Rick- You stated, "Just because research is done with fruit flies does not make it worthy of funding (especially if the research is into the eradication of the fruit fly)." But I think the objection, at least mine, to Palin's comments was the "straw-man" she created which did in it's original context paint with a broad brush (i.e., that because some/one earmarks were frivolous that at least most must be).
And while it is true that just because research is done on fruit flies doesn't make it worthy, it doesn't mean that the research on eradication is frivolous or unimportant either. Could you enlighten us as to what the damage done by the fruit fly to crops is and/or why they might be interested in eradicating it? Then folks could decide whether such research were wasteful. (Seriously, I don't know but I can't decide whether I think something is wasteful or not with out such facts). Thanks. Tim _______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology The College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker -----Original Message----- From: Rick Froman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 10/26/2008 10:53 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE: [tips] Sarah Palin on genetics research Wow, that was a lot of response to something you don't understand. Whatever agricultural research is being done with the fruit fly in France, it is totally irrelevant to the mass of responses cited by Stephen Black that all point to the important scientific advances in genetics, autism and other areas by studying the lowly fruit fly. Just because research is done with fruit flies does not make it worthy of funding (especially if the research is into the eradication of the fruit fly). Certainly the argument from Ronald Fisher's work could be used to advance any research agenda. In which case, how do we prioritize what should be funded by the government and what should be funded by the private agribusiness industry? For example, how much pharmaceutical research should be funded by the profits of the drug industry and how much should be supported by government funding? Should funding be decided by where the company is and how much clout the congressman has to bring home the bacon? As to aplysia, I was making that analogy, probably not clearly stated that, if aplysia were to be found to be objectionable to the fishing industry, would their use in psychological research be used as a reason to fund research into their eradication? There may be good reasons for the research but support for it would not logically be connected to its use in psychological research. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________ From: Mike Palij [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:57 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: RE: [tips] Sarah Palin on genetics research I admit to not completely understanding the points made by Rick below, so there are a few issues that I'd like clarified: [snip] Perhaps I have serious misunderstood the points you're trying to make but I have had a hard time trying to make sense of them. -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
<<winmail.dat>>
