Thats why Obama's "google for government" bill is such a great idea. Right now there is absolutely no transparency and we have a right to know how and where tax money is being spent, how much is "unaccounted for", etc... I'd wager that the public would be a hell of a lot angrier to know how much money goes to people and companies that have an inside relationship with Washington or congresspeople, or to projects like the much-cited bridge to nowhere, than money going to scientific research, no matter what the research is on. Does anyone actually believe that science is what's driving up the national debt? Maybe some people do and that's why a website to trace federal spending is a good idea.
I think the government google bill was passed, so hopefully someday soon it will be a useful website and provide some real information to anyone who is interested. -Ruth On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Christopher J Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Costs have to be attached to any gov funded research because we spend > taxpayers' money to conduct the research for the benefit of the taxpayer. > Ask any Congressman. > > As a consumer, I like to know that every dime I spend in a grocery store > buys me the product I want at a price I think is reasonable. As a > taxpayer, I want the same for the dollars I pay into the government tax > system. > > If we cannot succinctly justify the burden we place on the taxpayer, for > whatever product, then the taxpayer will justifiably be suspicious of what > we do. > > Contempt for the taxpayer is not going to win any arguments. It will just > gain kudos from the echo chamber. > > Your target audience for justification of spending tax dollars for > research is not academia. It is the NASCAR audience. That's who > Congressmen talk to when they run for election. > > ---chris > > > > > > > > Jason L Kindall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" > <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > 10/29/2008 08:25 AM > Please respond to > Jason L Kindall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > cc > > Subject > Re: [ECOLOG-L] Palin laughs at fruit fly research > > > > > > > Why chain ourselves to economic importance of a species as a barometer > on whether we should conserve it? Granted, economic importance is a > good boost for conservation of some species. However, it sure isn't the > only reason to conserve something. > > Jason > > Paul Cherubini wrote: > > Jason L Kindall wrote: > > > >> Viewed alone, it might be pretty hard to justify > >> research on fruit flies to the average Joe (plumber > >> or six-pack). Connect it with autism or human health > >> and then it becomes more palatable to the public. > > > > Perhaps Sarah Palin and the average Joe's are refering > > to the big research grants that are awarded for seemingly > > frivolous projects like the one below dealing with the health > > of an economically unimportant, but charasmatic insect: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2d6r9f > > $679,492 Grant to assist professor's study of butterflies > > > > Altizer received the National Science Foundation Faculty > > Early Development Career award to study migration and > > infectious disease patterns in Monarch butterflies. > > > > Altizer hopes her research will help with conservation. She > > wants to know how migration keeps Monarchs healthy. > > "People tend to love Monarchs to death," Altizer said. > > Keeping humans from disrupting the butterflies' migration > > will help keep them healthy. > > > > Paul Cherubini > > El Dorado, Calif. > > -- > Jason L. Kindall > Education & Research Director > Ozark Natural Science Center > 1905 Madison 1305 > Huntsville, AR 72740 > Ph: 479-789-2754 > Fax: 479-789-2728 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.onsc.us >
