If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   SOPA writer Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) fresh off not knowing how the internet works, writes a bill not knowing how science works either and removing peer-review from NSF grant requirements   (rawstory.com) divider line 341
    More: Stupid, science policy, National Science Foundation, Eddie Bernice Johnson, house science committee, clean coal, scientific process  
•       •       •

14716 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Apr 2013 at 3:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



341 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-29 01:45:10 PM
The sobs of Bobby Jindal just grew louder.

Good. God.
 
2013-04-29 01:54:45 PM
Cold fusion! Time travel!! Perpetual motion!!! It'll be a Golden Age!
 
2013-04-29 01:54:54 PM
Another indication came in February, when Smith published an editorial in Roll Call describing how his vision of science funding is based not upon the impacts new research may have on the scientific community, but whether that research will "create jobs."

I work for a granting agency. I'm just going to start drinking heavily.
 
2013-04-29 02:24:27 PM
Excellent.  I should now be able to secure a large grant for studying how to pick up trashy women.
 
2013-04-29 02:26:03 PM
The article doesn't mention it, but the 5 projects he wanted information on are:

1.) Picturing Animals in Nation Geographic
2.) Comparative Histories of Scientific Conservation:  Nature, Science, and Society and Patagonian and Amazonian South America
3.) The International Criminal Court and the Pursuit of Justice
4.) Comparative Network Analysis:  Mapping Global Social Interactions
5.)  Regulating Accountability and Transparency in China's Dairy Industry


A link to his letter.


And  the reply which seems to be pretty defensive.
 
2013-04-29 02:26:21 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Another indication came in February, when Smith published an editorial in Roll Call describing how his vision of science funding is based not upon the impacts new research may have on the scientific community, but whether that research will "create jobs."

I work for a granting agency. I'm just going to start drinking heavily.


Every granted study will require grad students to run. Therefore, jobs.

// FUND ALL THE SCIENCES!
 
2013-04-29 02:49:52 PM
wat
 
2013-04-29 02:58:02 PM
but whether that research will "create jobs."

This is a boon to the Psychic hotlines

cdn4.staztic.com

(My sign is stop)
 
2013-04-29 03:01:06 PM
Can't wait to fund that Noah's ark guy.
 
2013-04-29 03:06:16 PM
Looks like even conservatives hate him:

techpresident.com
 
2013-04-29 03:09:02 PM
This is why we can't have nice things
 
2013-04-29 03:16:03 PM

minoridiot: And  the reply which seems to be pretty defensive.


As it rightfully should be. The man is trying to radically change the way that scientific merit is determined.
 
2013-04-29 03:36:21 PM
FTFA his vision of science funding is based not upon the impacts new research may have on the scientific community, but whether that research will "create jobs."

#1 That is not how science works.
#2 I thought you said government doesn't create jobs.
#3 The GOP is a domestic threat to our nation.
 
2013-04-29 03:37:49 PM
And we let people moderate things they know nothing about because????
 
2013-04-29 03:38:04 PM
I'd ask why we put people in charge of things they know absolutely nothing about, but it's not like we have a variety of wise men in office.
 
2013-04-29 03:38:25 PM
Damnit, thati s not how research works.

If we knew what the results would be ahead of time, we wouldn't @#%#@ CALL IT RESEARCH! We'd call it ENGINEERING.

/Not that there is anything *WRONG* with engineering.
 
2013-04-29 03:38:31 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Another indication came in February, when Smith published an editorial in Roll Call describing how his vision of science funding is based not upon the impacts new research may have on the scientific community, but whether that research will "create jobs."

I work for a granting agency. I'm just going to start drinking heavily.


Actually, "job creation" was one of the criteria we had to use when reviewing grants that were included in the 2009 stimulus spending bill.  Each proposal had to include a section on how their grant would impact the economy.  So sadly this isn't the first time.

/wasn't blue sky research - the proposal had to show how they would have a final deliverable that could be used commercially or by the government in 2-3 years.
 
2013-04-29 03:38:38 PM
I also find the thought of scientists choosing what science is funded outrageous.
 
2013-04-29 03:38:44 PM

minoridiot: The article doesn't mention it, but the 5 projects he wanted information on are:

1.) Picturing Animals in Nation Geographic
2.) Comparative Histories of Scientific Conservation:  Nature, Science, and Society and Patagonian and Amazonian South America
3.) The International Criminal Court and the Pursuit of Justice
4.) Comparative Network Analysis:  Mapping Global Social Interactions
5.)  Regulating Accountability and Transparency in China's Dairy Industry


A link to his letter.


And  the reply which seems to be pretty defensive.


Seems like a reasonable response to me. Personally, I'd find the results of #4 very interesting. And as for #5, I'd invite Rep. Smith to have a big ol' melamine milkshake. Drink it. Drink it up.
 
2013-04-29 03:39:09 PM
Seriously? What, can't figure out how to funnel more money to faith-based organizations? "My friend Earl has wants an NSF grant to work out how Jesus managed to heal dinosours. What do mean, peer review prevents crackpots from getting guvmint money to push Jesus?"
 
2013-04-29 03:39:36 PM

DubtodaIll: I'd ask why we put people in charge of things they know absolutely nothing about, but it's not like we have a variety of wise men in office.


It would be nice, though.

Then again, most people wanna vote for guys 'they want to have a beer with'.
 
2013-04-29 03:40:17 PM
...dinosaurs...

Sheesh.
 
2013-04-29 03:40:28 PM

UberDave: Excellent.  I should now be able to secure a large grant for studying how to pick up trashy women.


screenagekicks.files.wordpress.com
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-04-29 03:40:32 PM
Can anyone name someone good in Congress.

If you say your own representative get ready for violence.
 
2013-04-29 03:41:01 PM

CygnusDarius: DubtodaIll: I'd ask why we put people in charge of things they know absolutely nothing about, but it's not like we have a variety of wise men in office.

It would be nice, though.

Then again, most people wanna vote for guys 'they want to have a beer with'.


Yep. There's a reason the Republicans pushed "Joe the Plumber" as a friggin' political pundit.
 
2013-04-29 03:41:15 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: but whether that research will "create jobs."

This is a boon to the Psychic hotlines


Ms. Cleo wants to know what Lamar Smith is smoking.
 
2013-04-29 03:41:38 PM
It's the same guy??? He must be made up of pure ignorance to spew forth this much bullshiat in such a short amount of time.  Just...wow.  Why can't politicians stay out of things that they clearly don't know the first thing about?

I kindof want to move to texas just so that I can assist in voting him out of office.
 
2013-04-29 03:42:09 PM
Thanks for all the popup ads, Subby! Made my day!
 
2013-04-29 03:42:26 PM

d23: Can anyone name someone good in Congress.

If you say your own representative get ready for violence.


go.bloomberg.com
 
2013-04-29 03:42:40 PM

graeth: And we let people moderate things they know nothing about because????


How many credit hours of Economics do your state's congress critters remember?
 
2013-04-29 03:42:45 PM

Dr Dreidel: God Is My Co-Pirate: Another indication came in February, when Smith published an editorial in Roll Call describing how his vision of science funding is based not upon the impacts new research may have on the scientific community, but whether that research will "create jobs."

I work for a granting agency. I'm just going to start drinking heavily.

Every granted study will require grad students to run. Therefore, jobs.

// FUND ALL THE SCIENCES!



That is already the case. You really think the professors are doing the research?

/professor
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-04-29 03:43:41 PM

lennavan: d23: Can anyone name someone good in Congress.

If you say your own representative get ready for violence.

[go.bloomberg.com image 620x413]


ok.. I'll give you that one.
 
2013-04-29 03:43:54 PM
I can't read the article at work... does this idiot offer any kind of explanation as to why he thinks this is a good idea? Clearly common sense and a basic education aren't enough of a red flag for this guy.
 
2013-04-29 03:43:55 PM

twfeline: Thanks for all the popup ads, Subby! Made my day!


What are pop up ads?

/not subby
 
2013-04-29 03:43:59 PM
I look forward to such ground breaking papers as:

"Deep water drilling reverses global warming"
"Clean coal cures cancer"
"Old forest trees on federal land are communist muslin spies"
 
2013-04-29 03:44:04 PM

minoridiot: The article doesn't mention it, but the 5 projects he wanted information on are:

1.) Picturing Animals in Nation Geographic
2.) Comparative Histories of Scientific Conservation:  Nature, Science, and Society and Patagonian and Amazonian South America
3.) The International Criminal Court and the Pursuit of Justice
4.) Comparative Network Analysis:  Mapping Global Social Interactions
5.)  Regulating Accountability and Transparency in China's Dairy Industry


A link to his letter.


And  the reply which seems to be pretty defensive.


I can't speak for the others, but I can tell you that network science (the 4th one) is an important area of research with some important real-world applications.

Mapping global social interactions has counter-terrorism and epidemiology applications, for example.
 
2013-04-29 03:44:06 PM

d23: Can anyone name someone good in Congress.

If you say your own representative get ready for violence.


Could have, but he became President.

What about Libby Warren?

/not from Chicago or Mass
 
2013-04-29 03:44:10 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Cold fusion! Time travel!! Perpetual motion!!! It'll be a Golden Age!


You left out BUY MY BOOK!!! SUBSCRIBE TO MY WEB SITE!!!
 
2013-04-29 03:44:26 PM
If you want a Federal jobs program, Rep. Smith, then by all means propose legislation for a Federal jobs program. But don't call it the National Science Foundation. Call it something more descriptive. Perhaps Public Works Administration. Instead of the same old Deal from our federal government, you could secure your place in history by proposing a New one.
 
2013-04-29 03:44:38 PM
It's amusing how schizo Texas really is. Austin, Dallas and Houston are all major areas of science research and development, and yet you get chucklefarks like this guy to represent the state in Congress.
 
2013-04-29 03:44:59 PM

d23: Can anyone name someone good in Congress.

If you say your own representative get ready for violence.


I like Jack Kingston, but he is from my district.  He was good for a while but has recently sold his soul as far as I can tell.  Hasn't ever really screwed the pooch too hard as far as I know, just gotten his hands dirty.  But he is in the House Appropriations so that's like trying to live in a whorehouse and not get a blowjob.  He's going to move to the Senate this fall more than likely.
 
2013-04-29 03:44:59 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Another indication came in February, when Smith published an editorial in Roll Call describing how his vision of science funding is based not upon the impacts new research may have on the scientific community, but whether that research will "create jobs."

I work for a granting agency. I'm just going to start drinking heavily.


How you doing?
 
2013-04-29 03:46:10 PM
Is evil involved here?  Or just stupidity?  I am a firm believer in the "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity", but when politicians are working, I don't get the "he means well" feeling.  Are big pharma companies going to be eligble for government grants for research that requires no scientific proof of efficacy but can be later sold and marketed despite the lack of results?
 
2013-04-29 03:46:11 PM

Diogenes: Looks like even conservatives hate him:

[techpresident.com image 580x325]


Hollywood supported SOPA?  I'm pretty sure that's not true....is it?
 
2013-04-29 03:46:29 PM

Apos: The sobs of Bobby Jindal just grew louder.

Good. God.


The why should we fund volcano research guy?
 
2013-04-29 03:46:35 PM

d23: Can anyone name someone good in Congress.

If you say your own representative get ready for violence.


If I moved a bit further south, it would be Kyrsten Sinema, and I'd be OK with that. Unfortunately, my rep is David Schweikert. But it could be worse: my rep used to be Ben Quayle.
 
2013-04-29 03:46:41 PM
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-04-29 03:47:05 PM
This guy seems to be the living embodiment of a corporate sock puppet.
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-04-29 03:47:09 PM

jack21221: Mapping global social interactions has counter-terrorism and epidemiology sales and marketing applications, for example.


/There.  Now it's 100% safe.
 
2013-04-29 03:47:12 PM
There comes a time when natural selection is no longer the driving force that advances a species.  We've already hit that point and are on a deathroll to idiocracy.
 
Displayed 50 of 341 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report