Rick That's true. I do think that it wasn't terribly out of line for anyone to take what she said as dismissive of research in general and specifically of that funded by earmarks. On the whole she seemed to be saying that. She also implied that the only increased spending a McCain-Palin administration would lead to is on education for children with special needs and she specifically mentioned autism (although this did seem to contradict something her running mate has said repeatedly). Thus, many inferred the connection she seemed to make however deniable it may have been since its original presentation. Either she meant to say that or she spoke rather poorly/ambiguously and, having heard the entire original, I tend to think it was reasonable to perceive the dismissive tone.
What is troubling to those conducting basic science, I think, is that we could be electing any administration that was both uninformed and equally certain they know what is and isn't good science. On the other hand, given the fiscal realities and the almost certainty of a Democratically dominated House and Senate, I really wonder how much meaning such statements have beyond the usual pandering we witness among most/all politicians a week before an election- unless she does have some secret plan to control the Senate. . . . ;) 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 6:39 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE: [tips] Sarah Palin on genetics research Good point and jumping to conclusions on either side doesn't really reflect the scientific mindset. Research should be evaluated on its own merits not just because it involves fruit flies or it is criticized by someone whom we believe to be anti-science. My problem with the original statement was the assumption on the sites that Stephen linked that since fruit flies have been used to isolate issues relative to autism that the research cited by Palin must be valuable. Maybe so, maybe not but the fact that research uses fruit flies and fruit flies have been used to make important breakthroughs, isn't really a valid argument. I know that the irony may have seemed irresistible but I think that the reality may not fit the story so well. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
<<winmail.dat>>
