Sarcasm of Science

Lawmakers from the US House of Representatives science panel took a mocking approach to their meeting with the presidential science advisor.

Full-text access for registered users only. Existing users login here.
New to GenomeWeb? Register here quickly for free access.

Indeed, it has been said that

Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Say the whole story, it was

Say the whole story, it was REPUBLICANS spreading discord about climate change and REPUBLICANS making jabs at the NSF. Not just "legislators."

Yes, say the whole story. It

Yes, say the whole story. It is DEMOCRACTS who think with a 17 Trillion dollar debt the tax payers should be funding studies on the causes of stress in Bolivia. I'm still waiting to hear from DEMOCRACTS how and when they are going to start paying their share of the debt.

Who cares who said what...the

Who cares who said what...the real question should be are they spending "our money" on science that matters? I personally do not like giving money to other countries to study stress. We already know what causes it and who decided people in Bolivia have the same stressors as people in the US?

Sorry, incorrect. It is not

Sorry, incorrect. It is not the democrats deciding to fund those studies. It is other scientists (it's called "peer review"), using money that the democrats have earmarked for science. But you're right, Lamarr Smith should decide what we work on

Yeah - that NSF grant to

Yeah - that NSF grant to study causes of stress in Bolivia was $20K to fund a grad student in anthropology to do his dissertation. It probably paid part of his tuition, and (hopefully) a trip to Bolivia to do field research.

For those of you who are mathematically disinclined, $20K is about 0.0000001% of that $17 trillion debt someone else mentioned. Given the amount of mileage the anti-science faction in congress have gotten out of this story, I'd bet they've already wasted at least a couple million dollars worth of time railing against some poor grad student's dissertation topic.

NSF currently has an acceptance rate of around 20%. These proposals are judged by scientists who are experts in their field and were deemed worthy on their scientific merits. Should we let politicians second-guess every nickle and dime that a panel of expert scientists have already vetted?

Patrik's comment underscores

Patrik's comment underscores the media and political problems with these things. Blowing up a $20k grant to a student to study stress in Bolivia into a political football is simply brain dead and typical of a brain dead politician. I would guess also that there is a little more to it than just studying stress in Bolivia. Even if there isn't, I am sure that Lamar Smith spends 100 times that much in wasteful and wanton ways as part of his office's budget and boondoggle trips.

I abandon the GOP when the

I abandon the GOP when the anti-science, greed is good and if you don't agree with the GOP you're a traitor mentality began in the 80s.

And to the commentator grantmwood, Lamar trashing a $20K grant does seem a bit trivial when the GOP is willing to play roulette on the future of our Country and Planet.

Shocking...Lamar is brought to you by petro dollars. The same petro dollars tearing up the laws of Canada to pursue the insanity of tar sands.

Why do the politicians

Why do the politicians representing science seem so totally illiterate when it comes to discussing science?

because these guys are not

because these guys are not really representing science, they are doing their best to torpedo it