It's not earth-shattering to say that politicians frequently misunderstand scientific research. Unfortunately, this leads to the propagation of a lot of misconceptions of what scientists do and how they go about it. It's potentially damaging for advances in all sorts of fields, which should concern all of us.

Recently, Sarah Palin made a claim that fruit fly research being funded by the federal government was a waste of time, and that it took away from funding advances in dealing with Down's syndrome and autism. Unfortunately for us and her, this sort of research is directly responsible for trying to deal with these very genetic diseases. Read about it here.

This is not just another Palin gaffe (in a long line of them). I'm not bringing it up to single her out. She does enough damage to her reputation without my help. I see politicians say this dumb shit all the time. It's not just annoying, it sets research back due to simple ignorance, almost willfully so in some cases.

This is why science education matters. Call your local politicians to the carpet on this stuff when they do it. They're hurting us all.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.
--Albert Einstein

The problem with science and politics is that science is often in conradiction to religion. This has major impacts, as with the rise of conservative politics we saw - by its very nature - an adherence to religious views over those based on science (ie fact).

I was not aware of this. Thanks for providing more material on which to argue against Palin. It's nice to see as opposed to gender-based arguments.

It's not the first example of politics interference in science. The most global example is Stalin's interference in biology and agriculture. By the way, Stalin too objected about fruit fly research. But Stalin objection of genetics had political background. On his opinion the genetics contradicted of human transforming possibility, what had been main condition of Communism building in the USSR. But damage of this interference, for the Soviet agriculture and science, were difficult overestimated.

The question is not the value of fruit flys but the need of government to spend money studying them or anything else. Will government get a percentage of any marketable innovation derived from the research ?

Of course not.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Ah contraire, monfrier. That is an argument used against NASA research all the time, but many of the technologies developed by that program have gone towards creating brand new possibilities for high tech industry. When those businesses grows it definitely fills the government coffers through business taxes and helps to grow the economy.

It's definitely not a short term payoff, but I think it's a pretty reliable long term investment.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.
--Albert Einstein

If its a reliable long term investment then private capital can and will supply it.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Not if it's basic research the fruits of which can't be owned privately. A business will only fund research that benefits it, and NOT its competitors; if it benefits everyone equally then there's no percentage in any private agency being the one to foot the bill.

Basic research, like infrastructure and national defense, is a government responsibility for that reason.

I disagree. The reason basic research is the government's responsibility is for national security.

thats why we have patents and the like.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

I think you overestimate the patience of the avergae investor.

I think this was a pretty good summary of why government funding for research can be better than private funding: Government Funding of Science « Applying philosophy to life

Don't get me wrong though. As a sceintist I have never been against looking to private industry for funding from time to time (Thank you Budweiser).

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.
--Albert Einstein

Here's a link to Title 42, Chapter 16 of the U.S. Code which authorizes the National Science Foundation:

US CODE: Title 42,CHAPTER 16—NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

And here's a link to all federal legislation pertinent to the creation, development, and mission of the National Institute of Health:

Legislative Chronology: Laws

Please direct me to the laws or portion of the law that stipulates government funding of research is required to turn a profit for the government.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

Here is a link to the Constitution. Please tell be where it authorizes spending the public's money to enrich private business.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Put tax law back to where it was in the 50's and 60's when so much got accomplished and that patience would return. When the period of time to deliver ROI gets halved, it puts too much pressure on investors to chose wisely.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

The Congress is charged by the Constitution with providing for the general welfare of the United States. In fact it's charged with such responsibilities in the very same Article and Section in which it's charged with providing for the common defense.

If spending money on tanks and bombs is in the interest of the populace and a function of the federal government (in fulfillment of its responsibility to provide for the common defense), how is spending money on NSF grants for private or institutional research, or through direct government funding of NIH research any different (in fulfillment of the government's responsibility to provide for the general welfare)?

And you still haven't answered my question.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart