Posts
McCain-Palin's Unique Consultant
John McCain's favorite examples of frivolous government spending have included a genetic study of grizzly bears, and replacing the 40-year-old projector at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago. (Actually, the projector money never materialized.)
Now Sarah Palin has taken aim at fruit flies.
Of course, the field of genetics was pretty much founded with fruit flies, and they are still a favorite model organism for genetics, development, etc. From what I can find online, the fruit fly research Palin objects to appears to be agricultural in nature. But I think I know why science is taking the brunt of pork-barrel spending ridicule: Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer is on the McCain-Palin consulting team.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and was later thawed by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes when I fly to Europe on the Concorde, I wonder, am I inside some sort of giant bird? Am I gonna be digested? I don't know, because I'm a caveman, and that's the way I think! When I'm courtside at a Knicks game, I wonder if the ball is some sort of food they're fighting over. When I see my image on the security camera at the country club, I wonder, are they stealing my soul? I get so upset, I hop out of my Range Rover, and run across the fairway to to the clubhouse, where I get Carlos to make me one of those martinis he's so famous for, to soothe my primitive caveman brain. But whatever world you're from, I do know one thing..."
..that if fruit flies threaten the olive industry in California, they should not be studied in France?
Seriously, these project examples may or may not have merit. But why can't they frame the issue in terms of projects competing for grant money from appropriate agencies--where they are evaluated for merit against other proposals--instead being funded directly from earmarks (assuming that is what they would prefer)? Why must they directly ridicule these projects--as though even a caveman knows that they are a waste of money--and what kind of message does that send about science?
9 comments:
I'm not much on politics, but isn't Palin just arguing that earmarks should go to other areas of science, like studies for disabled children, etc, rather than fruit fly studies. If your point is you wish there were people more competent making decissions of what is important and gets funded, Isn't she, by arguing against earmarks, making the same point? Is it just her rhetoric you disagree with, rather than her point?
Um, Anonymous, unless Palin wants direct experimentation on the brains and genes of disabled children, she had darn well better get behind the fruit fly studies, which are the preliminary elements of those long-term solutions she claims to endorse. Her ironic remarks are another illustration of Palin's quarter-inch deep comprehension of issues beyond the hunter-gatherer primitivism which is evidently her only model for dealing with the world.
It would have been better to have written "Her remarks are another ironic illustration of ..." because she certainly wasn't aware of the irony of her example.
Anon: Jared* was very clear: "why can't they frame the issue in terms of projects competing for grant money...instead being funded directly from earmarks...? Why must they directly ridicule these projects?"
Palin and McCain are definitely not making the same point as Jared*.
Jared: it's funny, I was having almost this exact conversation yesterday at work. I hate the idea that any of these projects were funded by earmark---which by definition means that they were not peer reviewed (i.e., by people who actually know what they're talking about) and instead were politician reviewed---but I don't hate the projects themselves. Hate the sin, love the sinner? Hah!
(Now, to be fair, Pres Clinton infamously mocked plant stress research in a SOTU address....)
Anon, I think Ardis and BrianJ covered it.
BrianJ,
The bear and fruit fly projects were carried out by the USGS and USDA, respectively. I don't know a lot about how science gets funded in the federal agencies, but I don't think it is the case that these projects had no peer review. I think peer review is still involved, but it's different than trying to get, for example, an NIH grant. In some ways I think it is more analogous to industry research in that the agencies, along with Congress, determine where the priorities are and move money accordingly. I mean, I don't think NASA is at the mercy of NSF funding for their projects.
But I also take your point. I don't like the idea of scientists doing an end-run around peer review by getting a Congressman (or Congresswoman, of course) on their side, and conversely, I don't like the idea of Congressmen meddling in the particulars of a granting agency's decisions.
I am the Anon that posted #1
I am serious about the not being political thing. I mean I voted for me dad in the election. (Vote for Jim!) Anyway, Brian is saying it would be better to have some sort of scientific review process for what gets funded, rather than earmarks, and yes, Palin probalby doesn't know the first thing about why Fruit flies matter, but c'mon, her point is the old McCain stump of getting rid of the earmark system where pork is how things get done, and people who are skilled at getting elected thus make decissions on things they don't know much about. Isn't that the McCain party point Palin is trying to express, so doesn't Brian J agree with her? I mean Brian instantly shot out a better alternative of peer review, whereas she doesn't have a plan and is just saying stuff to try and get elected, but isn't the point she's trying to make that earmarks are bad?
For the record, I'm all for taking a look at the brains and genes of disabled children.
Matt W.
Matt "Anon" W: The problem is how she frames her argument against earmarks. Her argument is "Earmarks are bad because they put money into worthless projects; e.g., fruit fly research." My argument is quite different: earmarks are bad because they allow non-experts to circumvent experts.
Maybe it looks like a small distinction, but to me the implications are huge. Palin's approach reinforces the problem: she's a non-expert mocking a research project she doesn't understand. That attitude is what allows earmarks to exist in the first place: politicians thinking that they can make ignorant decisions in spite of---or at least without consulting---the experts.
Jared*: I'm okay with some amount of politics in science, of course. And well, not just science, but road building, treasury loan rates, etc. It's the public's money, after all, and the public should decide how it is spent. But there are limits. I'm okay with Congress deciding that AIDS/HIV is a priority and setting aside $XX for research; I'm not okay with assigning that money to a particular aspect of that research (e.g., viral coat protein crystallography) or a particular lab. I'm okay with Congress aiming to land people on Mars; I'm not okay with Congress deciding what the spaceship will look like.
Thanks for the clarification and good point.
Matt W.
Post a Comment