The Republicans Flunk Science
McPalin panders to the just folks by snarking on science funding. If only they'd done their homework. Lawrence M. Krauss writes in the LA Times:
During the second and third debates, McCain railed against another supposed example of government waste: A request from Barack Obama for "$3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago."The "overhead projector" in question is in fact a 40-year-old Zeiss optical projector that needs to be replaced at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago. The one-ton, 10-feet-long instrument is the central component of the Adler, the first planetarium ever built in the Western Hemisphere. It projects the night sky on the dome of the Sky Theater at the planetarium, which has hosted more than 35 million people since it opened, including more than 400,000 schoolchildren every year. In fact, the request -- made by Obama along with others in the Illinois congressional delegation, including three Republicans -- wasn't granted.
If it had been, it wouldn't have been a waste of government money. The National Academy of Sciences has targeted science education as a key goal in preserving the economic competitiveness of our nation. Similar "overhead projectors" in Los Angeles and New York have recently been replaced with the help of federal funds. McCain's gleeful attack sends this message: Encouraging science literacy is not worthy of government support.
Finally, last week, Sarah Palin gave her first policy speech, urging the federal government to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Along the way, she too attacked science earmarks by claiming that the shortfall needed to fully fund the act was less money than was allocated to projects that have "little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France."
Fruit flies can be made to seem like a silly thing to spend money on. But Palin was referring to research at a lab in France supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The subject is the olive fruit fly, which threatens the California olive industry. The U.S. is working with France because that nation has dealt with an olive fruit fly infestation for decades, far longer than California.
Maybe Palin also should have been told that a University of North Carolina fruit fly study last year demonstrated that a protein called neurexin is required for nerve-cell connections to form and function correctly. That discovery may lead to advances in understanding, among other things, autism, one of the childhood disorders that has been stressed by the McCain-Palin campaign.
It is easy to attack what you don't understand. But politicians would be wiser to attempt to better appreciate how science affects the issues central to our political priorities before rushing to use scientific research and education as a scapegoat in their campaigns.
If you do a little reading -- The Adler Planetarium -- About Us -- the Planetarium was started as private company/foundation with no governmental funds. It was then absorbed into the Chicago Parks Department. Either way, it has thousands of visitors each year. Why can't they fund the replacement projector? Or are the funds that are coming in be absorbed by the government?
Similar "overhead projectors" in Los Angeles and New York have recently been replaced with the help of federal funds.
Just because government funds were used for similar things in the past doesn't make it "right".
The U.S. is working with France because that nation has dealt with an olive fruit fly infestation for decades, far longer than California.
That actually makes sense. But when you have a $400,000 earmark for the Sparta Teapot Museum, what does that have to do with science. Some things are easier to use in a stump speech. Having to explain the details of the Teapot Museum are a lot more detailed than talking about fruit fly studies in France.
Either way, the government hands are in too many pies they shouldn't be.
Jim P. at October 29, 2008 10:30 AM
Amy, I think this is a good time to point out that people really, really need to pay attention to their state and local races. Although I still haven’t made up my mind about how I’ll cast my vote, it doesn’t matter: McCain/ Palin will take Texas. However, there are so many issues that affect our daily lives that are decided on the state level. California’s Prop 8 is getting tons of attention nationally, but I’d assume the Prop 11 (redistricting) is something you’d also want to take a close look at.
I may very well vote for McCain, but it’s unlikely that I’ll vote for any other republican. (I like KBH, but I don’t believe she has a race this year.) Of particular interest to me is the Texas State Board of Education race, which I doubt that most people here are paying attention to. I don't know why we keep putting republicans in charge of public education, especially science curriculum...
And don’t forget, it’s your state legislature that makes decisions regarding things like highway and transportation funding, higher education funding and tuition rates, decriminalization of certain substances, who can get married and divorced, etc.
Other thoughts: I wanted to like McCain so much. I really did. His choice of a running mate, however, is a huge disappointment for me. I'd had hopes that the Republican party was wiggling out of the grasp of the right-wing fundamentalists. I have been sorely disappointed. I'm not sure how I can be expected to trust the judgement of someone who thinks that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I certainly don't want that person making decisions regarding priorities in scientific research. (Luckily, I don't think she gets to.)
ahw at October 29, 2008 10:42 AM
And I'm not sure how I can be expected to trust the judgment of someone who believes Matt Damon's repeating of an internet joke to be the truth.
brian at October 29, 2008 11:39 AM
Jim P is absolutely correct.
Adding an earmark for that planetarium is inexcusable.
Presuming the management of the planetarium was reasonably competent, they would have budgeted for the eventual replacement of an expensive item with a finite useful life.
Given the attendance rates in the article, how much of the ticket price would have to be set aside to fund a $3 million projector within five years?
Seven cents.
Regarding the fruit fly thing, I'll bet if France hadn't been involved, the campaign would never have brought it up. Remember, she is working the populist angle in this campaign.
ahw:
I'm not sure how I can be expected to trust the judgement of someone who thinks that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I certainly don't want that person making decisions regarding priorities in scientific research.
I'm not sure, either.
However, if all you had to go on was her record as governor, you would have absolutely no clue about her religious beliefs.
For instance, she could have packed Alaska's school board with Creationists, and sought to change the state's science curriculum, a la Kansas and Texas.
There hasn't been a whiff of that here.
Hey Skipper at October 29, 2008 11:52 AM
Ok Amy I have to disagree with you :)
While I agree the 2 above examples are true there were over $8 Billion in earmarks and pork spending in 2008 alone and the democrats were responsible for 60% according to many watchdog groups.
Including Nancy Pelosi who inserted a $15Mil earmark for the upscale area of San Francisco waterfront a mile from where her husband owns property.
Picking on these 2 examples while not exposing some of the MUCH more heinous Fraud Waste and Abuse is a little unfair dont ya think.
http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/CAGW-Pig_Book_08.pdf?docID=3001
The Other Mike D at October 29, 2008 11:53 AM
Amy so you dont think Im making it up btw heres an excerpt featuring Barrack Obama and few others:
$1,648,850 for the Shedd Aquarium by Senate appropriator Richard
Durbin (D-Ill), Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), House appropriator
Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.). The aquarium’s
website says the facility was a “gift to the people of Chicago from
John Graves Shedd, president and chairman of the board of Marshall
Fields & Company.” This aquarium receives 2 million visitors per
year and has 36 corporate benefactors. At the end of 2004 (the last
year for which information is available), the aquarium had a fund
balance of approximately $200 million. Those are some liquid assets.
The Other Mike D at October 29, 2008 11:58 AM
So the Adler Planetarium is in need of a new projector. I can understand that. So did they apply to the National Science Foundation or some other grant organization to fund it? The article doesn't say. Maybe they did, and the grant organization didn't prioritize it high enough to get funded in that fiscal year. Such is life in science; there's always more requests, most of them perfectly valid requests, then there is funding. The pot's only so big.
However, what is clear is that the planetarium went to their local pork-meister, one B. Obama, and requested an earmark which would totally short-circuit the whole peer review and funding priority process. Had they gotten their funding, it's entirely possible that it would have come out of the pocket of a more deserving project. Alternative energy? Improved defenses for our troops overseas? Advances in fusion power? Who knows. But what is clear is that the Adler folks and Obama decided that their gimmie-gimmie desires were one of the nation's absolute top priorities. Which they very clearly were not. For that indescretion alone, they deserve to wait. Do your grant paperwork and get in freakin' line, like everyone else has to.
I was involved in supporting a planetarium for years. There are hundreds of smaller planetariums around the country. Most of them get not a nickel of government funding. We had to replace our projector once. It cost us $10K and we raised all of it through private donations. It was a used projector, but it was better than the one we had. Buying a new one was out of the question. Sometimes you have to live within your means, no matter how worthy your goals are.
Cousin Dave at October 29, 2008 11:59 AM
Amy one more thing and ill leave you alone.....for now LOL
John Mccain had not one earmark pork project in 2008. Says a great deal about the man.
I dont disagree that SOMETIMES there are worthy projects that need some federal help but as Cousin Dave said "Sometimes you have to live within your means, no matter how worthy your goals are."
We as a country have fell into the trap of all of our problems can be answered by the government and have lot our principles of self reliance.
The Other Mike D at October 29, 2008 12:05 PM
And how is ANY Planatarium's gear a matter of federal funding? If people think the public needs them, they can go raise private money. Up the ticket prices. Whatever. This sort of crap is what's got to go. If the free market won't fund something like this, it's not needed or wanted. Period.
It would be a damn shame if yuppies lost their Whole Foods Olive Bar. But yeah, the government should totally pay for that too. What free market? Life, liberty, and an antipasto tray!!
momof3 at October 29, 2008 12:12 PM
Our planetarium closed down years ago. It was part of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, and I guess nobody was going there, except to watch Laser Floyd (righteous buzzfest). The rumour is that our evil conservative leader at the time cut the budget along with welfare and social houseing (evil! evil!). Who knows.
Chrissy at October 29, 2008 12:40 PM
Amy,
I thought you were a libertarian. Since when does the government know better than the markets? If the planetarium can't get financing from the free markets then perhaps there are better places the capital can be utilized.
Charles at October 29, 2008 12:41 PM
Point of information: Olive fruit flies and the fruit flies used in biomedical research are fairly distantly related to each other. The name "fruit fly" refers to both Tephridid flies, of which the olive fruit fly is a member, and Drosophilids, which are commonly used in research.
The olive fruit fly earmark has nothing to do with medical research, just agriculture. I doubt that ignorance of this fact is limited to one party.
Josh at October 29, 2008 12:41 PM
Do you understand what's happening in science and science education in this country? They aren't talking about funding Disneyland. This is in our national interest.
It would be a damn shame if yuppies lost their Whole Foods Olive Bar. But yeah, the government should totally pay for that too. What free market? Life, liberty, and an antipasto tray!!
Can we strive for intelligent discussion here? Also, you might retire the word "yuppie" from your vocabulary, as it's been retired from popular usage for quite some time -- about 20 years. What, by the way, is wrong with being a young, upwardly-mobile urban professional? Why do you deride people like that?
Amy Alkon at October 29, 2008 12:49 PM
Because the "yuppie" phenomenon of the 80s was not about mobility so much as conspicuous consumption and the pursuit of enormous ego.
And the word might have been retired, but the attitude lives on.
And I still fucking hate Yuppies.
brian at October 29, 2008 12:54 PM
Go on brian, tell us what other wealth-creator demographic you hate?
One quick note: the free market has allowed, apparently, several Intelligent-Design/Creationism museums to open up.
farker at October 29, 2008 1:02 PM
"If only they'd done their homework"
You're the one who should have done your homework.
The Palin speech that Krauss refers to was a plea for more science funding, and an arguement against science funding by earmarks. What on earth is wrong with that? Why should the peer-review and grant process that has worked so well for so long be replaced by scientists sticking their snouts in the public trough, right along with the most corrupt congressmen?
It looks like you were a bit too eager to leap onto a story that seems to fit the "Sarah Palin as anti-science" narrative.
Martin at October 29, 2008 1:06 PM
I know a great many wealth creators that are not yuppies. Yuppie is an attitude. And it is one worthy of disparagement.
Yuppies invariably take jobs in "marketing" and wear designer clothes.
The wealth creators I know drive trucks, not BMWs.
brian at October 29, 2008 1:19 PM
Increasing science funding is in the national interest. But if science is to be funded by earmarks, then inevitably the scientists who get the most funding will be the ones that suck up to the most corrupt congressmen, not the ones who are doing the most vital research. I don't see how that's in the national interest. And it's still worth pointing out that most of Palin's policy speech was a call for more science funding.
Martin at October 29, 2008 1:24 PM
Have to go with the increase science funding, but get it out of earmarks crowd. Aside from this one, it is rare that I read any blogs that aren't part of Seed's science blogs collective. A lot of the bloggers there are involved in research that is paid for, at least in part, by federal grants. Funding is tight, really tight. There are a lot of very worthy projects and equipment requests, that go unfunded.
I like the way the grant system works, because it is peer reviewed. It isn't politicians who make the decisions as to what projects actually get funded, it is other scientists. Folks who actually have a pretty good basis for knowing what is worth spending the money on, who also know what the competition for those funds want to do. They may have to decide between three projects that they all think are worthy, which one gets the grant. The difference is, in that competition, it isn't who knows the right people or is the snazziest dresser, it's the project that manages to have a little more value than the others.
DuWayne - water birthing fan at October 29, 2008 1:50 PM
The war on science, the war on evolution, the war on stem cell research, the war even on smart and educated people. It's all part of Republican class warfare and one very big reason I'll never be able to vote Republican.
We're supposed to fight ignorance, not celebrate it and increase it.
This doesn't make me happy with Democrats. But there's no way I could vote for this Republican Party. Shameful.
jerry at October 29, 2008 7:02 PM
You're doing it wrong.
Because your first sentence is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read.
brian at October 29, 2008 7:57 PM
I wish Palin weren't mouthing off about this stuff, but let's not pretend there's a faucet in the Old Executive Office Building labeled "Science" that can be turned on and off. (See also "wealth", "compassion", etc....)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 29, 2008 9:54 PM
Jerry,
That's a novel thought, that the neocon Republicans are waging thier own class warfare. Very interesting; it would certainly align with thier left-wing policies as well substantiate, once again, that thier roots are grounded in liberal ideology.
Of course, add to that the whole 'groupthink' commands they send out, ie "you're with us or you're against us", and things start adding up to a conclusion most don't want to recognize....
farker at October 29, 2008 10:21 PM
Why mock yuppies? See Brian's response, he covered it quite thoroughly.
Let's do have an intelligent discussion. Starting by your checking your facts before jumping yet again on any Sarah-bashing rumor you hear. Peer-reviewed grants are they way you get good science (She was arguing for this). Government earmarks are the way you get stupid science (she was arguing against this). It is not a matter of federal interest if olive trees have flies. It is a matter of interest to the people that grow, sell, and eat the olives, and they are the ones who should pay to solve the problem. If it was weavils eating up the nation's wheat supply, that would be different. Wheat is necessary for life as we know it, to avoid starvation.
I'm guessing you love olives. I do too, actually, but see no reason for my taxdollars to pay for them.
momof3 at October 30, 2008 7:06 AM
Government earmarks are the way you get stupid science (she was arguing against this).
So you're saying that the earmarks we received from the Dept. of Defense for development of our malaria and our dengue flu vaccines is for stupid science. Thanks bunches. I'll be sure to let the stupid scientists here know how you feel about their "stupid science".
Flynne at October 30, 2008 7:30 AM
Flynne: How did you get that funding? If it came from the DoD, and not directly through a congressman, it's not the kind of earmark we're discussing here.
Cousin Dave at October 30, 2008 7:57 AM
Were they earmarks (i.e. spending directions inserted into an appropriations bill by a senator or representative)?
Or were they departmental appropriations? Because I can see where the military has a legitimate interest in such research, and such things would be legitimate were they to come out of the general military budget.
However, if they came about as a result of Dodd buying votes, they are just flat wrong.
The argument against pork-for-science is the same as it is against pork-for-anything. It politicizes EVERYTHING. And once scientists get political, we get shit like "Global Warming". Once you make the scientists suck political dick for money, you don't get good science, you get science meant to attract grant money and earmarks.
brian at October 30, 2008 7:57 AM
And jerry: Anti-science is not limited to one political party. I was around in the '70s and I directly bore the brunt of some of the scorn that the Left had for science and technology. You are probably too young to know, but there were mainstream Democratic politicians who wanted to ban or severely restrict the availability of computers. If the Left had its way, the medium we are having this discussion on would not exist.
Cousin Dave at October 30, 2008 8:00 AM
Brian is absolutely right. I was involved with NASA at the time Al Gore demanded that they spend $500M of their budget to build a satellite in his honor. Many far more worthwhile science projects were displaced by that money grab.
Cousin Dave at October 30, 2008 8:03 AM
No, these earmarks were applied for, definitely based on good science and research. Lieberman from CT, and a rep from NJ (Holt? not sure who it was) were both working on that for us, as was DeLauro, and we were in talks with people from Walter Reed, as well.
Flynne at October 30, 2008 8:05 AM
Then those aren't earmarks. They're grants.
Big difference.
I'm no big fan of government paying for research, but if its going to do so, I don't want the politicians making the final decision on what gets funded and what doesn't. That's how we end up with Denver International Airport.
brian at October 30, 2008 8:07 AM
You can read about the research in the supplemental to this month's BioPharm International. The article is called "Vaccines Incorporating Toll-Like Receptor Ligands". It was written by our CEO, Alan Shaw.
Flynne at October 30, 2008 8:10 AM
Then those aren't earmarks. They're grants.
Well, they've been calling them "earmarks" around here, Brian! Or maybe "funding that's been earmarked" for our research, but whatever, this is not stupid science by any means. When you can make a flu vaccine without using eggs, you're providing flu protection to a lot more people, especially those with egg allergies.
Flynne at October 30, 2008 8:13 AM
Flynne, we understand that. What we're trying to say is that, from your description, it sounds like your funding went through a proper grant process. You may call them earmarks around your place, but that's not the same sense of the word that we're talking about.
A very quick primer on federal agency funding: Agencies compile their funding requests for each year; the White House compiles them and submits them to Congress. Current rules require line items in the agency budget to be broken down to a ridiculous level of granularity, so your work probably showed up as its own line item. Some people in Congress saw to it that, in the process of budget negotiations, the DoD's request for your research got funded. I could make an argument that this still isn't the optimal decision-making process, but it's the way the Founding Fathers intended -- people make requests to the government for funding, Congress debates it, and ultimately they decide to fund it or not.
What we're talking about is when somebody who wants government money goes directly to a Congressman, and that Congressman "piggybacks" it on top of an agency's budget. The agency didn't request it; they didn't want it, and it might not have a damn thing to do with the agency's mission. But they get stuck with it, and it comes out of their budget. Further, Congress has worked out all sorts of devious process such that these earmarks can get funded without debate or public notice, which a lot of people believe subverts the intent of the Constitution. And, these types of earmarks have a notorious reputation; often they are vote-buying exercises or kickbacks to campaign contributors. And finally, they subvert the checks and balances principle because they don't allow the executive branch any oversight on how the money is spent. Ted Stevens' infamous "bridge to nowhere" was this type of earmark, as is a fair bit of the funding given to ACORN.
Cousin Dave at October 30, 2008 8:56 AM
'K, thanks, Brian and Cousin Dave; makes more sense to me now. o.O
Flynne at October 30, 2008 9:01 AM
David Horowitz has a few things to say about this at FrontPage.com:
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F19024E9-400A-46EB-AAAA-903618CE3241
Conan the Grammarian at October 30, 2008 9:55 AM
Flynne, I believe you've been answered. So I shouldn't bother.
Funding that's been earmarked is a common business term, and has no bearing whatsoever on the earmarks being discussed here. Malaria research is a federal grant.
momof3 at October 30, 2008 4:58 PM
Disconnected observations:
If you hate Sen. McCain for picking Gov. Palin and not for McCain-Feingold, there might be something strange about your priorities.
Government funding of some projects actually has significant benefits. The nuclear safety mechanisms invented by ADM Rickover's NAVSEA 08, as well as things brought to NASA by contractors under their purview, are not proprietary information, as they would be if privately funded.
Some of the posts above are of the "two wrongs" type. Yes, Edmund Muskie helped kill Apollo with 2+ missions "left on the pad", planned, ready to go, and left our nation with nothing to show for it, but that's no excuse for somebody to interfere with science today.
Real science costs a ton of money. A single Formula 1 car costs upwards of $20 million, and it's nowhere near the challenge of building a jet fighter. We take these things for granted because we don't see them in development. Then, take a look at Cassini. We really do things that make Star Trek look silly.
I doubt you'll get much headway against earmarks, because Alexander Tytler was correct, and because nobody can blame them on the President.
Radwaste at October 30, 2008 7:44 PM
Wonderful link, Conan.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 31, 2008 11:59 AM
Leave a comment