“Centrists” to fuck National Science Foundation

A number of people who comment and post at this blog — including Tim and me — are scientists, so this may be of some interest to some of you:

Among the initiatives that could be cut are $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $14 million for cyber security research by the Homeland Security Department, $1 billion for the National Science Foundation, $400 million for research and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, $850 million for Amtrak and $400 million for climate change research. But so far, none of the suggestions come close to being enough to shrink the package on the scale proposed.






123 replies
  1. 1
    Punchy says:

    Wow. Almost every single one of those were "targeted" by the GOP. If Dems could crater any more, they’d be a mile underground.

  2. 2
    Louise says:

    After eight years of getting fucked over by the Bush Administration, you’d think the science community would get a break. This really pisses me off, especially because I just heard from a friend whose grant for lung cell research is not going to be renewed (she missed the scoring target by .2).

    I can see things in this bill that are not job-creation-related, but the NSF? C’mon!

    Fuckity fuck-fuck the fuckers.

    +0 but seriously considering an increase.

  3. 3
    dr. bloor says:

    The ass-hattery makes me as crazy as anyone, but most of that spending will just get tucked into other bills that the Goopers won’t feel as compelled to grandstand over.

  4. 4
    Svensker says:

    NSF? They want to cut that? Yup, research in science is really a big waste of money, ain’t it?

    Cut Amtrak funding? Have any of these clowns ever traveled in Europe on the train system there? Efficient, clean, comfortable, on time, pleasant, useful. Then come back to the U.S. and try riding on public transport here? Oh, forgot, they’re too busy riding in their fucking private limos to worry about us little people.

    As someone pointed out somewhere, didn’t all these fuckheads vote for reconstruction in Iraq?

    It really is time for the pitchforks.

  5. 5
    BDeevDad says:

    $14 million for cyber security research by the Homeland Security Department

    Why do they want the terrorists to win. But seriously, this all reminds me of McCain’s complaints about earmarks that actually lead to discovery and advancement.

  6. 6
    Nicole says:

    Why the Amtrak no-love? I just don’t understand. Can someone explain?

  7. 7
    Stuck says:

    I just heard a little while ago Shuster saying that Collins, Nelson, and Snowe were likely on board if a few changes were made. He didn’t say what those changes were. Now I know what changes and don’t like it one bit.

    OTOH, Obama will be allowed to submit more than this one bill to congress and likewise in reverse. So I’m not going to get the vapors for the time being. There is still a ton of good changy/hopey stuff in this legislation.

    **And Might I say DougJ, you are kicking some serious posting ass lately. Carry on!

  8. 8
    JL says:

    Doug, Great job. What interests me is the amount of people working in those fields, whose jobs might be in danger because of a lack of money. Research and development is almost half as a percentage of GNP, than it was in the fifties and sixties. We need to wake up as a nation because we are quickly losing our status in the world. I for one am tired of the save the banker mentality in our country.

  9. 9
    SpotWeld says:

    Accomplishments for the American people = 0
    GOP getting to tick off thier "enimes list" = LOLZ

  10. 10
    Duros62 says:

    I can’t say I disagree with this. I mean, they want to cut it out of the stimulus bill, fine.
    That doesn’t mean it won’t show up later in the federal budget.
    Settle down. Just because NSF doesn’t get the money today doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t get it at all.

  11. 11
    D-Boy says:

    As A resident of Nebraska I would like to officially apologize to everyone for sending Ben Nelson to the Senate . . .sorry but that is the best we could do

  12. 12
    srv says:

    Look, I realize everyone wants their candy and we should just do everything completely off the books now, like all the war funding… But if you think NSF funding should be done via stimulus bills, then don’t be whining next year when there’s no stimulus money to keep the funding going.

    Now, please roast me for thinking budgets and proposals and committees and reviews have any place anymore.

  13. 13
    DougJ says:

    JL and Stuck: thanks! I appreciate it.

  14. 14
    sarah says:

    scientists represent!

    obama needs to tell these fuckers to step off and stop line-iteming the stimulus to death. The GOP is going all in on the stimulus failing and they’re going to vote against it, but not before they gut it with an apple corer.

  15. 15
    Atlliberal says:

    A little perspective:
    These things add up to a very small percentage of a 900 billion dollar package. If it gets the bill passed, then These things can be funded in the regular budget. This is just the first of many things to be done this year. All of these things seem reasonable in a stimulus package, but if taking them out and putting them in the regular budget (which can’t be filibustered) helps get this thing passed, then I’m not going to get all worked up about it.

  16. 16
    DougJ says:

    srv: I see your point but you’re essentially repeating the Republican talking points used to argue against almost everything in the stimulus package.

  17. 17
    Bootlegger says:

    If the science funding stays in, along with the Buy America First provision, does this mean that the grad students and postdocs will have to be Americans? That would put a dent in the lab labor pool.

  18. 18
  19. 19
    Dave says:

    @Nicole:
     
    Most of Amtrak’s ridership is in the Northeast, where the GOP is essentially dead. So it’s no impact to their constituents to say that it’s "pork", even though building and upgrading rail in this country would create tens of thousands of jobs.

  20. 20
    Brandon says:

    Disclaimer: I’m a grad student in a biology lab heavily supported by HHMI funding (although we get about 25-30% from NIH/NSF).

    While I applauded addition of more research funding to the stimulus bill, and think that it makes a lot of sense from a long-term investment approach, I can understand the argument that they’re (republicans/centrist dems) probably making–that it’s not "temporary" and the stimulus bill is meant for "temporary" measures that are one time expenditures.

    Honestly, I think research spending is far too low, considering the fact that all the big corporate research farms (Bell Labs, IBM, etc) have gone the way of the dinosaur. But you can make the argument that government research granting agencies have a bad track record with "temporary" funding. I think it’s basically that the agencies also believe funding is too low, and treat these "temporary" measures as quasi permanent.

    The best example is with the hullabuloo over NIH funding a few years ago. There was the NIH funding increase, which was billed as a one-time measure–but NIH didn’t treat it that way, instead using it to expand training grants to research universities and other long term priorities, and factored the increases into its future budget. The increases then expired, with much consternation all around.

    Let the increases be part of a future "rebuilding America’s infrastructure" bill where they’re not billed as a "temporary" thing like the stimulus bill is. None of us want them to be temporary.

  21. 21
    BlizzardOfOz says:

    You have got to be fucking kidding me. I know it’s been said a million times before, but our country is being run by utter retards. I mean, we can’t afford $1 billion (like 0.1% of the bill) for scientific research? I mean, how short sighted can you POSSIBLY be?

  22. 22
    mantis says:

    I can’t say I disagree with this. I mean, they want to cut it out of the stimulus bill, fine.

    Research funding is stimulus, people. Not only does the money get spent immediately, it gets spend on things like scientific equipment and supplies (predominantly U.S. manufactured), repairing and updating research facilities (giving U.S. workers jobs) and pay for grad students, who have no money and will spend it on things like "food" and "rent".

    Funding the NSF has long and short-term benefits, and no downside whatsoever. It’s stimulus, and it should stay in.

  23. 23
    Zam says:

    Science is the devil’s tool.

  24. 24
    passerby says:

    This list is a mix of research, infrastructure and security.

    As far as I can comprehend the purpose of this stimulus bill, of these institutions and industries targeted to be cut out, how many would be better served by appropriations bills instead of lumping them in with this stimulus which is certain to be unavoidably rife with boondoggle anyway?

  25. 25
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Like I said, I don’t expect the same people (and mentality) that got us into this mess to get us out of it. I predict that this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The Democrats have been rolling over whenever the Republicans tell them to for so long now that it is purely reflexive on their part.

    These guys haven’t taken their medicine yet. Things have to get worse before they will.

  26. 26
    JL says:

    Kay Bailey Hutchison is on CSPAN 2. She is worried about the deficit and who will lend to us Can someone please explain to her that if we fall off a cliff, it won’t matter. Now she is talking about how Bush’s tax cuts worked.

  27. 27
    Brandon says:

    Basically what I’m saying is that I think there are 2 aspects to government recovery from this recession: 1) temporary stimulus measures to increase jobs and deal with the immediate pain, and 2) long-term investments that will ultimately be of a financial benefit to the economy and future economic growth. Even FDR didn’t try to do both in the same bill.

    Besides, there ARE a lot of things that look like "pork" in the stimulus bill, and I’d rather research funding doesn’t get conflated with that ;-)

  28. 28
    donovong says:

    Somehow I doubt that this funding will "disappear" completely. Obama is the most "science-friendly" president we have had in eons, so if it is really necessary, I have no doubt he will get it done in less visible legislation.

  29. 29
    br says:

    I’m also a scientist and am somewhat on the fence. While NSF funding can indeed create jobs, its budget can also be expanded outside of this bill in the general budget. On the other hand, we scientists fear that we won’t be able to expand the budget much after this bill. It’s a tough call. On the third hand (I work on spontaneous generation of extra hands ;) ), investment and research is what gives rise to innovation which gives rise to future prosperity, so it’s very easy to argue that science funding is crucial to long term economic prosperity.

    UPDATE I thought about it for 1 minute and I’m off the fence. Research funding is stimulus, and it crucial, and it has no downsides. We should fight to keep this in. Who’s office do I need to call?

  30. 30
    BenA says:

    The one thing that they are talking about cutting is $24.786 Billion on "State Stabilization Money". One of the biggest issues I’ve seen here in PA, in NJ, in CA, and in CT is that states are being forced to make huge cuts in state budgets and lay off workers. Emergency funds to states to stop job losses would be a huge and relatively easy win…

  31. 31
    Shawn in ShowMe says:

    I can see things in this bill that are not job-creation-related, but the NSF? C’mon!

    Fuckity fuck-fuck the fuckers.

    You’ve got to pass bills in the intellectual environment you have, not the intellectual environment you wish you had. In France, Germany or Japan this would be a no-brainer.

    I’d argue that Amtrak funding being cut from the bill would be even more egregious. In a world where high-speed trains are becoming the norm, to be stuck with the antiquated rail system we have is laughable. But that’s the cultural stagnation we’re up against.

  32. 32
    gbear says:

    Be thankful for ‘centerists’. 36 out of 41 republican senators voted in favor of an ammendment to the stimulus plan that would cut every bit of spending out of the plan and replace it with..guess what..tax cuts. Only four republican senators thought this wasn’t a fabulous idea. There’s no hope unless heads get busted. Soon.

  33. 33
    linda says:

    i actually work in a research laboratory dependent on nih funding and when i read that i wanted to scream.

    there should be a coordinated demand that those senators/congressmen who are so opposed to the stimulus spending walk their fucking talk — zero out every motherfucking dollar that would go into their state.

    afterall, isn’t that what their constituents voted for.
    fuck em.

  34. 34
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    I work on spontaneous generation of extra hands

    Must be ‘handy’.

    I’ll be here until Hell calls me back. Try the hot wings and be sure to tip the waitresses.

  35. 35
    SteveinSC says:

    While I am emotionally pissed at letting the gang that lost, control the agenda for the ones who won, I can see the point of letting the trogs feel they are getting their way in order to win passage of, yes, the Stimulus Bill. I think AMTRAK and NSF, particularly, will bear benefits outweighing the investment, but I think patience is called for. If Obama can get those assholes to break ranks, then maybe it won’t be so hard next time.

    In the meantime, I wish JC would post a scoreboard for the the things Obama has signed or repealed to help us recover from the shrub catastrophe: The SCHIP, Shinseki, close Guantanamo, 16 months from Iraq, repeal of oil leases near national parks, etc. would be a good news bromide for the restless.

    And OT: Would someone please drown Chris Matthews?

  36. 36

    Gosh, I hope this is a case of "Let’s take some of the stuff we were going to fund in the budget anyway, and switch it over to the stimulus bill, so we can bait the GOP into flipping out, cut the stuff back off the bill, look bipartisan and throw it in their faces later, while happily restoring those things back to the budgets where they normally belong."

    I hope I hope. It seems like a no-brainer scheme, and a way to play off the known combativeness and stupidity of the GOP at this time. I know if it was me I wouldn’t be playing it totally straight- I’d be looking for goads to get those guys to flip out, ones that don’t matter or could also be accomplished other ways. I would manufacture stuff explicitly to be cut, and I’d be looking for ways to spin that opposition in the future to make the GOP look even worse.

    Not so much rope-a-dope as "This, and this, and also you promise not to skullfuck this kitten." "OH YEAH? GIMME THAT unf unf unf" "Holy crap, did you see what those horrible people just did?"

  37. 37
    gbear says:

    And OT: Would someone please drown Chris Matthews?

    He’s not small enough yet.

  38. 38
    Trinity says:

    Call your congresscritters people. You can reach your Senators toll free at 1-866-544-7573.

    Wankers.

  39. 39
    BarneyG2000 says:

    I must have missed where the stimulus bill was the 2010 budget? And let me remind you that any additional spending is a stimulus for something (how about $4M to child porn addicts?) but it does not mean it is the best way to spend tax dollars.

    Cut the pork and leave the funding for infrastructure, home mortgages and tax breaks. Leave the rest for the normal budgeting process, and get this thing passed.

    Are you really afraid Dems won’t spend money?

  40. 40
    SGEW says:

    Time for an alternative theory:

    The "Republican Party" is actually a gigantic conspiracy bent on literally destroying the United States of America.

    I mean . . . think about it. It all fits together!

    I know I know, never ascribe to malice, blah blah blah. But you have to admit – if it was a conspiracy, this would be some motherfucking inspired malice.

  41. 41
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    He’s not small enough yet.

    Could you imagine trying to hold that head of his underwater?

    Impossible.

  42. 42
    Brandon says:

    At the same time…you do realize we have people like "the NSFers are all porn addicts wasting government money!" Grassley (http://www.politico.com/news/s.....18070.html) and "CDC scientists are liberal elitists wasting money on aesthetics!" Coburn (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.....lights.php) that seem to essentially advocate that we should have cops in research facilities looking over our shoulders to make sure a single cent of government money isn’t wasted.

    So it’s not that surprising.

  43. 43
    John Cole says:

    I’m just curious how many f-bombs DougJ can fit on the front page before we get the inevitable PITA pottymouth links.

  44. 44
    Napoleon says:

    A little perspective:

    These things add up to a very small percentage of a 900 billion dollar package.

    ??? Yesterday they were talking about cutting $200B out of the package. The number I read today was $100B. Neither are small percentages.

  45. 45
    RSA says:

    Among the initiatives that could be cut are $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $14 million for cyber security research by the Homeland Security Department, $1 billion for the National Science Foundation, $400 million for research and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, $850 million for Amtrak and $400 million for climate change research.

    Here’s a bit of interpretation on these initiatives: No funding for Piss Christ (National Endowment for the Arts), or for evolution research (National Science Foundation), or to promote promiscuity (prevention of sexually transmitted diseases), or for socialist transportation (Amtrak), or for junk science (climate change research.)

    "Centrists"? No fucking way. With the exception of cyber security, everything is dumbass conservative red meat.

  46. 46
    BDeevDad says:

    we should have cops in research facilities looking over our shoulders to make sure a single cent of government money isn’t wasted.

    Just as long as we do not prevent their staffs from updating their Wikipedia pages.

  47. 47
    Paul L. says:

    $400 million for climate change research.

    However Exxon-Mobil for spending $2 million funding about 40 groups it calls "global warming skeptics." is a OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  48. 48
    John Cole says:

    The weirdest thing about the conservative hostility to the NSF is that it was founded, if I remember correctly, for primarily research to assist in a number of things, including national defense. After Sputnik, I think NASA and other departments were formed, but it is just odd that what was once an organ of the national defense is now considered the antithesis of patriotic in the minds of the fringe right.

  49. 49
    Bootlegger says:

    how about $4M to child porn addicts?

    Sure, the guy who produces Girls Gone Wild has been lobbying for a piece of the stimulus (pun intended).

  50. 50
    passerby says:

    I came across this brief Financial Times article a few days ago.

    The Obama administration is gearing up for a “big bang” announcement within the next two weeks that will combine a bank clean-up with measures to reduce home foreclosures and probably steps to kick-start credit markets (1/30).

    Several things struck me about the article:

    1. An air of certainty that pointed to home-owner related relief.

    2. The word "stimulus" was not mentioned.

    3. There was no mention of The Fed rather, The Treasury would be the administrating agency:

    Mr Geithner intends to present a “comprehensive” plan that policymakers hope will command market confidence.

    4. The FT is a UK publication and we haven’t heard a whisper about this "big bang" plan in the US media.

    The current discussion of The Stimulus Package has everyone grunting and snorting like pigs at the trough. What does the FT know that we don’t know?

  51. 51
    Bootlegger says:

    @Paul L.: It is when you’re buying the results and not the scientific method that’s suppose to go with it.

  52. 52
    rpl says:

    I agree with atlliberal above who points out that not everything in the budget needs to be in this stimulus bill. In particular, the fact that the budget bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate seems to make it a better place for some sensible liberal priorities.

    With democratic majorities in both houses and a democratic president, prospects for getting items through the process in the budget bill should be high.

  53. 53
    Zifnab says:

    However Exxon-Mobil for spending $2 million funding about 40 groups it calls "global warming skeptics." is a OUTRAGE

    And those cigarette companies spent a fortune on cancer studies but got absolutely no respect for their hard work. The horror.

    Better trolls plz.

  54. 54
    AhabTRuler says:

    Have any of these clowns ever traveled in Europe on the train system there? Efficient, clean, comfortable, on time, pleasant, useful. Then come back to the U.S. and try riding on public transport here?

    Sadly, this ship has sailed. For whatever the sociological and psychological reasons, the American people don’t like rail transportation. Whether it is improving AMTRAK, High-speed commuter rail links, expanding Metropolitan mass-transit, or even light rail and trams, Americans don’t like hearing about the subject or spending money on it.

    I have ridden Metro in DC regularly my entire life (which is pretty close to paralleling the life of Metro itself) and I could spend the next two hours describing the problems of the system and why it was, in many ways, designed to fail. The singular cause of these failures a lack of funding for construction and operation. And yet, despite the easily demonstrable benefits of improving the system, nothing ever changes, except to get worse.

    And yes, I have been to Europe, I have ridden their trains and subways (far more then I have been in a car), and it is wonderful. You can identify the Americans in a European Train Station by the fact that they show up a half-hour before their train. Europeans generally show up a few minutes before the schedule time.

  55. 55
    Zifnab says:

    @John Cole:

    After Sputnik, I think NASA and other departments were formed, but it is just odd that what was once an organ of the national defense is now considered the antithesis of patriotic in the minds of the fringe right.

    What’s our defense budget up to now? $600 billion before we drop a dime on Iraq or Afghanistan? I’d love to see the NSF grant tripled and shoved into the next Defense Spending Bill.

    Hell, I know what we can do! Just retitle the bill "Defense Spending Act of 2009". You don’t have to change a damn thing.

  56. 56
    KG says:

    @16: not that I trust the GOP for anything any more, but process is important. Rushing shit through is what tends to get us in trouble, or does no one remember the PATRIOT ACT anymore? Or port security bills that miraculously have bans on internet poker stapled onto the back page?

    Crises make for bad law. Bad law makes for bad precedent. Bad precedent makes for a bad future.

    I’d rather we take our time, figure shit out and suffer for a year or two rather than speed something through for the sake of doing something (anything, really) and then being waist deep in shit rather than just knee deep.

  57. 57
    Bootlegger says:

    @AhabTRuler: The other trick with train travel over there is that the cities are closer together. It takes more than 24 hours to go from Chicago to the east coast. It’s nice for a scenic, no-drive vacation, but impractical for regular travel. The routes between the eastern cities though, always seemed full when I rode them, but go further west and the distances are a problem.
    I rode the high-speed train in Germany from Bremen to Nuremberg and it was waaay cool. But even that trip was 3.5 hours.

  58. 58
    linda says:

    jeez, you would have thought they’d have zeroed out the $4 billion obama’s giving to ACORN….

    ;-)

  59. 59
    Libby says:

    It’s a bitch to see the whining GOPers get their talking points and good spending cut out but at this point, we needed something passed last week. They need to start pumping the money into the economy, one way or the other.

    Nothing is set in stone. Spending can be restored in other bills and bad programs, e.g. unnecessary tax cuts, can be revoked. Right now, I just want to see them pass a bleeding bill and get on with it. The longer the bickering goes on, the more often the idiot GOPers get the microphone.

  60. 60
    El Cid says:

    You have got to be fucking kidding me. I know it’s been said a million times before, but our country is being run by utter retards. I mean, we can’t afford $1 billion (like 0.1% of the bill) for scientific research? I mean, how short sighted can you POSSIBLY be?

    The last 8 to 30 years have been a continuous living experiment to probe that very question.

  61. 61
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Dear Democrats:

    Fuck you, you fucking useless, caving bitches. Fuck you with a sandpaper dildo, you fucking fucks. Either grow a pair or get the fuck out.

    Sincerely,

    BT

    PS: Fuck you, you fucking fucks.

  62. 62
    Mike in NC says:

    With the exception of cyber security, everything is dumbass conservative red meat.

    The crux of the problem here is simple: stop calling it a "stimulus" bill. Congressional Republicans hear "stimulus" and reflexively think about things like people having sex, or drinking alcohol, or dancing. Stimulating fun stuff is inherently bad and they’ll vote against it every time. Rename the bill and include buying a Bible for every man, woman and child in the country. It’ll sail through on the first vote.

  63. 63
    Egilsson says:

    @Brandon:

    Why are you saying that this stimulus is intended to only be short-term?

    That’s just a GOP talking point that’s wrong (of course, and you should know they are always wrong).

    Look at the name of the legislation.

  64. 64
    The Populist says:

    Louise,

    Not true. Most of these things in the bill can and will create some jobs. That is a myth. Anytime government puts money into anything, it most likely creates a few jobs depending on what, whether it’s research, family planning or studying the habits of foxes or fish or bears.

    In the end, do we need to study habits of bears? No. But family planning is important as it effects all of us. More kids = more welfare/government aid/etc. that do not create jobs.

  65. 65
    The Populist says:

    Oh and I dare the rightie loon contingency to prove me wrong on job creation. Tax cuts do NOT create jobs.

  66. 66
    MNPundit says:

    I hate science. Science takes all the cool things we wish we could do, and shows us why doing them violates the laws of physics and as such, is impossible.

    But I’m so fundamentally honest I will always go with what the science says rather than what I personally believe.

  67. 67
    AhabTRuler says:

    @Bootlegger: True, but having both flown to Paris from London (and back), and having taken the train to London from Paris, I’ll take the train every time. And that is with the journey not being made at the train’s top operational speed because of Britain slacking on its high-speed rail sections.

    Dedicated high-speed rail lines would work well on both coasts and coming out of Chicago, which would reduce pressure on the airlines and roads. But then, these points have been made. Again, no one is listening.

  68. 68
    Shygetz says:

    What really bothers me is:
    A) As everyone in "the Biz" knows, there’s little that’s more temporary than an NSF research grant. So, the idea that this stimulus isn’t temporary is silly.
    B) As was pointed out earlier, high-tech equipment and supplies is one of the few manufacturing areas where the US is still a major player. So, this stimulus is most likely to stay here rather than stimulate China.
    C) From my perspective as a whore at the NIH teat, basic scientists who rely on the NSF have been underfunded for decades. These are smart people with stocked lab space who have been sitting on great ideas that no one will fund–talk about shovel-ready projects!
    When it comes to stimulus spending, basic research is what the US does, does well, and is ready and able to do more of. Plus, it gives us real long-term economic benefits, improves US higher education, and puts money in the hands of poor students, who will spend it. It should be a no-brainer. So, of course, Republicans are again’ it.

  69. 69

    I dunno… NSF grants are pretty piddly small potatoes aren’t they? Like 50K a year or something? After indirects that’s not going to pay for very much, and doubtfully create many jobs.

    Stimulus money is better sent to the NIH, I would think, since they set up to dole out massive grants and program projects that… by design… can begin implementation instantly upon award of funding.

    AFAICT the Senate upped the NIH portion to $10 billion from $3.5 billion and hasn’t cut it back… so I think you could definitely say that… at this point… scientific funding has made a net gain since the House, and is more "shovel ready" than previously.

    Of course, the fact that all of our lab’s funding comes from the NIH shouldn’t lead you to doubt my motives here. :)

  70. 70
    The Populist says:

    Keep in mind that even if we buy equipment from an American company manufacturing in China it A) keeps the american staffs working and B) keeps China from hitting the nuke option by dumping our debts or more drastic things that could derail us even more.

    That’s not to say we can’t try to encourage American companies to bring some manufacturing back to the USA. Oh yes, that is impossible because the right and big business think we need to relax our environmental laws. Damn laws!

  71. 71
    Bootlegger says:

    @AhabTRuler: Don’t get me wrong ATR, I would love to have some high speed rails connecting the major cities and some slower regional trains, but the start-up is enormous on it.
    Texas, of all places, is seriously considering building a high speed rail triangle from Dallas to Austin to Houston. Wingnuts and lobbyists have been trying to derail it (pun intended) for years and maybe they will eventually kill it, but every time I look they’ve made another step forward in getting it.

  72. 72
    Ash Can says:

    Add me to the side of those not quite ready to throw a fit over seeing this stuff excluded from the stimulus bill per se. Ideally, yes, it would be included and the bill would be passed and the Republicans would be told, "You lost, now STFU." However, especially after seeing Obama go on the offensive today on the subject of the stimulus, it occurs to me that, while the individual items included in the bill are getting varying degrees of publicity, the overall narrative is about the stimulus, and how Congressional bickering and obstreperous Republicans are delaying the stimulus — not science funding, not the arts, not public transportation, but the stimulus. Once the stimulus is passed, becomes yesterday’s news, and drops off Joe-in-the-Street’s radar screen, funding for these other programs and agencies can be tackled individually. That gives the prez, if not his feckless fellow Dems in congress who are evidently much more hesitant about hurting their Republican friends’ feelings, an opportunity to construct new narratives, this time singled out as "The Republicans are anti-science," "The Republicans are anti-arts," "The Republicans are anti-education," and so on. Because, after all, we all know that the Republicans in congress would block a cure for cancer if it had a D after its name. After a few months of constant "We would have lower unemployment/better schools/less pollution/smarter kids/fresher breath/brighter laundry if it weren’t for those Republicans," some of these GOP assholes might start feeling some heat from their constituents and start getting the idea that their assholery isn’t going to be indulged anymore.

    Now, this begs the question (or at least it ought to) of whether the Dems are playing their own political-point games with programs that anyone with a shred of intelligence and/or decency would demand be funded right here, right now, skip the bollocks. I can’t think of any specific instances, but I do know and readily admit that politics ain’t pretty and Democrats ain’t perfect. Shame on them if they were to play this game, especially to the extent the Republicans have shown they’re willing to play it, but I’m sure there are some who do. However, I voted for this president, and tend to vote for other Democrats, because I see them as, among other things, less likely to put political points ahead of the welfare of people and this country.

    Instead, I think what’s happening is that, in drafting a comprehensive stimulus package, Obama and (at least some of) the congressional Dems have 1) allowed themselves the opportunity to get everything they want (obviously a pipe dream, but nevertheless a good starting point), 2) barring that, given themselves some room to maneuver by using individual items as bargaining chips, 3) given themselves the opportunity to enact something serviceable while carping on the Republicans about being recalcitrant even after making concessions to them ostensibly in a spirit of "bipartisanship", 4) given themselves the opportunity to frame the Republicans as shitheels and ogres when funding for those items is reintroduced on an individual-item basis. On top of that, looking over the last two weeks, I do get the idea that this prez likes to have things happen quickly, so I’d be optimistic that these programs wouldn’t languish for too long before they had their turn in the spotlight.

  73. 73

    By my count, I got something like 14 billion of science/r&d/public health cuts out of the first 77 billion dollar list. Buffoons.

  74. 74
    Brandon says:

    @Egilsson

    I’m just saying that’s the way the bill is perceived. Classic counter-cyclical Keynesian stimulus is something that is produced in a downturn and contributes to the deficit, and then is repealed (or no longer exists) in the upswing so the deficit can be paid back.

    Things like roads, light rail, buildings are great–because they’re one-time investments and the cost of them can be repaid when the economy is back on the upswing.

    Anything that is likely to persist when the crisis is over is not as useful for stimulus, because it becomes a permanent liability. That’s not to say it can’t also boost our productivity in the future, or be a good long-term investment. I just think it’s good policy not to include things in the stimulus bill we wouldn’t want to remove later. If we include "one time" money for the NSF now, next time we try to increase funding on a permanent basis, the right wing will complain "but you just gave all that money to the NSF!".

  75. 75
    Ash Can says:

    @John Cole:

    the inevitable PITA pottymouth links

    You mean the people who show up here with the vapors over our language? I like them. They’re funny.

  76. 76
    Punchy says:

    Dear Democrats:
    …..
    Fuck you, you fucking useless, caving bitches. Fuck you with a sandpaper dildo, you fucking fucks. Either grow a pair or get the fuck out.
    …..
    Sincerely,
    ……
    BT
    ……
    PS: Fuck you, you fucking fucks.

    Have Jack Cafferty read this live on CNN. I’d donate 4 million sperm to my couch and a huge smile if he’d dare read this.

  77. 77
    AhabTRuler says:

    the start-up is enormous on it

    Aye, there’s the rub. However, the first section of the London Underground opened in 1863, and although initially a private concern, the LU has been government subsidized for most of its life.
    I would argue that the system has earned back its initial build costs several times over through economic effect. Imagine a London of cars, buses, and regional rail alone.

    Same thing with DC. Although the cost and disruption (and local opposition) to the Metro were great, the benefits to Federal Gov’t. employees alone makes the investment worthwhile, and this is less than 40 years into its lifespan.

    To say nothing of knock-on benefits. The technological expertise of French High-speed rail engineers and designers is highly exportable commodity (for them); any massive rail infrastructure project requires workers, steel, concrete, etc.

  78. 78
    smiley says:

    TPM has the whole list, as it stands now. Apparently they’re talking of cutting more.

  79. 79
    Walker says:

    @J.W. Hamner:

    I dunno… NSF grants are pretty piddly small potatoes aren’t they? Like 50K a year or something? After indirects that’s not going to pay for very much, and doubtfully create many jobs.

    They may be small compared to an NIH grant, but they aren’t this small. Even a SGER (a small exploratory grant) can be 100k a year (for up to 2 years). I have a medium sized grant to run my group at 250k a year over 3 years. There are even larger grants, but nothing much over a million for the lifespan of the grant.

  80. 80
    smiley says:

    @J.W. Hamner:

    After indirects that’s not going to pay for very much, and doubtfully create many jobs.

    If they’re anything like NIH grants, the indirect costs are covered by the granting agency. In other words, if the research institution’s indirect cost rate is 50%, a $50,000 grant would really be a $100,000 grant with $50,000 of it going for indirect costs.

    Edit: (unless NIH has changed the rules. It’s been a while since I was in that business.)

  81. 81
    Walker says:

    @smiley:

    If they’re anything like NIH grants, the indirect costs are covered by the granting agency. In other words, if the research institution’s indirect cost rate is 50%, a $50,000 grant would really be a $100,000 grant with $50,000 of it going for indirect costs.

    Yes, this is how the NSF works.

  82. 82
    Jon H says:

    You know, we shouldn’t overreact. I don’t think this will be the last spending bill of the year.

  83. 83
    Svensker says:

    Texas, of all places, is seriously considering building a high speed rail triangle from Dallas to Austin to Houston. Wingnuts and lobbyists have been trying to derail it (pun intended) for years and maybe they will eventually kill it, but every time I look they’ve made another step forward in getting it.

    Why are huge subsidies for the car culture not a problem (you know, like highway spending), but subsidies for trains are socialism? This I ain’t never understood.

    Growing up on the west coast, I used to take the train from Seattle up to Bellingham all the time, about 100 miles. Then they put the super highway in and train service disappeared. Improving those old lines would create jobs and help the environment. What’s not to like?

  84. 84

    Yes, this is how the NSF works.

    And it’s how the NIH works, but I mean that the indirects don’t go to the researcher… and won’t go to equipment or new postdocs or research assistants or whatever… they go into the institution certainly, but it’s a lot more "trickle down" then the other 2/3rds.

  85. 85
    big woo says:

    That’s what the NSF gets for dressing so provocatively.

    But seriously, I’m not that worried. A lot of the items in the original SP seemed like a dam burst of wish fulfillment buoyed by overconfidence among congressional Democrats.

    Given current circumstances and the mess that was left previously, the really good stuff is probably at least two years down the road.

  86. 86
    headpan says:

    I hope I get to see a replay of this on CSPAN – it might be heartening.

  87. 87
    Svensker says:

    Fuckety fuck and sperm on the couch get through, but a discussion of subsidized trains gets moderated?

    Me not understand nuffin anymore.

  88. 88
    Jon H says:

    "For whatever the sociological and psychological reasons, the American people don’t like rail transportation. "

    Yes, they do, where it’s convenient and useful, like the Boston-Washington corridor.

    That’s probably why it’s not popular. The flyover states see rail as being something only supposed liberal coastal elites benefit from.

  89. 89
    srv says:

    @DougJ:

    srv: I see your point but you’re essentially repeating the Republican talking points used to argue against almost everything in the stimulus package.

    And you’re for funding science the way Bush funds the war. I’m sure that’s going to be rigorously accounted for.

    None of this is going to reflate Wall Street or Main Street. You people are arguing with Republicans about how best to rearrange the deck chairs.

  90. 90
    Walker says:

    @J.W. Hamner:

    And it’s how the NIH works, but I mean that the indirects don’t go to the researcher… and won’t go to equipment or new postdocs or research assistants or whatever… they go into the institution certainly, but it’s a lot more "trickle down" then the other 2/3rds.

    Right now, my university is looking at 10% cuts in every department across the whole university. This means cut in admin support (which the NSF will not pay for directly!) and TAships. This, in turn, cuts into research productivity. Extra money brought in for indirect costs would solve this problem.

  91. 91
    AhabTRuler says:

    @headpan: That clip is better than pr0n.

  92. 92
    El Cid says:

    WHERE’S YOUR JESUS NOW, NSF’ERS?

  93. 93

    @DougJ:

    srv: I see your point but you’re essentially repeating the Republican talking points used to argue against almost everything in the stimulus package.

    That doesn’t mean that srv is wrong on the facts. I too wish these things were funded (actually these numbers are still well below where they should be) but in this legislation I don’t see a problem with making the compromise here. The regular budget is where a stand should be taken on this funding.

  94. 94
    gypsy howell says:

    Apparently we are all to pick up shovels — that includes artists, musicians, teachers, scientists, architects, engineers, librarians, doctors — we are all to become construction workers and ditch diggers, because in this country only "shovel ready" projects count towards job creation.

    I’d like to shovel this mess right up the asses of our incompetent, corrupt, fat-cat leadership. And those douchebags on Wall Street too.

  95. 95

    Well, at least nobody here is arguing for the ridiculous NEA.

    Maybe ‘cyber security’ can be funded, but Amtrak discourages investment by private enterprise into transportation, and must be eliminated. STD research should not be funded, as we already know the proper prevention method. Since there is no such thing as ‘climate change’ (although, if there were, it would create jobs and stimulate the economy), we should ignore that.

    I don’t mind funding military scientists, but the rest aren’t too useful. Nobody really cares about the mating habits of beluga whales, and if a single cent of taxpayer money is spent on that, then this recession will turn into a depression.

  96. 96
    smiley says:

    @Objective Scrutator:

    Nobody really cares about the mating habits of beluga whales, and if a single cent of taxpayer money is spent on that, then this recession will turn into a depression.

    Spoof?

  97. 97
    SGEW says:

    Spoof?

    Objective Scrutator -> calvinists4conservatism.wordpress.com

    Aye.

  98. 98
    DougJ says:

    None of this is going to reflate Wall Street or Main Street.

    Most of what we’ve seen so far seems more like a plan to fellate Wall Street.

  99. 99
    liberal says:

    @J.W. Hamner:

    Stimulus money is better sent to the NIH…

    Putting aside the "stimulus" aspect, and just looking at the "science funding" aspect, IIRC the NIH went through a massive budget increase in the past 15 years or so, and the NSF never did. (I would assume that’s because (a) everyone wants to live forever, (b) pharma loves the NIH, (c) the Rethuglicans love pharma, who love them back, (d) the Rethuglicans get nervous about science/engineering research outside of biomedical fields because it at least is to them walking down the road towards "national industrial policy" (SOCIALISM!).)

    So IMHO from a public policy viewpoint, increasing NSF funding is more important than increasing NIH funding. Maybe my claims about NSF vs NIH funding history are wrong, though.

  100. 100
    Person of Choler says:

    Dear Scientist,
    $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
    And this money would help, who, exactly?
    $14 million for cyber security research by the Homeland Security Department
    I always read on this blog what a joke the HSD is; why send them more money?
    $1 billion for the National Science Foundation
    A billion for, what, exactly?
    $400 million for research and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases
    People haven’t figured out about rubbers yet?
    $850 million for Amtrak
    So more trains car run late?
    $400 million for climate change research
    I thought the Science was settled. Why more moola?

  101. 101
    DougJ says:

    @Person of Choler

    I support money for expanding broadband access even if it means wiring up your trailer park. It’s about working together.

  102. 102
    Batocchio says:

    Yeah, screw science, and screw the arts, too. Maybe they get funded elsewhere, maybe not, but there are a few key points – conservatives almost always oppose these whenever they appear, these are good investments and pittances compared to many other items, and the idea that the GOP gives a damn about fiscal responsibility after pissing away money and aggressively fighting against any oversight or accountability is a friggin’ joke. It they get covered later but soon, great, and if this is a political move to fake out the GOP, fantastic, but some of it sure seems like the same old, same old…

  103. 103
    The Populist says:

    $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
    And this money would help, who, exactly?

    Uhhh, the arts are important in any society. This is being upped due to the glaring lack of interest from the right. Basically if cities can use the money to put on symphony orchestras, run art museums, etc, that does create jobs. It supports the businesses that surround these locations. Sorry you righties hate art.

    $14 million for cyber security research by the Homeland Security Department

    I always read on this blog what a joke the HSD is; why send them more money?

    Well, it is a joke when the two buffoons who ran (Ridge and Frankenstein) it were just tools for Cheney. I don’t LIKE HSD, I hate the name and hate that it represents all I despise in government intervention in our privacy BUT it exists for now. Research means jobs. Good paying ones. Why nitpick over it if we can see if this works?

    $1 billion for the National Science Foundation
    A billion for, what, exactly?

    Wow, just wow. Again, we are bringing science BACK to the forefront. Science is how we became the great nation we once were until Bush squandered it all for wars, wire taps and rendition.

    $400 million for research and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases
    People haven’t figured out about rubbers yet?

    Wow, you are clueless. Try to use your brain instead of right wing talking points, okay?

    $850 million for Amtrak
    So more trains car run late?

    Yep. No clue at all. Did Rush teach you that failed joke? Amtrak is useful in many rural areas. So would you deny them the options of taking the train to work or for visiting town? Do you realize it does employ people in a time where every job counts?

    $400 million for climate change research
    I thought the Science was settled. Why more moola?

    Settled by whom? There are still far right loonies who won’t accept even one bit of data on this even if it is staring them in the face (since when does it SNOW in Dubai?).

    If it proves how wrong your buddies are, it’s money well spent. It’s also good to KNOW what to expect in the future via research. Sticking one’s finger in the wind doesn’t constitute either knowledge or ability to see coming disasters.

  104. 104
    The Populist says:

    Oh and broadband access in all communities not only creates needed jobs but it is essential if "main street" wants to make sure America can compete in the 21st century.

  105. 105
    Xanthippas says:

    I’d donate 4 million sperm to my couch and a huge smile if he’d dare read this.

    I’m trying to figure out how that is different from any other afternoon.

  106. 106
    Xanthippas says:

    $400 million for climate change research
    I thought the Science was settled. Why more moola?

    So dumb. We have settled that the Earth rotates around the Sun, and yet scientists continue to spend more money studying the cosmos. An outrage!

  107. 107
    Zifnab says:

    @Person of Choler: All of this stuff could be achieved with tax cuts anyway. I totally see your point.

  108. 108
    Person of Choler says:

    Ah, Mr. Cole, the old trailer park wheeze. Lefties just can’t get their pointy heads around the idea that someone who disagrees with them might live in a dwelling other than a single-wide with six dogs under the semi-attached redwood deck. Certainly an intellectual giant such as yourself can come up with a better stereotypical insult than that wizened old cliche.

  109. 109
    random asshole says:

    @mantis:

    Research funding is stimulus, people. Not only does the money get spent immediately, it gets spend on things like scientific equipment and supplies …

    I can’t say that I necessarily agree, though as someone presently supported by an NSF grant, I’d love to see increased funding. Fundamentally, I can’t imagine any research faculty making large capital investments in lab equipment, additional research staff/students or any other medium-to-long-term investment if there’s an expectation that this "extra" funding won’t be there for the next round of grants a couple of years down the line. Further, given that these grants are typically issued for several years at a time, it’s really hard to say that the money gets spent "immediately," or even any time soon.

    All I can say is, more research money is good, but it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that belongs in a stimulus package. I’d rather see a comprehensive re-dedication towards funding science–and towards science itself–in a separate bill than see a little extra money crowded in a stimulus (not that $1B is only a "little extra" relative to current funding levels).

  110. 110
    DougJ says:

    Lefties just can’t get their pointy heads around the idea that someone who disagrees with them might live in a dwelling other than a single-wide with six dogs under the semi-attached redwood deck. Certainly an intellectual giant such as yourself can come up with a better stereotypical insult than that wizened old cliche.

    Spoof.

    You had me for a while.

  111. 111
    smiley says:

    @random asshole:

    Fundamentally, I can’t imagine any research faculty making large capital investments in lab equipment, additional research staff/students or any other medium-to-long-term investment if there’s an expectation that this "extra" funding won’t be there for the next round of grants a couple of years down the line. Further, given that these grants are typically issued for several years at a time, it’s really hard to say that the money gets spent "immediately," or even any time soon.

    The devil is in the details, isn’t it? What about funding for new grants, funding for new investigators, funding for post- and pre-doctoral fellowships (aka training grants), grants aimed at established researchers who want to branch out to other areas, and grants aimed at new technologies/techniques/approaches?

    As a former research faculty, when I got a new grant (or even a renewal) I always spent money. It was practically like Christmas in the lab.

  112. 112

    @random asshole:

    Fundamentally, I can’t imagine any research faculty making large capital investments in lab equipment, additional research staff/students or any other medium-to-long-term investment if there’s an expectation that this "extra" funding won’t be there for the next round of grants a couple of years down the line.

    That’s not really how it works with my lab… we’re feast or famine… when we’re flush with grants we hire lots of people and buy lots of equipment and pay lots of research subjects… because that’s what you are required to do. They don’t give you a million dollars over 4 years to invest it in mutual funds.

  113. 113
    random asshole says:

    @smiley:

    True enough. The devil is always in the details, as you say, but by the standard of caring about details, you could easily argue that NOT generically putting extra NSF funding in a stimulus bill isn’t "fucking the NSF." I think we can agree that some targeted NSF funding would certainly be more "economically stimulating" than others and some generic NSF funding would be more or less stimulating than other programs entirely, depending on those pesky details.

    If the point is economic stimulus, however, what I can’t say is whether even such targeted grants would be more or less economically stimulating than alternative funding methods for education- or research-related areas, especially given how badly most university budgets are presently hurting, as I haven’t seen any studies on the topic.

    Let’s be realistic. If you put a bunch of research scientists in a room, they’ll always agree that more NSF funding is good. The important question, in the context of a stimulus bill, is whether "good" is better than any particular alternative. Hence, at least for a while, I’ll withhold my particular outrage at cutting funding that was apparently never the NSF’s to begin with.

  114. 114
    smiley says:

    @random asshole:

    If the point is economic stimulus, however, what I can’t say is whether even such targeted grants would be more or less economically stimulating than alternative funding methods for education- or research-related areas, especially given how badly most university budgets are presently hurting, as I haven’t seen any studies on the topic.

    Well, my only response to that would be that increased research money means increased money to research (especially research 1) universities because of the increase in indirect cost charges that the universities can expect from their faculty. And make no mistake, universities, and other institutions, are increasing indirect cost rates.

    Hence, at least for a while, I’ll withhold my particular outrage at cutting funding that was apparently never the NSF’s to begin with.

    OK. Me too.

  115. 115
    Shygetz says:

    Fundamentally, I can’t imagine any research faculty making large capital investments in lab equipment, additional research staff/students or any other medium-to-long-term investment if there’s an expectation that this "extra" funding won’t be there for the next round of grants a couple of years down the line.

    Students and post-docs are, by definition, temporary employees. When you’re flush with money, you hire. When the money runs out (and you don’t get any more), you stop hiring. If I remember right, NSF funding is on a 4 year term, the perfect amount of time for funding students and post-docs.

    Additionally, more NSF funding would almost certainly boost the shared instrumentation grant program, which is entirely for large capital purchases. The only thing temporary NSF funding wouldn’t boost in a rational world is permanent employee hiring, although the increased overhead would probably retain some jobs that would otherwise be lost during tough economic times.

    The important question, in the context of a stimulus bill, is whether "good" is better than any particular alternative. Hence, at least for a while, I’ll withhold my particular outrage at cutting funding that was apparently never the NSF’s to begin with.

    It’s money that goes directly to people who will spend it quickly on largely American-made goods and services, and it leaves lasting benefits to the American economy. While I haven’t seen a study of the stimulus effects of government research spending, it fits the pattern of high-multiplier expenditures.

  116. 116
    Comrade grumpy realist says:

    What I don’t understand is where Republicans think our science and technology base comes from–praying to the Science Fairy?

    I bet they’re all idiotic enough to believe that the US can let other places like Europe, Japan, and China develop the next generation of science and technology, at which point they will of course sell all of it out of the goodness of their hearts….

    We’ll see, but I’m seriously starting to think of moving outside the US again…..

    The other point that everyone misses is that as soon as the US drops away from being the top in science/engineering, we lose our ability to catch up again….scientists are quite mobile and very assertive about Moving To Where The Best Labs Are–no matter where in the world they are. The US always has had a strong streak of anti-intellectualism in its mentality, but luckily up until relatively recently the government knew how stupid pandering to the masses on that point was. After the last 8 years, I’m wondering whether the Palin level of idiocy has taken over the country entirely.

    The only thing we can hope for is another Sputnik, but it’s hard to think what would make a similar shock on the American psyche.

  117. 117
    Bill Arnold says:

    Spoof.

    You had me for a while.

    These comment threads are the best exercises in spoof spotting on the internets.

    Still, worth responding to.

    9 billion dollars
    in palettes of $100 bills, given to random people in Iraq, with near-zero accounting.
    And Republicans defended this with straight faces!

  118. 118
    kris says:

    Both the NSF and NIH budgets have been effectively cut in the last 7-8 years (the huge increases in the NIH budget was during the Clinton Administration). Increasing both these budgets is long overdue, and they do have a strong stimulus component-both short and long term. When money is scarce, many experimental labs essentially have to at least partially shut down, this reduce hiring of personnel and equipment buying, and in addition, affects long term research productivity and growth.
    I also don’t think there is such a thing as targeted NSF funding-all science research funding is heavily targeted and prioritized. Finally, the moneys involved here are peanuts, in comparison to the amount that has already been wasted or is going to be wasted on banks and tax cuts. Basic science funding is probably the best example of a successful venture capital investment ever. The moneys spent are miniscule in comparison to the impact they have on the economy and society in general. They are also among the least wasteful of investments (practically everyone who gets funding puts it to some scientifically productive purposes). It is really stupid and shortsighted to be so churlish about funding scientific research (Both Ben Nelson and Susan Collins have no business being senators).

  119. 119

    .
    See, this is a perfect illustration of the difference between Centrists and Right and Left wing extremists:

    1. Centrists just want to defund everything.

    2. Right-wing extremists want to make everything illegal, hunt it and kill it.

    3. Left-wing extremists want to fund a lot of stuff that the other two just want to defund or kill. Those MANIAC leftists!

    The broad spectrum of American politics, in a bunch of nuts shells.
    .

  120. 120
    Person of Choler says:

    Comrade Grumpy,
    "What I don’t understand is where Republicans think our science and technology base comes from—praying to the Science Fairy?"

    Well, Comrade, we Republicans realize that our science and technology innovation comes from several sources: industry (e.g. pharma, IT), research foundations, universities, private innovators…. Some is government funded, some is privately funded, some is a mixture of both funding types.

    And we would like to know in general which areas of science and technology would get the infusion of a billion bucks and what we might expect to get for our money.

    Perhaps you or DougJ (The Scientist!) could provide some information.

  121. 121
    kris says:

    Person of Choler,
    I hate to be so intemperate, but you clearly have no idea what you speak of. Industry does not fund scientific innovation, especially big pharma industry. Any investments they have made in actual research have been in steady decline since the 1980’s (which incidentally correspond to the years when the Republicans had most power). Most of the innovation that leads to new drugs and new technologies comes from university funded research funded by the NSF and NIH.

  122. 122
    LnGrrrR says:

    Oh yeah… let’s shrink funding for cyber-security. It’s not like we’ve seen any countries attacked using it. :P

    Idiots….

  123. 123
    scarshapedstar says:

    @Person of Choler:

    Having met the man who invented PCR during one of the world’s most notorious and productive LSD trips (Go Jackets!), I’d call it an empirical fact that sometimes you really just gotta take a chance on some people who couldn’t possibly earn a buck in the private sector, or even tie their shoes.

Comments are closed.