overly oriented into trivial and theoretical research without practical value. Some journals even refuse to accept the experimental works without theory. The science itself managed to ignore the cold fusion findings for at least twenty, if not fifty years and initiated the energetic and financial crisis in this way. If the scientists will seek only their low term personal profit, they shouldn't be surprised, if they will lost long term perspective as a whole.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 29, 2012
Socialist policies suck the wealth out of economies.
With no wealth, how can govts fund science when they must fund the welfare benefits for the majority?
Science is just another minority with their hands out begging for subsidy. But they are a minority.
Many scientists support such wealth destroying socialism and they reap what they sow.
ekim
5 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
Socialist policies suck the wealth out of economies.
With no wealth, how can govts fund science when they must fund the welfare benefits for the majority?
Science is just another minority with their hands out begging for subsidy. But they are a minority.
Many scientists support such wealth destroying socialism and they reap what they sow.

From 1942 to 1946 the government spent approximately 25.8 billion dollars (adjusted to 2012 dollars) on a single project. This project was kept secret from the public. It employed more than 130000 people at the time, all being paid for by the public through taxes. If you want an example of "Big Government" and "Socialist Policies", this is it.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2012
Of course, the spending of public money without public feedback is an apotheosis of socialism... The results are corresponding...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (11) Sep 29, 2012
Socialist policies suck the wealth out of economies.
Shut the hell up. Thankyou.

Innovation at the wrong time can collapse economies, render militaries useless, negate vital political influence, cause war, and result in millions of deaths. Jules Verne among many others have told us this.

The widespread dissemination of navigation and shipbuilding knowledge already in use in the orient would have enabled independent trade between Europe and the Americas. The resulting influx of gold and drugs would have ruined euro civilization. Aztecs and incas with triremes and bronze cannon would have soon been passing Gibraltar and plying the English channel.

And so we had the middle ages, and this potential was suppressed until such time as euros had mastered it to the extent that the Americas could be conquered and the cultures there destroyed.

Imagine if nukes had been developed at the end of the 1800s?

NO TECH BEFORE IT'S TIME. Many many examples. A very important Rule.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (11) Sep 29, 2012
Imagine if an alternative to our oil-based economies such as LENR had been introduced at the beginning of the 1900s and western industrial civilization had developed without the need for oil from the middle east and elsewhere around the world? The west would have had absolutely no influence on events there. A newly-reformed pan-arab caliphate with an oil-based infrastructure could have been unstoppable.

As it was, superheated western economies burned petroleum down to safe levels around the world. The world became wholly dependent on western tech and western money. The Superpowers became sole proprietor of nuclear weapons, nuclear subs, and space. The world remained Manageable.

This was no accident but the rather the Result of Foresight and Planning. We should expect to see similar such Efforts reflected in current events. Rational Leaders would never let the world operate by itself.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2012
NO TECH BEFORE IT'S TIME.

China invented many things later exploited by the Europeans.
Why didn't the Chinese exploit gunpowder or ....?
State tyranny. The same for all innovation that challenges the power of the state.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2012
NO TECH BEFORE IT'S TIME.

China invented many things later exploited by the Europeans.
Why didn't the Chinese exploit gunpowder or ....?
State tyranny. The same for all innovation that challenges the power of the state.
No, they didnt need gunpowder to wage their wars and manage their populations. Neither did the euros for that matter. Firearms tech and the tactics necessary to apply it in war was developed in europe however, because europe was the best place to launch the invasion of the americas from.

Explain to me how state tyranny was any different in china at the time, than in medieval europe? If anything it was WORSE. In europe they were burning heretics, including anyone who ventured out into the atlantic.

By the way LENR has been observed for 100 years according to this guy, Lewis Larsen:
http://www.youtub...embedded
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
Poor marjon once again mistakes money for wealth. He doesn't realize that real wealth is food, infrastructure, houses, educated citizens, automobiles, refridgerators, microwaves and dishwashers, air conditioners, furnaces, televisions and computers and fancy new touch-screen phones. And apparently, he doesn't realize one can have too much of a good thing.

The US on average produces enough food per day to feed each of its citizens three-times over. The ratio when it comes to housing and households is similar, as is the ratio to the number of businesses and commercial and light-industrial buildings. Our infrastructure is aging, true, but still among the best in the world, though we could stand to improve and update it. The education of our citizens could always be improved, but our literacy rate is still high. I invite the reader to look up the numbers for the other items on that list, but I assure you, they are similarly impressive. (cont.)
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
Our issue with wealth is not that we've not got enough of it, it's that our main method of distributing wealth has as its highest priority the creation of more wealth, and his ideology is hard at work removing any other priority from the list, forgetting that wealth is itself not an intrinsic value, but and instrumental one. This method of distribution necessarily has holes, and deprives those who, through bad fortune or bad planning, find it difficult or impossible to contribute to production.

This method also encourages fraud and waste, as the productive have no need of the fullness of their product, yet get it anyway and don't know what to do with it besides throw it away. The "unproductive," meanwhile, having no access to a legitimate way to contribute to production, and so are reduced to lying, cheating and stealing to get a share of the product on which to live and enrich themselves. And this leaves aside the tendency of the wealthy to pull up the ladder behind them.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 29, 2012
Poor T doesn't understand that socialism can quickly kill the creation of wealth as we are witnessing right now.
The state killed a coal mine in WV and is causing the shutdown of dozens of power plants. The state killed oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and shut down a pipeline to bring oil from Canada to TX.
The state created incentives to turn corn into ethanol instead of food.
The state 'invested' taxes into businesses that failed from GM to Solydra.
Printing money (QE1,2,3,...) does not create wealth.
The economic collapse of Detroit and California occurred within one lifetime.
Economic growth from real wealth creation can occur quite rapidly if the state doesn't kill the industry. That is quite clear in North Dakota now where oil production is occurring on private land.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 29, 2012
This method also encourages fraud and waste,

You mean the present socialist system frequently referred to as crony 'capitalism'. Of course this has nothing to do with real capitalism and everything to do with government intervention into economic affairs, aka socialism.
Blame the socialist system for waste and fraud, not capitalism.

having no access to a legitimate way to contribute to production,

All because the govt kills businesses and piles on rules and regulations that prevent most from creating the new businesses and opportunities for people to apply their energy and talent to earn wealth.
But this is what the socialist wants as it adds to those dependent upon the state to survive.
The result of such dependency is seen in Detroit, Ohio (Obama phones), Greece, Spain, Cuba, DPRK,...)
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2012
And yet despite those state interventions and many more in that, according to your ideology, should have killed off the free-market and destroyed all wealth long ago, what I wrote about real wealth above is still true. As a whole, the US has real wealth coming out its ears. So much so that if we pooled it all up and distributed it absolutely evenly to every citizen, none of them would ever have to work again for the rest of their lives, and their children wouldn't have to work for about half of their lives, we could simply trade our accumulated wealth to the rest of the world for the stuff we didn't have, and consume the rest.

Of course quantitative easing doesn't create wealth, even nominally much, because it doesn't change anything about the underlying distributional systems that have landed us in this mess. There is a lot of real wealth that can still be created, but it can only be done by putting wealth creation second on the list of distributional priorities.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 29, 2012
The state killed a coal mine in WV and is causing the shutdown of dozens of power plants. The state killed oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and shut down a pipeline to bring oil from Canada to TX. The state created incentives to turn corn into ethanol instead of food. The state 'invested' taxes into businesses that failed from GM to Solydra.
Im sure this was all for the greater good. Your free markets never sacrifice for the greater good. Bad for business.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2012
the US has real wealth coming out its ears.

And the Obama regime prevents wealth creation just as the govts of DPRK, Cuba, Zimabwe, ... prohibit wealth creation.
the list of distributional priorities.

What is that list? Who decides who should be plundered?
These are the choices: everyone plunders everyone, the many plunder the few, the few plunder the many or no one plunders anyone.
Which do you prefer?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 29, 2012
The game wardens in Yellowstone Park, and many other parks, prohibit the feeding of bears or any animal by tourists.
Why do they do this? The animals become dependent upon the food and may attack when the tourist runs out of cookies forcing the wardens to shoot the bear.
Why are people any different than the bears? If the govt provides enough food stamps, free housing and free cell phones and cable, why should these people be expected to go out and earn a living? And we see what happens when the govt runs out of 'food', the 'animals' get upset and riot.
A safety net should not be a hammock.
Estevan57
2.3 / 5 (24) Sep 29, 2012
Ryyg2,
The Gulf is currently at near record levels of oil extraction.
The Keystone pipeline is currently under construction except for the portion under EPA review.
In normal years there in an overproduction of corn.
The state has also invested money into many businesses that have succeeded.
If you can possibly come up with an example of an Obama policy that prohibits wealth creation I would be interested to see it.
Be specific.

Are you aware that there are no Socialist party members in Congress? The term socialist has evolved from Commie, Pinko, Reds, etc. and will evolve into something else in a few years.
Politics have fads too.

http://www.allcou...rty.html

The Dow price has gone from 6000 to 13000 roughly, anyone invested (billions of people) have created wealth.

Just one example.
Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2012
The US is not in danger of "running out of food." Setting prices, taxes, regulations, penalties and incentives so the "wealthy" can no longer afford to throw away caviar and champagne in order to allow everyone to be able to afford enough nutritious food is not plundering them. People are not bears. And an obsession with wealth creation to the complete neglect of wealth distribution when current total real wealth is more than sufficient to take care of everyone for the rest of their lives is a disease.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2012
The US is not in danger of "running out of food."

That's not what we hear from the socialist Ehrlich disciples.

The Gulf is currently at near record levels of oil extraction.

Why were oil companies willing spend their profits to drill for more before the Obama regime 'encouraged' the deep sea oil rigs to leave?
The state has also invested money into many businesses that have succeeded.

Such as Amtrak and the Post Office or Freddie and Fannie?

Obama policy that prohibits wealth creation


""If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

-Candidate Barack Obama, 2008."

http://www.washin...romised/

Congressman Bernie Sanders is a Socialist while most Democrats and some Rep are socialists in deed.
Hayek dedicated The Road to Serfdom to the socialists of all parties.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2012
"The United States is "drowning in unemployment," its economy is running at stall speed and inflation is "not a problem," but easier monetary policy is not the answer, "
"without more certainty on tax policy and regulation, he said, "all the monetary accommodation in the world" will not get businesses hiring again." { This uncertainty is the fault of the Obama regime.)
"businesses cannot make decisions about hiring as long as tax policy is in the air." {Fault of the govt}
http://www.reuter...20120928
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2012
And who's responsible for tax and regulation policies being "up in the air?" Oh yes, that's right. Those who are obsessed with the overall quantity of wealth and service to those who have the most of it, and who denigrate any notion of adequate or fair distribution of that wealth and all the newly created wealth. It's your anarchist-conservative Republicans who refuse any sort of compromise when it comes to arbitrating distribution that are creating the present uncertainty. That, and the fact that by making wealth an essential value, instead of an instrumental one, they themselves hinder the possibility of real wealth growth.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2012
And who's responsible for tax and regulation policies being "up in the air?"

For two years, from 2009 to 2011, the democrats had control of Congress. Who got in their way? They didn't have to worry about compromise.
Except, of course, those members who had to run for re-election in 2010 and were angering their constituency for forcing Obamacare down their throats.

"There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one's property."
" compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone"
"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."
http://aynrandlex...ise.html
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2012
Who got their way? Republicans, who threatened to filibuster the whole government unless they got their way. As long as they have 41 members, Republicans can keep anything from happening that they don't want. And you know the one thing that would have almost certainly mitigated, if not prevented outright the Republican resurgence in 2010? Single-payer health care. The early abandonment of that proposal for Obamacare was pretty much guaranteed to turn off his base. Republicans didn't vote in much higher numbers than 08. Democrats just stayed home because they were tired of Obama's Administration and Reid's Senate caving to Republicans every chance they got.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2012
Republicans, who threatened to filibuster the whole government unless they got their way.


Ben Nelson was a Republican?

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Mr. Nelson didn't get special treatment. "I worked with every Democratic senator" to make changes to the bill, Mr. Reid said. "
http://blogs.wsj....promise/

Why did Reid have to work with EVERY democrat senator to make changes to Obamacare?

" Nelson proved to be the 60th and deciding vote for the Democratic health-care package."

Read more: http://www.politi...7uAHdW8E

So why was Nelson afraid to run for another term this year?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2012
Of course Obamacare is stealth single payer.
At present, an employer can payout a lot of money to provide health 'INSURANCE' (not care) or it can pay a smaller fine forcing all individuals into the market to do the same, but 'INSURANCE' or pay a lest costly fine.
After a few years, so many people will not have 'INSURANCE' and since the federal govt controls the health care industry with Medicare and Medicaid, on final push will result in poorer quality health care 'free' to all.
Notice in all this, there is no mention of the cost of care.
If lowering cost and improving quality of health care was the real goal, market forces have shown the way with Lasik surgery and plastic surgery. Both have benefited by not being covered by most 'insurance' plans and have had to compete improving quality and lowering costs.
We are now seeing Minute clinics in CVS, cash only ~$75, no insurance (govt or private).
Jimee
1 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2012
Do we discredit science in order to allow our masses to believe the world is only 5,000 years old?
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2012
Could something like the cold fusion denial ever happen, if the people would keep strictly the Popper's methodology? Scientific method is good - just the people are f***ing it...
JoeBlue
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2012
Cutting the budget of some guy doing research on the grow rate of ringworms will not hinder anyone's life.

Just another sensationalist article on Physorg. Nothing new these day's. Gone are the good old days when this was an actual forum and not that bad of one either.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2012
But it might delay the discovery of a way to prevent fungal blood infections that kill 10,000 Americans per year.

"Cutting the budget of some guy doing research on the grow rate of r
ringworms will not hinder anyone's life." - JoeBlue
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2012
It died the day the NeoCon's and the Denialists got here.

"Gone are the good old days when this was an actual forum" - JoeBlue
VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2012
Clearly because the Martians and the moon men demanded it.

I read it on a Libertarian Blog.

"Why did Reid have to work with EVERY democrat senator to make changes to Obamacare?" - RyggTard

More importantly why did your intellectual hero Ayn Rand refer to the rapist and murderer of a pre-teen girl as a moral superman and a friend?

Do you think that cutting that poor girls legs off so that he could get better access to her genitals was a particularly moral thing to do?
VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2012
Because Freeeeeedooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmm is Freeedommmmmmmm and can't Freeeeeeeedommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm with a poitned Freedommmmmmmmmmmmm

Isn't that reason enough for a Libertarian Quacktard?

"So why was Nelson afraid to run for another term this year?" - RyggTard
VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2012
Since Americans have one of the poorer health care systems in the world, they should rejoice at the thought of Corporations externalizing their health care costs.

Unless of course, Republicans and Libertarians plan to destroy that industry as they have with every other industry in America.

"After a few years, so many people will not have 'INSURANCE' and since the federal govt controls the health care industry with Medicare and Medicaid, on final push will result in poorer quality health care 'free' to all." - RyggTard
VendicarD
3 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2012
Two whole years ay?

"For two years, from 2009 to 2011, the democrats had control of Congress." - Ryggtard

And you expect them to turn on a dime and correct 40 years of Republican/Libertarian economic treason?

Change must be gradual if it isn't to be destabilizing.

I guess Extremists like yourself don't comprehend that either.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2012
Odd how this year more oil has been extracted from the Gulf than in any other year.

"The state killed oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico" - RyggTard

Must be some really potent drugs you are smoking there RyggTard.

Are they anything like the illegal amphetamine that your hero Ayn Rand was addicted to?
Jeddy_Mctedder
3.3 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2012
Go rent the DVD "Idiocracy" and you'll see where the Cabal has us headed.


it's not just the cabal , it's us , that are responsible. "science" included. science is nothing more than a process. scientists aren't social planners and much of the time have zero understanding of interst of the bigger social issues----that's precisely what allows them to focus intently on studying a specific area.

it is the rare scientist that is truly and educator, and administrator, and comprehending of the full scope of social challenges we face. and throwing MORE money at everything is not the solution to making the world how we want it. DECISIONS must be made about governance and values. Printing endless streams of money to throw at every sector of the public economy [ military , publicly funded science, food stamps, corporate welfare, social security, 'education' ]------is NOT the answer.

we are throwing more money than ever before at education and presumably the AVERAGE american is dumber.
ScooterG
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2012
Maybe those who control the pursestrings are tired of funding political agendas thinly disguised as "scientific research"?
AGW comes to mind. The incessant AGW brow-beating does far more harm than good, as it creates animosity and suspicion. This ultimately has a negative effect on all science research.

When has nagging ever produced a positive effect?
VendicarD
3 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2012
Ya, creationists and Smoking advocates say the exact same thing.

"The incessant AGW brow-beating does far more harm than good, as it creates animosity and suspicion." - ScooTard

Clearly you can't handle the truth.
ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2012
Clearly you can't handle the truth.


If it were truth, there would be no reason to brow-beat and nag.

And I was wondering how long it would take before I too was labeled a "Tard". LOL

VendicarD, your contributions used to be worth reading. Now they are just angry, hate-filled rags.
VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2012
How can that possibly be when facts clearly don't make you any smarter?

"If it were truth, there would be no reason to brow-beat and nag." - ScooTard

But I do see your point. Teaching children that 1 1 = 2 is absolute proof that it isn't.
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2012
Teaching children that 1 plus 1 = 2 is absolute proof that it isn't.

This text editor, and it's inability to handle plus signs, must have been written by an American.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.