McCain twitters against science

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is continuing to speak out against what he sees as frivolous and costly science (remember his campaign comments deriding grizzly bear research?), and now he's airing his gripes via Twitter.

The social networking craze has gripped Capitol Hill in recent weeks, and even McCain, who admitted to his own technological shortcomings during the presidential campaign, is tweeting away.

Recently McCain has been posting his "TOP TEN PORKIEST PROJECTS in the Omnibus Spending bill," and today the Senator mentions several research projects.

Research funding that finds itself in McCain's twittering sites today include:

"$209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in GA"

"$819, 000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama"

"$900,000 for fish management - how does one manage a fish"

Older McCain tweets include:

"$1,427,250 for genetic improvements of switchgrass - I thought switchgrass genes were pretty good already, guess I was wrong."

"$250,000 to enhance research on Ice Seal populations"

"$2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York - quick peel me a grape."

"$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi"

What do you think about the Senator's tweets?

Bob Grant, Associate Editor -- The Scientist

Aside from the ice seal research, all of these projects seem to be firmly rooted in improving economic industry management practices...
...it seems quite odd that conservatives would be against such sort of research, being all pro-industry, employment and economic growth, generally.

It's sometimes hard to work out whether Republicans are just saying it's wrong because the other guys are doing it, or if they really think investing in R&D to improve industry is just not worthwhile.

The worst part is statements like "how does one manage a fish" which show a grossignorance of basic practices and applications in these industries. Even before the advent of google and wikipedia such a statement should not have escaped some ridicule and scorn if spoken by someone who just last year thought he could run a country.

Is John McCain really that out of touch with how modern industry operates? Or, a more sinister explanation, is the Republican party trying to spread and embrace ignorance as a way of life?

I wonder how much of the spending he is all atwitter about will go to university researchers versus industry?

Tia Ghose, Editorial Intern
The Scientist

It is all about the ROI John.

Yes, John McCain is that out of touch. He's gone senile, but retains his aggressive character. Pity.

And I have friends who still wonder why so many scientists voted for Obama. What type of research would McCain like to have funded as apparent agriculture based ones are out.

I think a lot of this is political posturing. If this were a Republican bill these would not be considered pork.

I remember the days of the "Golden Fleece Awards." Almost all of the identified grants were peer-reviewed and made sense when explained in more than a sound bite.

This seems like a case of someone ridiculing what they don't understand. I'm surprised that a national public figure would be willing to openly demonstrate that they have a really poor grasp of the simplest forms of scientific writing.

This unfortunatly is less about the projects themselves, but more about John McCain wanting to still feel relevant even in the face of defeat. All of the projects mentioned are actually good, sound, agriculture research which will probably benefit our farmers, ironically a traditional republican base. Go away and enjoy a retirement John.....

So many criticisms and calling the senator names but how about addressing what he is twittering about - is it valid spending for these projects at a time like this

And McCain seems to understand agricultural research and economies about as good as Proxmire, Mr. Golden Fleece. The similarities between the two may be attributable to their knowledge about a diverse agriculture. After all one came out of the desert and the other out of the dust bowl. If you think banks losing money is bad, wait till you see what happens if there isn't enough food.

The human population is increasing rapidly and resources are becoming scarce. How dare McCain or anybody else mock the importance of research on agricalture or animals in the brink of extinction!!!! We still all of us want to have enough food on our table and wild animals to watch on our TVs.

Funny.

No mention of the $60 million Arizona gets to fund science and research.

A good portion of Arizona's science funding goes to Geology research.

So now I'm going to roleplay as John McCain, "how do rocks stimulate the economy?"

JANSON35703 wrote:So many criticisms and calling the senator names but how about addressing what he is twittering about - is it valid spending for these projects at a time like this

John, you are perfectly correct... we need to address the issues. The U.S. has been underfunding (one could almost say "de-investing") agricultural research for so long that issues like food security are rising to the top in the National Academies. I'm not saying that these weren't added to the stim package as set-asides (Congress, whether Republican or Democrat controlled, always believes it has the right to select things that need researched for the benefit for their own regions) or that they are the best areas to support at this time, but that doesn't make them something to ridicule.

The projects all seem like valid, useful scientific inquiry. But rather than writing them straight into the national budget, shouldn't all those projects be funded through traditional granting agencies? The fact that McCain is so ignorant about these projects just highlights how weird it is that he's one of the people in charge of deciding if it's a worthy project to fund.

Tia Ghose, Editorial Intern
The Scientist

I guess the big question would be: does this type of research really do anything to help advance agriculture. Take the case of bovine growth hormone which would increase the amount of milk one could get from a single cow, making dairy farms more profitable and produce less greenhouse gas as they require less cattle to produce the same amount of milk. Because it is the result "genetic engineering" no one will drink it....

I think I can explain to Mr. McCain how to Manage a Fish. First you put it in a Scleral Coil so you can watch which way it is looking. Then you guide it to the side of the fish bowl so it can watch how much you are spending on the Scleral Coil.

Most of these responses represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on here and of the nature of conservatism in general. McCain and conservatives oppose these things not because they oppose research, but because this is not the role of government.

Industry and free enterprise are free to fund these projects and most other research they wish to pursue, but the taxpayer should not have to shoulder the burden. If these things are that important, then sell the ideas and find people willing to invest.

Conservatives would make the same point with regard to public radio and television. The fact that they oppose government funding of these institutions does not mean they are opposed to classical music, etc. Of course you are free to disagree with this position, but don't represent opposition to government funding as opposition to that for which funding is being sought.

That's all well and good philosophically, Terry, but McCain was making fun of the research projects. What does that have to do with conservatism?

First, I am truly thankful that in this time of a complex economic crisis that the team of McCain-Palin was not elected. The lack of vision and understanding is staggering and makes me wonder about the future of this nation given that so many voted for them.

Second, to the person who asked if these projects would be better off funded by the traditional granting agencies, I doubt it. Most granting agencies want only to spend narrowly focused basic research that represents just the next step forward. Anything innovative or practical tends to be weeded out.

Most of the projects seem to be closely related to national priorities or economic development. Blueberries are big business in northern Georgia. Aquaculture is a huge business in Alabama, and Auburn University has one of the best programs, anywhere. It's closely tied in with the farmers of the state and for decades has brought scientific advances in agriculture into the field. As for switchgrass, this is supposedly the great hope for biofuels, and being able to introduce genes that might make cellulosic conversion to ethanol easier could have enormous economic impact. I would not be surprised if each of those research dollars did not end up yielding ten a decade hence.

Terry,
We do pay for our own R & D and you are one of many who is fortunate enough to benefit from our successes. My comment which is directed at Mr. McCain is only to point out what appears to be a smart-allecky answer to something to which he has given little thought. Obviously my answer was equally as sassy.