Advertisement
Ingenuity
Ingenuity

Palin vs. the flies

With just over a week to go until Americans choose their next President, the McCain/Palin campaign has linkurl:again;http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mccains-beef-with-bears lashed out at what they've called wasteful "earmark" spending on "pet projects" in the form of scientific research. This time Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin leveled the charge, and she's picked a new target: fruit fly research. "Sometimes these dollars, they go to projects having lit

By | October 27, 2008

With just over a week to go until Americans choose their next President, the McCain/Palin campaign has linkurl:again;http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mccains-beef-with-bears lashed out at what they've called wasteful "earmark" spending on "pet projects" in the form of scientific research. This time Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin leveled the charge, and she's picked a new target: fruit fly research. "Sometimes these dollars, they go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good," Palin said during a policy speech focused on special needs children she delivered in North Carolina on Friday (Oct. 24), "things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not." Mainstream linkurl:press outlets;http://in.truveo.com/Countdown-Palin-Doing-More-Harm-Than-Good/id/2232266654 and linkurl:bloggers;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/the-lyin-the-witch-and-th_b_137028.html have been pointing to the absurdity of Palin's comment vis-a-vis the role of fruit fly research in understanding human biology (and particularly disorders affecting special needs children). While her reference was vague, the Alaska Governor may have been talking about research focused on the genus linkurl:__Bactrocera__,;http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/?p=7786 an agricultural pest, and not more broadly to a century of study on the classic model organism, __Drosophila melanogaster__. Recently, California Representative Mike Thompson (D) linkurl:secured;http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2008/04/09/news/local/doc47fc6ca1ad0ee555305173.txt a $211,000 earmark for a USDA research in France that studies control of the olive fruit fly, linkurl:__Bactrocera oleae__,;http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/fruit/tropical/olive_fruit_fly.htm which has plagued Mediterranean olive groves for decades and more recently has infected California's. It appears that the money likely went to a linkurl:USDA biological control lab;http://www.ars-ebcl.org/ near Montpellier, France, more than 400 miles south of Paris, with other USDA funds going to California-based collaborators studying how to control the pest on this side of the Atlantic. "[Palin's comment] does kind of bother me," University of California, Davis entomologist linkurl:Frank Zalom,;http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/faculty/facpage.cfm?id=zalom told __The Scientist__. "Clearly there's no understanding about the problem of the pest or the methods being studied to control them." Zalom, who is not funded by the USDA, said that in 2003 he became one of the first US entomologists to study the olive fruit fly, which was first detected in California olive groves in 1999. linkurl:Kent Daane,;http://daane.uckac.edu/ a University of California, Berkeley, entomologist, also studies __Bactrocera oleae__ and said he probably receives funding - indirectly from a subgrant through the California Department of Food and Agriculture - from the USDA earmark secured by Thompson. Daane said that his research focuses on identifying effective natural parasites of the olive fruit fly, which is likely native to Africa, and studying their potential to control California populations of the pest. "I doubt [Palin] has any idea what the funds were being used for," Daane told __The Scientist__. "Almost any politician would not understand the complexity of any project that they just gloss over in a one-line joke like that." "This is very important for the olive growers in California," Daane continued. "[The olive fruit fly] has dramatically increased their control costs and has put some farmers out of business, I'm sure." But what if Palin was in fact referring to __Drosophila__ research in her seemingly off-the-cuff comment? linkurl:Sean Carroll,;http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/55040/ a University of Wisconsin, Madison molecular biologist who has studied Drosophila's genes and basic physiological processes (many of which are strikingly similar to those in human beings) for decades, told __The Scientist__ that Palin's jab is "terrifying, but not surprising." "I think it was revealingly ignorant," Carroll said. "It's astounding that someone who wants to be a public advocate for research into the causes and treatment of childhood diseases would not familiarize herself with the scientific foundation necessary to do that." Another __Drosophila__ researcher, linkurl:Scott Hawley;http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/54228/ of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, MO, said he was surprised at Palin's comments but added that she's not the first politician to display a failure to understand the importance of basic research in furthering biological knowledge and the public good. "I think that it's very hard to not notice the enormous value that fruit flies have played in the development of neurogenetics and neurobiology," Hawley told __The Scientist__. "[Palin's] comments suggest that she might not understand the value of model systems, such as __Drosophila__ and __C. elegans__." linkurl:Stacie Propst,;http://www.aimbe.org/assets/722_staciepropstbio.pdf vice president of policy and outreach at science advocacy group Research!America, said that Palin's comments point to a need for scientists to become more intimately involved in the political process. "Candidates for Congress and President should have good science advice," Propst told __The Scientist__. "Obviously there's a disconnect there. I think [Palin's comment] goes to show that we need better representation by the scientific community inside the policy arena."
Advertisement

Comments

Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 1

October 27, 2008

...or for that matter, don't blame John McCain's flippant comment about sequencing the DNA of Bears. Their ignorance, in some measure, reflects a failure on the part of Scientists and educators to adequately convey the importance of basic research. Instead of laughing it off a stupid comment, the scientific community has to take on the challenge of more effectively communicating the relevance of basic research to the general public. It is certainly not easy....but then, we are not in the business of doing easy things!\n\nV.K. Viswanathan, Ph.D.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 4

October 27, 2008

I think the fly guys miss the point. It isn't that the fly research isn't valuable, but that it was funded via earmarks. The USDA has a research program. They review competitive proposals and fund the best research. Earmarks devalue our research enterprise. Science should be peer reviewed, not earmarked by congress. Congress can advocate for more research to USDA, but they shouldn't decide what research should be funded. \n\nIf I received earmarked (i.e. noncompetitive) funds for my research program I would be embarrassed.
Avatar of: RICHARD EBRIGHT

RICHARD EBRIGHT

Posts: 8

October 28, 2008

The Republican Party is braindead. There is no detectable neural activity. There are no signs of life.\nIt is time to pull the plug.
Avatar of: abc def

abc def

Posts: 7

October 28, 2008

I read somewhere:\n\n"never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. Republicans never do ..."\n\nPalin is both an American people and a republican ...
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 1

October 28, 2008

All you have to do is listen to the story of how she thinks her Minister ran a "witch" out of an African village, and that same Minister's prayers got her elected to the Governorship of Alaska and you know her rationale - you don't need to "waste" money studying nature, just pray to God for getting rid of your pests. \n\nIt's hard to believe anyone in their right mind beleives this person should be Vice-President of the United States.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 3

October 28, 2008

No colleague should be embarassed in receiving funds through earmarks, provided their research is sound and effective. Scientists should feel embarassed if they receive unjust money through peer-review process, or when money (and a lot of it) is diverted to fund strategically and morally discussable wars.\nLet's get our country straight!
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 7

October 28, 2008

Obviously if the scientists do not carry their researches on the fruit flies so to speak, then we the scientists should go directly implementing the experiments on the human beings. Come Sarah, use your irrational brain to analyze your talk properly and politically correct if not scientifically correct ?
Avatar of: DAVID TRIGGLE

DAVID TRIGGLE

Posts: 4

October 28, 2008

H L Mencken pertinently observed _"Throw an egg from a Pullman car window anywhere in the United States and you are bound to hit a fundamentalist crackpot". Outside of no longer having Pullman cars this still applies.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 15

October 28, 2008

The poster who identified earmarks as the problem has it right. Earmarks are a lousy way to fund research and everything else for that matter. Palin is correct in opposing them. We have peer review for funding research projects. I doubt that any of the posters would be satisfied if he lost grant money because one of his colleagues went to his Congressperson and got an earmark instead. \n\nFurthermore the research in question is applied research, not basic research and can be funded by the Dept of Agriculture.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 1

October 28, 2008

We can always do a better job of informing the public on science -- and we have. It is hard to find any widely circulated newspaper or magazine today that does not contain articles on science. This has improved greatly over the last few decades. These articles are not written, however, to include basic science concepts or demonstrate how research on lambda virus or fruit flies has helped human health. It is difficult to be informative when politicians dismiss the educated as pointy headed, out of touch elitists living in ivory towers. It is a strategy to position science as a secular progressive discipline that acts only as a challenge to traditional beliefs. To teach, the audience must be curious and receptive to learning. We are faced with a public relations project to expand our culture of willing learners. How we teach our lessons is also important, but it is hard to overcome the constrictive messages of omnipresent popular politics. The Learning Channel, Discovery, NOVA are readily available on televisions in a majority of households, but their selection by an audience is a choice that is driven by popular culture.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 3

October 28, 2008

Anonymous, are you voting for her?
Avatar of: RONALD MATHISON

RONALD MATHISON

Posts: 4

October 28, 2008

Politicians make a lot of seemingly stupid comments with Sarah Palin's one on the US spending money on fruit-fly research in France being one of them.\n\nHowever, rather than berating Palin, as a similar comment could easily have been made by Biden, the real message is "Scientists should be getting someone in place to vet the campaign speeches and guide policy decisions." \n\nThink of the seconds that are spent by a Committee in deciding whether a grant will be funded, one that a researcher has spent months preparing. Politicians operate within similar time frames when "prioritizing the money government spends". \n\nScientists should be there at the time that decisions on "reprioritization" are being made.

October 28, 2008

Ms. Palin does not understand the importance of basic (pure) science. As anyone in science knows, we have learned more about humans via basic science than we have from applied science, e.g. X-rays, antibiotics, recombinant DNA. Drosophila has been instrumental in the elucidation of so many biological principles, from the chromosomal theory to neurobiology. Two examples: HOX genes and their role in development and the Down?s Syndrome Cell Adhesion Molecule (DSCAM) gene. What do you expect from a woman who went to several schools and obtained a second rate degree in communications? I'd like to see her defend her views to the NIH or NSF. I would add her comments to the list of other inane events surrounding her name. C. Harendza
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 8

October 28, 2008

"No child left behind???" Enough said.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 2

October 28, 2008

Please do not blame scientists for the lack of education of our society. Scientists have long asked for more science in our schools. Even at the university level GE at most universities is skewed toward non-science courses. Science is marginalized because the majority of the folks making decision are not scientists (think ?gerrymandering? science out of our education (I?m in CA, and we have a proposition to decrease gerrymandering)). \n\nHas anyone thought to rethink that problem; maybe we need to ask, "What ought a student know to be a contributing and constructive citizen in our modern society today?" Of course they have, it?s just that the ?gerrymandering? issue above applies. If we develop curricula based on what we really should teach, the amount of math and science would significantly increase in the US system of education. \n
Avatar of: Richard Bentley

Richard Bentley

Posts: 6

October 28, 2008

I was under the impression Palin had good credentials in biology, considering the fact that her ancestors were hobnobbing with the dinosaurs 6000 years ago. Surprising.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 50

October 28, 2008

Sorry, can't help it (the presidential election is such a wwjoke):\n\nTime flies like an arrow\nFruit flies like a banana\n\nGroucho Marx(?)
Avatar of: MICHAEL MITCHELL

MICHAEL MITCHELL

Posts: 2

October 28, 2008

Although Bob Grant made the point in his report about why this funded research might be important to American agriculture, maybe part of Palin's outrage is that our tax dollars are funding French research. The USDA can't find American labs that are willing to accept the funding and tackle the problem? Furthermore, if this agriculture pest is affecting Mediterranean olive crops, why isn't the EU funding it--and if they are, why are we?\n\nIf Palin doesn't value basic research, that's a problem, but if she just values American basic research over foreign basic research...I have no problem with that.
Avatar of: Jason Ross

Jason Ross

Posts: 1

October 28, 2008

Maybe if somebody finds the Drosophila gene for ignorance they can call it the Palin1 locus?\n
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 10

October 28, 2008

I am wondering if the 39% of scientists who support McCain for the presidency still think the same way after seeing the attitude of his running mate towards basic biomedical science.
Avatar of: JAN W KOPER

JAN W KOPER

Posts: 2

October 28, 2008

The Palin remarks on fly research are hilarious, irrespective of whether she was speaking about Drosophila or about Bactrocera. However, regarding this issue and the discussion published here, two things amaze me: (1) why does someone in her (Palin?s) position make such ? obviously poorly informed ? statements: I would suppose that on such subjects (the merits of Drosophila research for almost anything, or the importance of Bactrocera research for (e.g.) the USA olive industry) she should be in a position to get some expert advise.\n(2) Why are so many of you reacting anonimously, is there already a reign of terror over there? Come on, speak out, and speak out loud!\nJan W. Koper,\nThe Netherlands\n
Avatar of: WALT HILL

WALT HILL

Posts: 4

October 28, 2008

Ms. Palin, I'm sure, has no inkling of the process by which research funds are allocated. Mostly, it's not through earmarking but through a careful prioritization of research needs and how detailed proposals fit into those goals. While I'm preaching to the choir, she probably has no idea of the rigorous review process that each proposal goes through. \n\nJust because "fruit flies" might sound funny/ridiculous to Joe six-pack, most Americans, unfortunately, have no concept of the pivotal role this organism played and continues to play in advancing our scientific knowledge in many areas of research, notably genetics and developmental biology, the latter which could possible be of some slight interest to Ms. Palin even if she doesn't understand it.
Avatar of: tian xia

tian xia

Posts: 34

October 29, 2008

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/1028/1 \n\nShe can now claim she has science credentials because she knows flies.

October 29, 2008

I think that scientists who ascribe these statements to Ms Palin's ignorance are naive at best. In election campaigns everything is addressed which could bring votes. And this is such a thing. There are undoubtedly not to few Americans who are unable the recognize the benefits of scientic research and also the fact that American money has to go international for the sake of combined efforts. At least so she thinks. And could she be right?
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 29

October 29, 2008

"terrifying, but not surprising." That about covers it.\n\nI do feel bad for the good-hearted posters who feel that this is a failure of scientists to educate politicians. If you think a politician will pass up a good sound-bite comment to the masses in favor of a rigorous background briefing, you are in for a huge disappointment.\n\n"I kid you not."
Avatar of: Michael Kinnaird

Michael Kinnaird

Posts: 1

October 29, 2008

Sean Carroll's comment reveals that scientists are emotional beings, and sometimes react emotionally rather than rationally. Most of the other comments reflect the rational side. It is incumbent on scientists to explain the value of our work to laypeople, especially politicians. The value of our work is frequently not immediately obvious.
Avatar of: SUSAN LUSE

SUSAN LUSE

Posts: 7

October 29, 2008

This only has peripherally to do with either fruit fly research or the way it was funded. It's all about setting off an emotional reaction, playing on the proud ignorance of their anti-knowledge followers. "Those awful elites, look what they're spending YOUR hard earned money on!!!" Like other such appeals, it will get press for the usual 15 minutes, then everyone will move on to the next misrepresentation. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm counting the minutes until this is all over.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 2

October 29, 2008

The following is the paragraph sited from Sarah's speech and also the following paragraph.\n\n"This is a matter of how we prioritize the money that we spend. We've got a three trillion dollar budget, and Congress spends some 18 billion dollars a year on earmarks for political pet projects. That's more than the shortfall to fully fund the IDEA. And where does a lot of that earmark money end up? It goes to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good -- things like fruit fly research in Paris, France, or a public policy center named for the guy who got the earmark. In our administration, we're going to reform and refocus. We're going to get our federal priorities straight, and fulfill our country's commitment to give every child opportunity and hope in life.\n\nFor many parents of children with disabilities, the most valuable thing of all is information. Early identification of a cognitive or other disorder, especially autism, can make a life-changing difference. That's why we're going to strengthen NIH. We're going to work on long-term cures, and in the short-term, we're going to work on giving these families better information."\n\nAs seen in the second paragraph, she clearly supports NIH-funded research. Her issue is with earmarks for sending US tax dollars to France to fund their research. This earmark was working outside of NIH.\n\nThe following is a link to the entire speech.\nhttp://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/3d5fc0cf-8229-490f-879b-91f6f4bb9eb2.htm\n\nUnfortunately the general public (and scientists)are unwilling to take the time to investigate these things for themselves and simply accepts anything that the media says as truth.
Avatar of: James Wilmer

James Wilmer

Posts: 18

October 29, 2008

Not so many years ago, Senator William Proxmire from Wisconsin issued his Golden Fleece Awards. In a number of cases he seemed to be dead-on with his criticism of spending the public's money on ill-conceived projects. I always supposed that at least some of those research projects got bum raps based on their titles and that they were actually far more serious investigations than Proxmire would give credit for. Political mileage is, well, political mileage. Yet, one award stands out in my mind because he ranted excessively about it. The research dealt with the sweat patterns of the San people in a southern African desert. Now one might question what does it matter how and when African tribesmen sweat in a desert. But I am reminded that the United States military has now fought two wars in Iraq and another in Afghanistan. So we need to be aware as scientists and laity that sometimes there's not an immediate connection of our work to a situation. It seems that Sarah Palin and her handlers and advisors have totally missed the point of this research on a crop pest.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 1

October 29, 2008

It is appalling to see a vice-presidential candidate (gag!) misrepresent the importance of basic research before the general public. The bottom line is that scientists need to be more proactive in politics... which means some of us are going to have to leave our lab benches and advocate on our community's behalf...Count me in!
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 2

October 29, 2008

Lets face it while very important to understanding gene regualtion and development in humans, fruit fly research is esoteric for lay people. How many scientists can describe each ammendment to our constitution...something not esoteric?
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 1

October 29, 2008

I am not surprised at Mrs. Palin's ignorance over scientific facts, she probably would have the same reaction over the study of carbon or fullerines. I can't imagine mentioning Quantum mechanics to this limited brain that can only understand "Nieman Marcus". This is just another reason why we need to get rid off dumb programing on TV and make sure that sciences get the appropriate funding in our schools so we don't have any more comments like Mrs. Palin's.\nBut let's not forget that this is the candidate for vice-presidency and from what I've been reading in this page nobody expects her to know how to spell potato to fill the responsibilities of that office, much less dedicating half an hour to the study of the fruit flies and the benefit of understanding their genetical make up, beore condemning science and trying to burn the people who study it in a evangelical inquisition. History does repeat itself!
Avatar of: Kimberly Rapp

Kimberly Rapp

Posts: 1

October 29, 2008

that in this day and age when information is at the fingertips of anyone who is interested and intrigued enough to look... there are people that want to rule the nation but don't have a sincere idea of what they are talking about, and don't even realize what they don't know. In one post that re-inserts vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's sound bite back into context, I was not astounded that it didn't make any difference. As a hard-working scientist of this next generation, I can say that I honestly experienced a chill when reading the full context, especially upon "seeing" Governor Palin "speak" the words "That's why we're going to strengthen the NIH". If this campaign had been at all sincere since the arrival of Governor Palin, then I might think less harshly about a vice presidential candidate's attempt to address the checks and balances of the scientific community and what we strive to accomplish. However, in my humble opinion, this campaign has succeeded in making a mockery out of the goals that it strives towards, and a mockery out of the country's need for sincere and serious leadership. There has been no demonstration to me yet that Governor Palin's utterances have any substantial foundation or depth to them. From my view I see a candidate who is increasingly insincere, as she increasingly acts as an advocate to persuade citizens to a point of view which she has not given the time to understand herself.
Avatar of: Kathy Barker

Kathy Barker

Posts: 7

October 29, 2008

Of course we should blame Palin- and McCain, also, for his remarks and ignorance about the grizzley bear DNA sequence. \n A New York Times editorial said it well about McCain- "If Mr. McCain wants to make serious critiques of research spending ? and keep his reputation as a credible opponent of government waste ? he and his staff need to be more careful and a lot more science-literate."\n(see\nhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/opinion/12wed4.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)\n - and that holds for Palin.\n Many crucial decisions the government must make depend on an understanding of science. I expect someone with a job as complicated as president or vice-president to make it a point to learn as much as possible.\n Worse, making these kind of ignorant statements such as McCain's and Palin's propagates the idea that research is nothing but a joke. \n Science literacy? (Or economic, etc. literacy?) With a president like Bush, and a potential president and vice-president like McCain and Palin, the big lesson is hey, put away your books and your critical thinking! Come have a beer with a Real American!
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 2

October 30, 2008

Good luck at the polls next week! America will need it.
Avatar of: Craig Leslie

Craig Leslie

Posts: 1

October 30, 2008

As a politician her job is to prove herself likable to the voters she is trying to attract. It ain't science, it's more like pheromones phor the phoolish.
Avatar of: Bill Dickinson

Bill Dickinson

Posts: 1

October 30, 2008

Clearly Palin has no clue about the importance of fruit fly research. It makes no difference if she has not been advised by experts in this field: any intelligent person would get the facts before stating the merits of a program. So, I conclude that this is just another hyped claim intended to gain political favor. Nonetheless, it is troubling to know that political spin of this nature could influence unsuspecting voters. Very disappointing.
Avatar of: Gopinathan menon

Gopinathan menon

Posts: 7

October 31, 2008

Scientists could try to educate her......" inch by inch, the little snail may climb Mount Fuji "
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 1

October 31, 2008

I have read the posts on this discussion and there are many who feel that scientists need to do a better job communicating the importance of science (basic research) to the public. I agree. This, to me, is indisputable. However, this is also really not relevant to what happens when politicians make the types of comments Palin made about the fruitfly research.\n\nYou can speak to and educate the public as much as you want, but when Palin or others in the current administration surround themselves with like minded idealogues, it's all for naught. These politicians, through their advisors, shape the science to their political outlook. So in a sense, you are trying to prescribe a rationale approach (more public education) to a situation that is inherently resistant to the approach. \n\nPalin's comment was a cheap shot made for people who already believe that government is only there to waste their money and get in their way. No amount of public science education will change these people, and therefore no amount of education will prevent politicians from making these simple-minded statements in their attempt to win votes.\n\nNo. The real problem is when an administration (or single politician) short-circuits the input of scientific advisors and treats them as just another interest group. This is especially problematic with highly complex scientific situations, like global warming. \n\nIf anyone watched the congressional hearings regarding global warming and Dr. Jim Hansen (head of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies), you would understand why public outreach will not rectify the problem of politicians making silly comments about science or "misunderstanding" the scientific process in general. \n\nLastly, if someone could explain how a politician can ear-mark money for a specific scientific study, I would like to know. I would have thought the money would have gone first to NIH or the USDA and they would then simply fund deeper into the scored grants (funding to the 12th percentile versus only the 10th percentile).\n\nThanks!
Avatar of: George Lester

George Lester

Posts: 1

October 31, 2008

Haven't you considered the possibility that she has been coached to 'dumb' herself down to make McCain (5th from bottom from his West Point class in spite of father/grandfather legacy) and Bush (C student for BA) look good?
Avatar of: John Felter

John Felter

Posts: 1

October 31, 2008

While quick to detail the West Point class standing of John McCain and declare him a legacy Midshipman, his research into McCain's past would have a bit more merit if he had discovered what most voters this year clearly understand--McCain attended the US Naval Academy as did his father before him.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 4

December 31, 2008

She apparently does not understand the importance of studying fruit flies to our understanding of human genetics. Drosophila has our gender system of sex chromosomes and easily managed chromosomes & populations (Drosophila has been called the miniature human). It sure beats studying actual human cells, which has come into conflict on the issue of human embryonic stem cells.

January 5, 2009

Hopefully good science will rise to the forefront again. The last 8 have seen a horrible erosion of funding, credibility and world-standing of our scientific community. Obama's initial choices of scientific advisors are promising, but I think it's time for activist scientists. Engage, enrage, be sage.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 5

March 31, 2010

Its not that the Bushes lost in Science funding. Its just that Bush and Cheney directed the funding only to Oil Funding and Defense contracting research. Palin plans when she is President is still questionable.

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement
Ingenuity
Ingenuity

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Advertisement
NeuroScientistNews
NeuroScientistNews
Life Technologies