Keith Nagel wrote:
Frank writes:
You wrote "I asked Mel Miles whether he thinks it is over the top." Goodness me! You sound like Ned Flanders. All credit to Mel Miles for his gutsey reply. Why on earth did it depress you.
I can't answer for Ed or Jed, but it depresses me because it's a sign of desperation and failure. Fear is a good motivator for destroying things; the techniques and methods you describe are generally used for destructive purposes. For example, if we wished to _stop_ CF research fear would be a good way to go about it.
Granted this is a sign of failure. However, we are not using fear, only embarrassment, at least with respect to the DOE. The population needs to realize the advantages of CF. The fear only comes if the advantages are ignored, in the same manner death comes if the advantages of medicine are ignored.
But we're trying to _create_ something here. And therein lies the rub. If you're looking to engage the emotions, the relevant one here is seduction, not fear. Think Clinton, not Bush. Needless to say, if you think scientists are bad at the fear game, their general ineptitude at seduction is legendary (grin). But you can't frighten people into the new, they must be seduced there.
Tell me Keith, how does one go about seducing the DOE? My experience with the government is that it is immune to seduction. It can be bought, it can be threatened by popular pressure, or it can be embarrassed. Otherwise, it does what current attitudes dictate.
By the way, what's so horrible about China?
If China gets CF before we do, we are toast. Also, China is not a pleasant place to work, being very polluted.
Regards, Ed
K.
