Advertisement
Roche
Roche

Slipping from the Top?

Experts and the American public worry that the country is at risk of losing its global leadership position in scientific research.

By | March 14, 2012

image: Slipping from the Top? Flickr, don toye

FLICKR, DON TOYE

The United States is still a global leader in science and technology research, but the country must act now to avoid losing its edge. This was the overall consensus among two panels of experts, which included National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, assembled today (March 14) by Research!America, a nonprofit public education and advocacy alliance.

“I do think America continues to be a place where boldness and innovation and creativity are encouraged,” Collins said. But there are “warning signs,” he added, such as the facts that the country is now ranked 6th in the world with regard to the proportion of its gross domestic product that is invested in research and development and that young high school students score relatively poorly in math and science compared to teens in other nations. If efforts are not taken to reverse these trends, Collins warned, “we might see America lose their commitment to supporting research at the level that it will take to maintain that competitiveness.”

Research!America today released the results of a national poll that suggests the American voting public is skeptical about the country’s future in scientific research. More than half (58 percent) of those polled do not believe the United States will be a world leader in science and technology in 2020, and 85 percent said they were worried about decreases in federal funding for research. “The findings reveal deep concerns among likely voters about our ability to maintain world-class status,” said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America—something that the vast majority (91 percent) of those polled said was important, especially as other countries are increasingly investmenting in science.

One key point of attack highlighted by the panelists will have to be science, math, and engineering education. Flat budgets and shrinking job markets are causing many young children to shy away from the sciences for their careers, at the peril of future generations of researchers. The poll also revealed that nearly 70 percent of Americans believe science and math education will impact the country’s future.

Science advocates must also convince policymakers that science is worth the investment even in the face of economic hardship. “Every dollar we give out in grants…returns $2.21 in goods and services,” Collins said. “There aren’t too many other things that have that kind of return on investment.” One example of a successful investment in science, Collins noted, is the human genome project, which cost taxpayers nearly $4 billion, but generated some $796 billion in economic output—a return of 141 to 1, according to study released last May by Battelle, an independent science and technology research and development organization. “If there was a genome project that came along today, would we have that same bold attitude, or would we [say], ‘We can’t afford it right now’?” Collins wondered. “I am deeply concerned about whether we in America will capitalize on that opportunity, or whether we will give in to other pressures and lose our chance.”

These issues will become increasingly important this year as the presidential election approaches. “We need to have a national strategy, a Sputnik moment,” said Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, “where we galvanize, and we look at all the things that matter, and we really build on the expertise and preeminence of America today in the life sciences world, and we make sure that in the decades to come we are at the forefront still.”

Other panelists at today’s meeting included Subra Suresh, director of the National Science Foundation; John Castellani, president and chief executive officer of PhRMA; Jack Watters, vice president of external medical affairs at Pfizer; Nancy Brown, chief executive officer of the American Heart Association; Larry Shapiro, executive vice chancellor for medical affairs and dean of the school of medicine at Washington University School of Medicine; Carolyn Clancy, director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; and Sheri McCoy, vice chairman of the executive committee and member of the office of the chairman at Johnson & Johnson.

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: cheney2jail

cheney2jail

Posts: 24

March 15, 2012

Francis Collins bemoans loss of US leadership in science as he shifts money out of basic research into translational medicine. If he had addressed the problems of retaining competent and productive scientists instead of being an advocate for med school dean's strategies for building soft money empires, perhaps he could have had a positive impact. The prospects for basic scientists over the next five years are dismal. He hasn't even been able to get the NIH to consider the efficiency of big labs when handing out grants. 

Avatar of: Michael Holloway

Michael Holloway

Posts: 36

March 15, 2012

Collins is being politic.  The transition to a large amount of current research coming out of Asia has already happened.  Just browse Pubmed.

Avatar of: Jonathan Harton

Jonathan Harton

Posts: 4

March 15, 2012

Definateley an important topic, Colllins couldn't be more right--failure to invest in research is to lose the opportunity for economic as well as scientific rewards. 

However, is it fair to say that "Flat budgets and shrinking job markets are causing many young children
to shy away from the sciences for their careers, at the peril of future
generations of researchers."?

I don't think that the threat to our global standing in science is because of the economic decisions of young children.  The problem is bigger than the economy.  Right now, well-trained scientists are "shying away" from research careers because of  flat budgets and shrinking job markets, universities are not producing the same quality of science student, and K-12 students interested in science are not being encouraged. 

Why are well-trained scientists shying away?  This is easy, the number of academic research jobs (i.e. grant supported) is relatively low and getting hired means spending an increasing amount of time writing and developing grant application that are unlikely to be funded.  Increasing the NIH and NSF budgets can help this.  Funding another biological "Sputnik" can help, as Collins has indicated.

Universities are part of the problem?  Universities are focusing more on the average learner represented by the 80% of the general population that now attends instead of fostering the development of the critical 10-20%.  There is a growing perception of the university as the training/proving ground for new workers, not the next generation of creative, intelligent, and insightful individuals.  Only the universities can fix this, there are likely many positive solutions, but the problem exists now and universities change slowly.

K-12 students are interested but not fostered.  Somewhat like the university, K-12 education is also more focused on the mainstream.  Classes are large, the material is standardized, outcomes are evaluated based on standardized performance measures, and students that don't "fit the mold" are often labeled for various problems (e.g. how many famous scientists would have been diagnosed with ADD, ADHD, Aspergers, Autism, or perhaps just being argumentative, disruptive, or not-on-task).  In K-12, students interested in science actually want science, labs with real experiments, reactions that get hot or cold, change color, clone DNA, isolate bacteria, observe real-life collisions and trajectories, and so on.  These things are expensive and sometimes unsafe.  Schools don't want the expense and they don't want the liability.  Would be science students decide to go in other directions.  If they hang-on until college, they have to deal with the similar situations developing there.

It may not be too late to turn around, but on the other hand, if we delay we may not be able to recover in less than 20-25 years.
 

Avatar of: Jonathan Harton

Jonathan Harton

Posts: 4

March 15, 2012

Results

Does being a "global leader in science and technology
research" matter?  "Does it matter where inventors lived or
worked?"  "[Everyone benefits] once the product comes to
market." 

 

Yes it matters.  It's not all about the market. 

 

It’s about discovery and new knowledge, who the thought
leaders will be, and how that knowledge changes our world.  Do we want to let China decide where we will go?  OK, you can argue that we go where we want to
regardless of who the leader is.  Given
that only 10-20% of the general population is capable of/interested in doing
science, the only option for U.S.
would be scientist in the future will be to get their early education in
another country, train in another country, and work in another country.  If they do not, they will be outcompeted by
the “leaderâ€쳌.  What will the U.S. look like
without is scientific and technology leaders?  We don’t have the benefit of a 1 billion plus
population after all.

 

Alternatively, we could always sit back and let someone else
make the discoveries, reap the benefits, and decide for us.

 

Avatar of: GrandpaTarkin

GrandpaTarkin

Posts: 8

March 15, 2012

Transferring funding from basic research to applied research leads to stagnation, and that's the malady affecting all of the western world. The US is actually in better shape than many european countries which started transferring funding from basic to applied science in the 80's, ostensively to "improve competitiveness" but really it was (and is) just thinly veiled subsidies to major corporations.

Avatar of: Ed Rybicki

Ed Rybicki

Posts: 82

March 15, 2012

When I was doing a sabbatical in the US 22 years ago, most of the science at the institute I was working at in Cornell U in Ithaca was done by foreigners - and mainly Chinese and Korean students at that.  Not much has changed...except that a lot of them went home, and are leading science there.

You've done your job, guys: you helped train the world.  Now they're doing their own science.  And the benefits should still come through to you.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 15, 2012

Francis Collins bemoans loss of US leadership in science as he shifts money out of basic research into translational medicine. If he had addressed the problems of retaining competent and productive scientists instead of being an advocate for med school dean's strategies for building soft money empires, perhaps he could have had a positive impact. The prospects for basic scientists over the next five years are dismal. He hasn't even been able to get the NIH to consider the efficiency of big labs when handing out grants. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 15, 2012

Collins is being politic.  The transition to a large amount of current research coming out of Asia has already happened.  Just browse Pubmed.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 15, 2012

Definateley an important topic, Colllins couldn't be more right--failure to invest in research is to lose the opportunity for economic as well as scientific rewards. 

However, is it fair to say that "Flat budgets and shrinking job markets are causing many young children
to shy away from the sciences for their careers, at the peril of future
generations of researchers."?

I don't think that the threat to our global standing in science is because of the economic decisions of young children.  The problem is bigger than the economy.  Right now, well-trained scientists are "shying away" from research careers because of  flat budgets and shrinking job markets, universities are not producing the same quality of science student, and K-12 students interested in science are not being encouraged. 

Why are well-trained scientists shying away?  This is easy, the number of academic research jobs (i.e. grant supported) is relatively low and getting hired means spending an increasing amount of time writing and developing grant application that are unlikely to be funded.  Increasing the NIH and NSF budgets can help this.  Funding another biological "Sputnik" can help, as Collins has indicated.

Universities are part of the problem?  Universities are focusing more on the average learner represented by the 80% of the general population that now attends instead of fostering the development of the critical 10-20%.  There is a growing perception of the university as the training/proving ground for new workers, not the next generation of creative, intelligent, and insightful individuals.  Only the universities can fix this, there are likely many positive solutions, but the problem exists now and universities change slowly.

K-12 students are interested but not fostered.  Somewhat like the university, K-12 education is also more focused on the mainstream.  Classes are large, the material is standardized, outcomes are evaluated based on standardized performance measures, and students that don't "fit the mold" are often labeled for various problems (e.g. how many famous scientists would have been diagnosed with ADD, ADHD, Aspergers, Autism, or perhaps just being argumentative, disruptive, or not-on-task).  In K-12, students interested in science actually want science, labs with real experiments, reactions that get hot or cold, change color, clone DNA, isolate bacteria, observe real-life collisions and trajectories, and so on.  These things are expensive and sometimes unsafe.  Schools don't want the expense and they don't want the liability.  Would be science students decide to go in other directions.  If they hang-on until college, they have to deal with the similar situations developing there.

It may not be too late to turn around, but on the other hand, if we delay we may not be able to recover in less than 20-25 years.
 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 15, 2012

Results

Does being a "global leader in science and technology
research" matter?  "Does it matter where inventors lived or
worked?"  "[Everyone benefits] once the product comes to
market." 

 

Yes it matters.  It's not all about the market. 

 

It’s about discovery and new knowledge, who the thought
leaders will be, and how that knowledge changes our world.  Do we want to let China decide where we will go?  OK, you can argue that we go where we want to
regardless of who the leader is.  Given
that only 10-20% of the general population is capable of/interested in doing
science, the only option for U.S.
would be scientist in the future will be to get their early education in
another country, train in another country, and work in another country.  If they do not, they will be outcompeted by
the “leaderâ€쳌.  What will the U.S. look like
without is scientific and technology leaders?  We don’t have the benefit of a 1 billion plus
population after all.

 

Alternatively, we could always sit back and let someone else
make the discoveries, reap the benefits, and decide for us.

 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 15, 2012

Transferring funding from basic research to applied research leads to stagnation, and that's the malady affecting all of the western world. The US is actually in better shape than many european countries which started transferring funding from basic to applied science in the 80's, ostensively to "improve competitiveness" but really it was (and is) just thinly veiled subsidies to major corporations.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 15, 2012

When I was doing a sabbatical in the US 22 years ago, most of the science at the institute I was working at in Cornell U in Ithaca was done by foreigners - and mainly Chinese and Korean students at that.  Not much has changed...except that a lot of them went home, and are leading science there.

You've done your job, guys: you helped train the world.  Now they're doing their own science.  And the benefits should still come through to you.

Avatar of: Rick Bogle

Rick Bogle

Posts: 1457

March 15, 2012

I'd like to hear opinions as to why people think being "a global leader in science and technology research" matters.

Presumably, someone in Belgium or Iceland, or Argentina gains the same benefit from a discovery or invention developed in the U.S. or elsewhere once the product comes to market.

With so much manufacturing being a global venture, why does it matter where the scientists or inventors lived or worked? Is it all just bragging rights?

Avatar of: Michael Holloway

Michael Holloway

Posts: 36

March 15, 2012

No, we've always benefitted from controlling new technology discovered through research, much of it government funded, but it goes beyond that.  Its being able to guide science development the way we want it to go.  The difference isn't academic.  You can see it now.  The transition to a large part (maybe half?) of all current cellular and molecular biology papers coming out of Asia has already happened.  The work is much more centered on phenomenology, translational research, and non-original (me too) research.  It goes beyond just a lack of innovation and peer review though.  They have different concerns/goals.  We will never again be the almost exclusive culture in research, but if we want to continue to be part of guiding its development we need a Sputnik kick in the pants.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 15, 2012

I'd like to hear opinions as to why people think being "a global leader in science and technology research" matters.

Presumably, someone in Belgium or Iceland, or Argentina gains the same benefit from a discovery or invention developed in the U.S. or elsewhere once the product comes to market.

With so much manufacturing being a global venture, why does it matter where the scientists or inventors lived or worked? Is it all just bragging rights?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 15, 2012

No, we've always benefitted from controlling new technology discovered through research, much of it government funded, but it goes beyond that.  Its being able to guide science development the way we want it to go.  The difference isn't academic.  You can see it now.  The transition to a large part (maybe half?) of all current cellular and molecular biology papers coming out of Asia has already happened.  The work is much more centered on phenomenology, translational research, and non-original (me too) research.  It goes beyond just a lack of innovation and peer review though.  They have different concerns/goals.  We will never again be the almost exclusive culture in research, but if we want to continue to be part of guiding its development we need a Sputnik kick in the pants.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 16, 2012

Higgs Particle?  Dark Energy/Matter? Epigenetics?
YOK!
Update Concepts-Comprehension…
http://universe-life.com/2011/...
 
Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Natural Selection.
The quantum mechanics of every process is its evolution.
Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, possible or probable or actual mechanisms of natural selection.
 
=================
Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation
http://universe-life.com/2012/...
 
A. The Universe
 
From the Big-Bang it is a rationally commonsensical conjecture that the gravitons, the smallest base primal particles of the universe, must be both mass and energy, i.e. inert mass yet in motion even at the briefest fraction of a second of the pre Big Bang singularity. This is rationally commonsensical since otherwise the Big would not have Banged, the superposition of mass and energy would not have been resolved.
The universe originates, derives and evolves from this energy-mass dualism which is possible and probable due to the small size of the gravitons.
Since gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass and energy is mass in motion, gravity is the force exerted between mass formats.
All the matter of the universe is a progeny of the gravitons evolutions, of the natural selection of mass, of some of the mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion set in motion by the Big Bang.
 
B. Earth Life
 
Earth Life is just another mass format. A self-replicating mass format. Self-replication is its mode of evolution, natural selection. Its smallest base primal units are the RNAs genes.
The genesis of RNAs genes, life’s primal organisms, is rationally commonsensical thus highly probable, the “naturally-selectedâ€쳌 RNA nucleotides. Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection, self-replication.
 
C. Know Thyself. Life Is Simpler Than We Are Told
 
The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth.
As Life is just another mass format, due to the oneness of the universe it is commonsensical that natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass formats and that life, self-replication, is its extension. And it is commonsensical, too, that evolutions, broken symmetry scenarios, are ubiquitous in all processes in all disciplines and that these evolutions are the “quantum mechanicsâ€쳌 of the processes.
 
Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organisms.
 
Life’s evolution, self-replication:
 
Genes (organisms) to genomes (organisms) to mono-cellular to multicellular organisms:
 
Individual mono-cells to cooperative mono-cells communities, “culturesâ€쳌.
Mono-cells cultures to neural systems, then to nerved multicellular organisms.
 
Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base Earth organism.
It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.
 
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
An Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything
http://universe-life.com/2011/...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 16, 2012

Funding isn't the core issue. We have in the US at least two issues to address, one is economic and the other is organizational. On the economic side, the US relied on a continual inflow of young foreign nationals to fills the place of drop-out scientists. We have known for centuries that burn, till and sow is not a long term strategy for crops but somehow magically we think that what doesn't work with trees and grass works with human lives and careers. We need a sustainable economy of research where researchers are able to foster and nurture a love for science around them.

The organizational problem is related, some major research institutions are still embracing a cold war mentality where all those PhDs need to be corralled as if they  were communists. The response is to build structures were 51% of the workforce is management whose only role is to keep scientists in toes in a seemingly free market of short term contracts. The problem is that if a free market without an open flow of communication is essentially a feudal system which again we have known for century isn't any good for innovation.

Avatar of: Dov

Dov

Posts: 1457

March 16, 2012

Higgs Particle?  Dark Energy/Matter? Epigenetics?
YOK!
Update Concepts-Comprehension…
http://universe-life.com/2011/...
 
Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Natural Selection.
The quantum mechanics of every process is its evolution.
Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, possible or probable or actual mechanisms of natural selection.
 
=================
Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation
http://universe-life.com/2012/...
 
A. The Universe
 
From the Big-Bang it is a rationally commonsensical conjecture that the gravitons, the smallest base primal particles of the universe, must be both mass and energy, i.e. inert mass yet in motion even at the briefest fraction of a second of the pre Big Bang singularity. This is rationally commonsensical since otherwise the Big would not have Banged, the superposition of mass and energy would not have been resolved.
The universe originates, derives and evolves from this energy-mass dualism which is possible and probable due to the small size of the gravitons.
Since gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass and energy is mass in motion, gravity is the force exerted between mass formats.
All the matter of the universe is a progeny of the gravitons evolutions, of the natural selection of mass, of some of the mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion set in motion by the Big Bang.
 
B. Earth Life
 
Earth Life is just another mass format. A self-replicating mass format. Self-replication is its mode of evolution, natural selection. Its smallest base primal units are the RNAs genes.
The genesis of RNAs genes, life’s primal organisms, is rationally commonsensical thus highly probable, the “naturally-selectedâ€쳌 RNA nucleotides. Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection, self-replication.
 
C. Know Thyself. Life Is Simpler Than We Are Told
 
The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth.
As Life is just another mass format, due to the oneness of the universe it is commonsensical that natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass formats and that life, self-replication, is its extension. And it is commonsensical, too, that evolutions, broken symmetry scenarios, are ubiquitous in all processes in all disciplines and that these evolutions are the “quantum mechanicsâ€쳌 of the processes.
 
Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organisms.
 
Life’s evolution, self-replication:
 
Genes (organisms) to genomes (organisms) to mono-cellular to multicellular organisms:
 
Individual mono-cells to cooperative mono-cells communities, “culturesâ€쳌.
Mono-cells cultures to neural systems, then to nerved multicellular organisms.
 
Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base Earth organism.
It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.
 
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
An Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything
http://universe-life.com/2011/...

Avatar of: Joel Malard

Joel Malard

Posts: 1

March 16, 2012

Funding isn't the core issue. We have in the US at least two issues to address, one is economic and the other is organizational. On the economic side, the US relied on a continual inflow of young foreign nationals to fills the place of drop-out scientists. We have known for centuries that burn, till and sow is not a long term strategy for crops but somehow magically we think that what doesn't work with trees and grass works with human lives and careers. We need a sustainable economy of research where researchers are able to foster and nurture a love for science around them.

The organizational problem is related, some major research institutions are still embracing a cold war mentality where all those PhDs need to be corralled as if they  were communists. The response is to build structures were 51% of the workforce is management whose only role is to keep scientists in toes in a seemingly free market of short term contracts. The problem is that if a free market without an open flow of communication is essentially a feudal system which again we have known for century isn't any good for innovation.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 20, 2012

I'm confused by the apparent animosity toward translational research. Isn't the point of most publicly-funded bioscience bedside and preventive care?

It seems to me that science that yields ready benefits to consumers is likely to easily find financial support. The technological revolution occurring right now seems to be a case in point. Intel, Microsoft, Apple ... R&D in the private sphere seems to be producing significant advancement without government directing what is and isn't funded and what directions the science ought to be moving in.

I still don't understand why anyone cares whether the scientist who discovers a cure for cancer is an American or an Indian. We all reap the benefits of discoveries made anywhere.

Avatar of: Rick Bogle

Rick Bogle

Posts: 1457

March 20, 2012

I'm confused by the apparent animosity toward translational research. Isn't the point of most publicly-funded bioscience bedside and preventive care?

It seems to me that science that yields ready benefits to consumers is likely to easily find financial support. The technological revolution occurring right now seems to be a case in point. Intel, Microsoft, Apple ... R&D in the private sphere seems to be producing significant advancement without government directing what is and isn't funded and what directions the science ought to be moving in.

I still don't understand why anyone cares whether the scientist who discovers a cure for cancer is an American or an Indian. We all reap the benefits of discoveries made anywhere.

Avatar of: dovhenis

dovhenis

Posts: 97

April 19, 2012

21st Century Science, Whence And Whither…
 
Imagine, just imagine, the interest and activity big bang in science if/when finally freed from AAAS stock !!!
Science is not another, AAAS trade-union peer-reviewed, religion. It takes continuously  critical refreshed thinking....
 
Whence And Whither
 
 
I.             Extend Darwin-Einstein Horizons, EmD
 
EmD versus Emc
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
E = mc2 relates E and m via constant c.
However, since E and c are constant m must also be constant, m representing both inert and moving mass…
Yet for engineering-technology applications the equation is practical,  fine.
 
E=Total[m(1 + D)]  relates E and m via the variable D. D is the sum total of distance, in ALL spatial directions,  travelled by m since start of reconversion of m to E.
This relationship is science, not engineering or technology. E is constant, m and D are variables. D cannot be less than zero, and m varies with D. This is universal reality. In this reality there is no missing E.  E is there, transformed to mD.  mD is E. In this reality there is no missing m.  m is there, transformed to mD. mD is E.
 
Think about it. This is the basis-essence of Evolution, of ALL evolutions. Evolutions are the quantum mechanics of all processes.
 
 
II.          “how species come to be…â€쳌
 
http://www.sciencenews.org/ind...
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
 
What drives “species come to beâ€쳌 is what drives all life/organisms to come to be,  i.e.  a proven successful route, circumstantially evolved culture, that enhanced the RNAs’ constrained energy by the culturally effected enhanced  RNAs’ proliferation, with accordingly alternatively spliced expression.
 
This is evolution, i.e. enhanced constrained energy to delay-postpone the universal conversion of mass-formats to energy, to the energy that keeps fueling the expansion of the universe. This expansion will be overcome by gravity upon depletion of the universe’s massfuel, and will be followed by empansion for accelerating reverting of energy to mass, all the way back to singularity. The universe is an allmass - allenergy poles affair.
 
Thus re human-chimp genome diversity:
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
 
- It's culture that modifies genetics, that changes gene's expression.  NOT vice versa.
- Epigenetics YOK. Alternative splicing is epiDNAtic, not epigenetic.
- ALL life is RNAs evolution products. RNAs are Earth's primal organisms.
 
 
III.                Update Comprehension Of Universe/Life Evolution, Of RNA/DNA Mismatch-Relationship
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
 
Genomes are ORGANISMS evolved by-for RNAs’ natural selection, like all Earth organisms:
 
THE National Science And Technology Policy ISSUE In The USA (And Consequently Elsewhere...):
 
The early 20th century brief burst of scientific evolution started expiring circa 90 years ago, at the birth of the "scientists"  trade-union AAAS.  True to the AAAS trade-union interests the scientific evolution has grown into the technology-industrial evolution, with an evolving counter-enlightenment greed culture.
 
Re Science Education, it's about WHAT, not about HOW, is taught. "Scientists’" trade union politically controlled "science" cannot be advanced, updated, regardless of education system.
 
Unravel Some Of Nature's Complexities A + B + C, (listed adnauseam, ad shown where these data-based statements are wrong)
 
A.
 
UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS. Extend Evolution - Natural Selection Backwards To Genes – Genomes. BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.
And, again, Correct Some Figments Of Science Imagination:
 
1. Dark energy and matter YOK. Per  E=Total[m(1 + D)]  all the energy and matter of the universe are accounted for.
Adopt space - massdistance concept, mass-to-energy reconversion. 
 
2. Higgs Particle YOK. Mass forms below some value of the above D.
 
3. Galactic clusters formed by conglomeration?
Galactic clusters formed by Big-Bang's dispersion, evidenced by their Newtonian behaviour including expansion acceleration.
 
4. The universe expansion is fueled by the mass-to-energy constant rate reconversion. Eventually, as expansion will slow down, will run out of massfuel, gravity will overcome expansion and initiate empansion back to singularity. The universe is a cyclic array of energy-mass dualism, between nearly all-energy and all-mass poles, under omnipresent gravity. Gravity is the monotheism and re-genesis of the universe.
 
5. Natural Selection is a trait of organisms, life?
No. Natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass formats, all spin arrays. It derives from the expansion of the universe. All mass formats, regardless of size and type, from black holes to the smallest base universe particles, strive to increase their constrained energy in attempt to postpone their own reconversion to energy, to the energy that fuels cosmic expansion.
 
6. Life is an enigma?
Life is just another type of mass array, a self-replicating mass array. Earth life is a replicating RNAs mass. It has always been and still is an RNA world. ALL Earth's organisms are evolved RNAs, evolved for maintaining-enhancing Earth's biosphere, for prolonging RNAs survival.
 
7. Cells are Earth-life's primal organisms?
NO. Earth's life day one was the day on which RNA began replicating. RNAs, genes, are ORGANISMS. And so are their evolved templates, (RNA and DNA) genomes, ORGANISMS, as evidenced by life's chirality and by life's sleep.
 
8. Circadian Schmircadian sleep origin?
Sleep is inherent for life since the RNAs, the primal Earth ORGANISMS originated and were originally active ONLY under direct sunlight, in their pre-bio-metabolism genesis era.
 
9. Epigenetics are heritable gene functions changes not involving changes in DNA sequence?
NO. The "heritable or enduring changes" are epiDNAtics, not epigenetics. Alternative splicing is not epigenetics, even if/when not involving alteration of the DNA sequence. Earth life is an RNA world.
 
10.Genetics drive biology and culture modifications?
NO. It is culture that modifies genetics, not genetics that modifies culture. Culture modifies genetics simply via the evolutionary natural selection process of the RNA ORGANISMS. Likewise many natural genetic changes are due to aging and/or circumstantial effects on the genes and/or genomes ORGANISMS, similar to aging and/or evolutionary processes in monocell communities or in multicelled organisms.
 
SCIENCE SHOULD UNFREEZE. SCIENCE SHOULD ADJUST ITS VISION, COMPREHENSION AND CONCEPTS.
 
Seed of Human-Chimp Genomes Diversity
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
03.2010 Updated Life Manifest
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
Evolution, Natural Selection, Derive From Cosmic Expansion
http://darwiniana.com/2010/09/...
Rethink Evolution/Natural Selection
http://darwiniana.com/2011/03/...
 
B.
 
Quantum Mechanics Of Life
Life's Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Biology
http://universe-life.com/2011/...
http://universe-life.com/2011/...
 
The universe, and life within it, are not just conglomerations of mechanisms. The universe, and life within it, have come into being by the nature of energy-mass dualism, and their fate, their final outcome, is governed by this dualism. The genesis and, most probable cyclic, existence of the universe are governed by the energy-mass relationship.
 
Energy-mass relationship governs also the routes, the mechanisms, of cosmic and life evolutions.
 
Mechanisms do not set - determine the classical physics fate states. Mechanisms are routes of evolution between classical physics fate states. Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, probable, possible and actual mechanisms of getting from one to other classical physics states WITHIN the expanse from cosmic singularity to the maximum expanded universe and back to singularity states.
 
The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics. This is the fractal oneness of the universe. Astronomically there are two physics. A classical Newtonian physics behavior of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behavior WITHIN the galactic clusters.
 
Life's Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Biology.
UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS. Extend Evolution - Natural Selection Backward To Genes - Genomes. BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.
 
The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth. Human life is just one of many nature's routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organism.
 
It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.
 
Inception And Prevalence Of Western Monotheism
http://darwiniana.com/2011/04/...
 
C.
 
Adaptation And Genetics
Identify USA Science Problems
Enough Is Enough!
 
Concluding phrase of "A New Evolutionary History of Primates"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
 
"genetic underpinnings of human adaptation"
 
This phrase displays basic ignorance of the relationship between genetics and physiology - system adaptation.
It should be replaced with "adaptation underpinnings of human genetics".
 
UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS. Extend Evolution - Natural Selection Backwards To Genes – Genomes. BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.
 
IT IS ADAPTATION, CULTURE, THAT INDUCES GENES' EXPRESSION MODIFICATION, NOT GENETICS THAT INDUCES ADAPTATION. Modified genetic expression proceeds to energetically favor - enable adaptation.
 
 
Dov Henis
(comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/2011/...
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
http://universe-life.com/2006/...
 
PS: How have the USA government and nation/public come to allow a plainly obvious ("scientists", whatever it means) trade-union, AAAS, to be involved in a host of national policies and budgets matters? The motives/interests of the AAAS, just another trade-union, are NOT always/necessarily congruent with the nation's/public welfare and it definitely hinders very effectively advancement of basic science...DH

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

April 19, 2012

21st Century Science, Whence And Whither…
 
Imagine, just imagine, the interest and activity big bang in science if/when finally freed from AAAS stock !!!
Science is not another, AAAS trade-union peer-reviewed, religion. It takes continuously  critical refreshed thinking....
 
Whence And Whither
 
 
I.             Extend Darwin-Einstein Horizons, EmD
 
EmD versus Emc
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
E = mc2 relates E and m via constant c.
However, since E and c are constant m must also be constant, m representing both inert and moving mass…
Yet for engineering-technology applications the equation is practical,  fine.
 
E=Total[m(1 + D)]  relates E and m via the variable D. D is the sum total of distance, in ALL spatial directions,  travelled by m since start of reconversion of m to E.
This relationship is science, not engineering or technology. E is constant, m and D are variables. D cannot be less than zero, and m varies with D. This is universal reality. In this reality there is no missing E.  E is there, transformed to mD.  mD is E. In this reality there is no missing m.  m is there, transformed to mD. mD is E.
 
Think about it. This is the basis-essence of Evolution, of ALL evolutions. Evolutions are the quantum mechanics of all processes.
 
 
II.          “how species come to be…â€쳌
 
http://www.sciencenews.org/ind...
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
 
What drives “species come to beâ€쳌 is what drives all life/organisms to come to be,  i.e.  a proven successful route, circumstantially evolved culture, that enhanced the RNAs’ constrained energy by the culturally effected enhanced  RNAs’ proliferation, with accordingly alternatively spliced expression.
 
This is evolution, i.e. enhanced constrained energy to delay-postpone the universal conversion of mass-formats to energy, to the energy that keeps fueling the expansion of the universe. This expansion will be overcome by gravity upon depletion of the universe’s massfuel, and will be followed by empansion for accelerating reverting of energy to mass, all the way back to singularity. The universe is an allmass - allenergy poles affair.
 
Thus re human-chimp genome diversity:
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
 
- It's culture that modifies genetics, that changes gene's expression.  NOT vice versa.
- Epigenetics YOK. Alternative splicing is epiDNAtic, not epigenetic.
- ALL life is RNAs evolution products. RNAs are Earth's primal organisms.
 
 
III.                Update Comprehension Of Universe/Life Evolution, Of RNA/DNA Mismatch-Relationship
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
 
Genomes are ORGANISMS evolved by-for RNAs’ natural selection, like all Earth organisms:
 
THE National Science And Technology Policy ISSUE In The USA (And Consequently Elsewhere...):
 
The early 20th century brief burst of scientific evolution started expiring circa 90 years ago, at the birth of the "scientists"  trade-union AAAS.  True to the AAAS trade-union interests the scientific evolution has grown into the technology-industrial evolution, with an evolving counter-enlightenment greed culture.
 
Re Science Education, it's about WHAT, not about HOW, is taught. "Scientists’" trade union politically controlled "science" cannot be advanced, updated, regardless of education system.
 
Unravel Some Of Nature's Complexities A + B + C, (listed adnauseam, ad shown where these data-based statements are wrong)
 
A.
 
UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS. Extend Evolution - Natural Selection Backwards To Genes – Genomes. BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.
And, again, Correct Some Figments Of Science Imagination:
 
1. Dark energy and matter YOK. Per  E=Total[m(1 + D)]  all the energy and matter of the universe are accounted for.
Adopt space - massdistance concept, mass-to-energy reconversion. 
 
2. Higgs Particle YOK. Mass forms below some value of the above D.
 
3. Galactic clusters formed by conglomeration?
Galactic clusters formed by Big-Bang's dispersion, evidenced by their Newtonian behaviour including expansion acceleration.
 
4. The universe expansion is fueled by the mass-to-energy constant rate reconversion. Eventually, as expansion will slow down, will run out of massfuel, gravity will overcome expansion and initiate empansion back to singularity. The universe is a cyclic array of energy-mass dualism, between nearly all-energy and all-mass poles, under omnipresent gravity. Gravity is the monotheism and re-genesis of the universe.
 
5. Natural Selection is a trait of organisms, life?
No. Natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass formats, all spin arrays. It derives from the expansion of the universe. All mass formats, regardless of size and type, from black holes to the smallest base universe particles, strive to increase their constrained energy in attempt to postpone their own reconversion to energy, to the energy that fuels cosmic expansion.
 
6. Life is an enigma?
Life is just another type of mass array, a self-replicating mass array. Earth life is a replicating RNAs mass. It has always been and still is an RNA world. ALL Earth's organisms are evolved RNAs, evolved for maintaining-enhancing Earth's biosphere, for prolonging RNAs survival.
 
7. Cells are Earth-life's primal organisms?
NO. Earth's life day one was the day on which RNA began replicating. RNAs, genes, are ORGANISMS. And so are their evolved templates, (RNA and DNA) genomes, ORGANISMS, as evidenced by life's chirality and by life's sleep.
 
8. Circadian Schmircadian sleep origin?
Sleep is inherent for life since the RNAs, the primal Earth ORGANISMS originated and were originally active ONLY under direct sunlight, in their pre-bio-metabolism genesis era.
 
9. Epigenetics are heritable gene functions changes not involving changes in DNA sequence?
NO. The "heritable or enduring changes" are epiDNAtics, not epigenetics. Alternative splicing is not epigenetics, even if/when not involving alteration of the DNA sequence. Earth life is an RNA world.
 
10.Genetics drive biology and culture modifications?
NO. It is culture that modifies genetics, not genetics that modifies culture. Culture modifies genetics simply via the evolutionary natural selection process of the RNA ORGANISMS. Likewise many natural genetic changes are due to aging and/or circumstantial effects on the genes and/or genomes ORGANISMS, similar to aging and/or evolutionary processes in monocell communities or in multicelled organisms.
 
SCIENCE SHOULD UNFREEZE. SCIENCE SHOULD ADJUST ITS VISION, COMPREHENSION AND CONCEPTS.
 
Seed of Human-Chimp Genomes Diversity
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
03.2010 Updated Life Manifest
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
Evolution, Natural Selection, Derive From Cosmic Expansion
http://darwiniana.com/2010/09/...
Rethink Evolution/Natural Selection
http://darwiniana.com/2011/03/...
 
B.
 
Quantum Mechanics Of Life
Life's Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Biology
http://universe-life.com/2011/...
http://universe-life.com/2011/...
 
The universe, and life within it, are not just conglomerations of mechanisms. The universe, and life within it, have come into being by the nature of energy-mass dualism, and their fate, their final outcome, is governed by this dualism. The genesis and, most probable cyclic, existence of the universe are governed by the energy-mass relationship.
 
Energy-mass relationship governs also the routes, the mechanisms, of cosmic and life evolutions.
 
Mechanisms do not set - determine the classical physics fate states. Mechanisms are routes of evolution between classical physics fate states. Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, probable, possible and actual mechanisms of getting from one to other classical physics states WITHIN the expanse from cosmic singularity to the maximum expanded universe and back to singularity states.
 
The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics. This is the fractal oneness of the universe. Astronomically there are two physics. A classical Newtonian physics behavior of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behavior WITHIN the galactic clusters.
 
Life's Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Biology.
UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS. Extend Evolution - Natural Selection Backward To Genes - Genomes. BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.
 
The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth. Human life is just one of many nature's routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organism.
 
It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.
 
Inception And Prevalence Of Western Monotheism
http://darwiniana.com/2011/04/...
 
C.
 
Adaptation And Genetics
Identify USA Science Problems
Enough Is Enough!
 
Concluding phrase of "A New Evolutionary History of Primates"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
 
"genetic underpinnings of human adaptation"
 
This phrase displays basic ignorance of the relationship between genetics and physiology - system adaptation.
It should be replaced with "adaptation underpinnings of human genetics".
 
UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS. Extend Evolution - Natural Selection Backwards To Genes – Genomes. BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.
 
IT IS ADAPTATION, CULTURE, THAT INDUCES GENES' EXPRESSION MODIFICATION, NOT GENETICS THAT INDUCES ADAPTATION. Modified genetic expression proceeds to energetically favor - enable adaptation.
 
 
Dov Henis
(comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/2011/...
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/...
http://universe-life.com/2006/...
 
PS: How have the USA government and nation/public come to allow a plainly obvious ("scientists", whatever it means) trade-union, AAAS, to be involved in a host of national policies and budgets matters? The motives/interests of the AAAS, just another trade-union, are NOT always/necessarily congruent with the nation's/public welfare and it definitely hinders very effectively advancement of basic science...DH

Follow The Scientist

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

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
Life Technologies