Does it matter that the research she referred to was not basic research using fruit flies as a model but agricultural industry research trying to determine how to kill fruit flies? And that funding for research that goes through the peer review process through NIH or other science agencies doesn't end up in the list of earmarks sponsored by specific congresspersons to benefit their own constituents? I think the Aplysia has taught us many great things about habituation and desensitization but that doesn't mean I think my congressman should give the fishing industry money to eradicate them.
Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 3:19 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Sarah Palin on genetics research "Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? [...] You´ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don´t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not. " But see http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/palin-fruit-flies/ and also http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/sarah_palin_ignorant_and_antis. php ( or http://tinyurl.com/5lowwr ) No word on what she thinks about research in psychology. Stephen --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
