Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Addicting Info)   Comrade Lamar Szmith of Soviet Texasz introduces bill to require Politburo approval before being allowed to publish any scientific papers. до свидания моя родина   (addictinginfo.org ) divider line
    More: Sick, politburos, scientific papers, gold standards  
•       •       •

6733 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 May 2013 at 1:34 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-04 11:39:34 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Why should we leave it up to a bunch of politicians to determine whether a scientific study is valid or not?


Again, the same argument can be made about any research and development.  Do you feel the same way about the funding provided to the military-industrial complex for Pentagon weapon contracts? There is a fine line between stifling creativity and maintaining accountability but in the era of decreased government revenues and budget crunches it shouldn't be unfathomable that the former may occur to a certain extent to increase the latter.  We're essentially putting science funding on a pedestal and proclaiming loudly that it cannot in any circumstance be questioned.  I think we would both agree that there is some research that is far more likely to yield results than others, so why send good money after bad?
 
2013-05-04 11:40:50 AM  

Shaggy_C: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Ah, so you definitely don't understand science funding. You could have just said that from the beginning, you know.

You're right; I forgot that most scientists live as paupers.  The money they receive from grants is used in their experiments, normally as fuel for the Bunsen burners, though sometimes they also place stacks of hundred dollar bills in different liquids like sulfuric acid or liquid nitrogen.


If there's a point you're trying to make here, it's getting lost in the sarcasm.
 
2013-05-04 11:40:56 AM  

Shaggy_C: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Ah, so you definitely don't understand science funding. You could have just said that from the beginning, you know.

You're right; I forgot that most scientists live as paupers.  The money they receive from grants is used in their experiments, normally as fuel for the Bunsen burners, though sometimes they also place stacks of hundred dollar bills in different liquids like sulfuric acid or liquid nitrogen.


No, you forgot that most scientists don't get their salaries from government grants, which is what this bill pertains to.  But we already know that reality never stops you from derping your derp here on Fark, so I guess your igorance shouldn't surprise me.
 
2013-05-04 11:43:33 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Is Al Gore asking for a government subsidy for research?


no, he rules over them.
 
2013-05-04 11:44:01 AM  

Shaggy_C: I think we would both agree that there is some research that is far more likely to yield results than others, so why send good money after bad?


Why should a politician who has no farking clue about Science be the one to determine what is "good" money and what is "bad" money?
 
2013-05-04 11:44:51 AM  

Shaggy_C: Mrtraveler01: Why should we leave it up to a bunch of politicians to determine whether a scientific study is valid or not?

Again, the same argument can be made about any research and development.  Do you feel the same way about the funding provided to the military-industrial complex for Pentagon weapon contracts? There is a fine line between stifling creativity and maintaining accountability but in the era of decreased government revenues and budget crunches it shouldn't be unfathomable that the former may occur to a certain extent to increase the latter.  We're essentially putting science funding on a pedestal and proclaiming loudly that it cannot in any circumstance be questioned by people who don't know anything about science.  I think we would both agree that there is some research that is far more likely to yield results than others, so why send good money after bad?


FTFY

If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.  But they're saying that people who have, at best, High School level science educations should be the ones deciding the validity and value of potential research?  That's just farking stupid.
 
2013-05-04 11:45:32 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Why should a politician who has no farking clue about Science be the one to determine what is "good" money and what is "bad" money?


this.
 
2013-05-04 11:46:04 AM  

utah dude: Mrtraveler01: Is Al Gore asking for a government subsidy for research?

no, he rules over them.


So any study that is in favor of the theory that Global Warming is caused by man is a conspiracy committed by Al Gore?

O...k... then.
 
2013-05-04 11:46:59 AM  

Mrtraveler01: So any study that is in favor of the theory that Global Warming is caused by man is a conspiracy committed by Al Gore?


yes. absolutely.
 
2013-05-04 11:48:05 AM  

utah dude: Mrtraveler01: So any study that is in favor of the theory that Global Warming is caused by man is a conspiracy committed by Al Gore?

yes. absolutely.


And your reasoning behind this is?

So anything that proves that global warming isn't caused by man should be taken as Gospel then?
 
2013-05-04 11:49:57 AM  

Mrtraveler01: So anything that proves that global warming isn't caused by man should be taken as Gospel then?


no, but anything touched by al gore should be removed from consideration. in fact, he should probably be disallowed from touching a computer, wearing a suit, or going out on any day except sunday.
 
2013-05-04 11:50:18 AM  
the majority of research is done with federal tax dollars??


i'm smelling some serious socialism in that one.  where are all those republican socialism haters??????  hummmmm.
 
2013-05-04 11:50:31 AM  

utah dude: Mrtraveler01: Is Al Gore asking for a government subsidy for research?

no, he rules over them.


What is this I don't even...
 
2013-05-04 11:52:10 AM  

Shaggy_C: More accountability with government funds should always be appreciated by the taxpayer.



and, of course, the public (tax money) funds the liability (risks) of research while the Corporations make all the profits.   i bet you love that Socialism, don't ya??
 
2013-05-04 11:53:27 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Why should a politician who has no farking clue about Science be the one to determine what is "good" money and what is "bad" money?


Politicians don't have the slightest clue about macroeconomics, international finance, or contract law, yet we expect them to make policy about all of them.  The double-edged sword with public funding is that it comes with public scrutiny.  Yes, you forgo the profit motive and the immediate need for marketable outcomes, but you do raise the stakes in terms of bureaucracy and prying eyes.
 
2013-05-04 11:55:21 AM  

Shaggy_C: Mrtraveler01: How is having a meeting with a committee to come up with some vague metric going to make any difference?

One could ask the same about any hearing, really.  The vaguely-worded bill is a concern, of course; but I'm not opposed to having recipients of government grants defend their use of those grants before the legislature.  If you're making a living on the taxpayer's dime, the taxpayer's representatives have a duty to ensure you're using those funds appropriately.  I don't think anyone here would have a problem if this same this process were occurring with regards to other contracts with the government; maybe it's just because it is research that we are all up in arms, which, while reasonable because, after all, it is Texas, is starting us down the path of a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument is it not?


What part of PEERS don't you understand?
 
2013-05-04 11:56:43 AM  

Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.


Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!
 
2013-05-04 11:57:18 AM  

Linux_Yes: Shaggy_C: More accountability with government funds should always be appreciated by the taxpayer.


and, of course, the public (tax money) funds the liability (risks) of research while the Corporations make all the profits.   i bet you love that Socialism, don't ya??


the Accountability-Accountability-Accountability Board met with the Accountability- Accountability Board who regulates the Accountability Board, who issued a statement on 'planning to plan', afterwhich all funds were disbursed to a midget eskimo albino lesbian chicana studying the possible uses of nanorobots on color spectrum spread sensor technology using nonlinear correction models. the research was proudly presented in this month's online issue of LBGT Minority Scientific Trends and open access fees have been covered by the Barbara Streisand Kenyan Tourism Board (BSKTB).
 
2013-05-04 12:00:58 PM  

Shaggy_C: Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.

Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!


That's how it works now.  In order to get NSF funding, a proposal has to go through a funding committee made up of actual scientists.  If it ain't broke, don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.
 
2013-05-04 12:02:51 PM  

Shaggy_C: Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.

Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!


We already do this though. NSF peer reviews all of the grants they give before funding them. It's a multi-year application process with grant ranking and committee reviews of topics, with potential outcome assessments.
 
2013-05-04 12:03:11 PM  

Bondith: don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.


haha you used the word 'merit' and the word 'NSF' in the same... hahaha. . h.ah.a.ha.hahahhahhahahh
 
2013-05-04 12:05:03 PM  

utah dude: Bondith: don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.

haha you used the word 'merit' and the word 'NSF' in the same... hahaha. . h.ah.a.ha.hahahhahhahahh


If you've got nothing meaningful to contribute, the kids' table is over there.  Meanwhile, the grownups are trying to have a conversation.
 
2013-05-04 12:07:20 PM  
Sounds like Lamar Smith has taken an aromatic interest in Louie Gohmert's farts.
 
2013-05-04 12:07:45 PM  

Bondith: Shaggy_C: Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.

Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!

That's how it works now.  In order to get NSF funding, a proposal has to go through a funding committee made up of actual scientists.  If it ain't broke, don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.


I don't believe this bill alters that.  However they want to have political approval to publish the results which is pants-on-head retarded.
 
2013-05-04 12:09:14 PM  

Bondith: If you've got nothing meaningful to contribute, the kids' table is over there.  Meanwhile, the grownups are trying to have a conversation.


grownups. haha. man you just won't quit. haha,

get back to me after your defense, signatures, and about three years of postdoc'ing.
 
2013-05-04 12:10:22 PM  

Fart_Machine: Bondith: Shaggy_C: Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.

Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!

That's how it works now.  In order to get NSF funding, a proposal has to go through a funding committee made up of actual scientists.  If it ain't broke, don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.

I don't believe this bill alters that.  However they want to have political approval to publish the results which is pants-on-head retarded.


Not if you want to approve funding just for the projects that you agree with.

Which I imagine was the real intent behind this bill.
 
2013-05-04 12:11:30 PM  

Rann Xerox: Sounds like Lamar Smith has taken an aromatic interest in Louie Gohmert's farts.

"the aromats? nah brah, it was all over after i saw the UV absorption bands in those other conjugated pi systems. damn. that's some sexy resonance."

 
2013-05-04 12:15:01 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Not if you want to approve funding just for the projects that you agree with.


photogenic analysis and evolutionary history elucidation placing dinosaurs in same geological era as Jesus, calculated at under 6,000 years using multiple modern molecular clock methods, divergence estimation models.
 
2013-05-04 12:19:12 PM  
"GOP, the party of small government". Try saying this without laughing
 
2013-05-04 12:21:06 PM  
Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.
 
2013-05-04 12:22:13 PM  

Teufelaffe: Shaggy_C: Mrtraveler01: Why should we leave it up to a bunch of politicians to determine whether a scientific study is valid or not?

Again, the same argument can be made about any research and development.  Do you feel the same way about the funding provided to the military-industrial complex for Pentagon weapon contracts? There is a fine line between stifling creativity and maintaining accountability but in the era of decreased government revenues and budget crunches it shouldn't be unfathomable that the former may occur to a certain extent to increase the latter.  We're essentially putting science funding on a pedestal and proclaiming loudly that it cannot in any circumstance be questioned by people who don't know anything about science.  I think we would both agree that there is some research that is far more likely to yield results than others, so why send good money after bad?

FTFY

If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.  But they're saying that people who have, at best, High School level science educations should be the ones deciding the validity and value of potential research?  That's just farking stupid.


Actually, the bill says that the Director of the NSF is to make that decision.  But then you trusted someone who writes for Addicting Info (and may or may not have a college education) to interpret and decide the validity and value of a congressional bill.  Most people rely on someone with a legal degree or a background in reading legislation (more than just a High School level legal education) to do that.  I smell a slight whiff of irony in that.
 
2013-05-04 12:22:52 PM  

corronchilejano: Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.


Mrtraveler already nailed this.
 
2013-05-04 12:27:41 PM  

starsrift: LordJiro: It's funny how much Republicans mirror Communists. They have their own huge propaganda network in Fox News and co., Presidents and presidential candidates who make the Party look bad are basically ignored, other Presidents are elevated to near-legendary status, they attempt to force their political system onto other nations because it's CLEARLY the best....

Like I said, funny.

You're confusing communism with dictatorship.


To be fair, so did the Communists
 
2013-05-04 12:32:13 PM  

utah dude: corronchilejano: Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.

Mrtraveler already nailed this.


Some things bear repeating.
 
2013-05-04 12:32:38 PM  

utah dude: corronchilejano: Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.

Mrtraveler already nailed this.


Exactly which side are you on, here?  You seem to be swinging between derper-troll and cynical science advocate.  Are you forgetting to change logins or something?

Your run of the mill troll shouldn't be able to come up with this:

"the aromats? nah brah, it was all over after i saw the UV absorption bands in those other conjugated pi systems. damn. that's some sexy resonance."

just from the word "aromatic".

/you're throwing off my calibration
//so confused
 
2013-05-04 12:32:55 PM  

jjorsett: Is this some kind of surprise? When government pays for something, it will feel entitled to tell you what to do with the money. If you want to study the mating habits of left-handed red-headed Hooters girls unencumbered, get your money from private sources.


Who will tell you what to do with the money.  (Just try funding global warming research with a grant from ExxonMobil.)

Problem solved.

Hardly.
 
2013-05-04 12:33:09 PM  
Goddamed be internet memes...
 
2013-05-04 12:34:19 PM  

LectertheChef: bighairyguy: He's qualified to do this because he once took a course in POLITICAL science.

I never understood that. It's a liberal arts degree, yet it has science in the name. There's nothing wrong with liberal arts degrees, or science degrees, it's just stupid to call one the other.


"I got a BA in Political Arts" lacks gravitas.
 
2013-05-04 12:35:37 PM  

corronchilejano: Some things bear repeating.


better amplify it, then. you're going to see attenuation and signal/noise ratio issues going up against commies, socialists, scientists that believe in the system, and fundie christians, bro.
 
2013-05-04 12:41:16 PM  

Bondith: utah dude: corronchilejano: Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.

Mrtraveler already nailed this.

Exactly which side are you on, here?  You seem to be swinging between derper-troll and cynical science advocate.  Are you forgetting to change logins or something?

Your run of the mill troll shouldn't be able to come up with this:

"the aromats? nah brah, it was all over after i saw the UV absorption bands in those other conjugated pi systems. damn. that's some sexy resonance."

just from the word "aromatic".

/you're throwing off my calibration
//so confused


i'm a scientist, dawg. but i'm living in the US - - so unless u can score me a postdoc in canada or singapore or something i'm going full-derp- until endtimes.
 
2013-05-04 12:43:18 PM  

phaseolus: 111 comments and no one's mentioned Lysenkoism yet?


Came to say this.  Nailed it.
 
2013-05-04 12:43:34 PM  
Quit stealing my current policies you big bunch of meanies whom are my Masters.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-04 12:43:47 PM  

corronchilejano: Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.


It's already bad enough that funding priorities change from administration to administration or Congress to Congress.  You invest years in setting up a lab, training your people, getting decent results and publishing them only to discover that the new regime doesn't think your field is interesting anymore.  If you're high profile enough you can keep going as an established leader in your field, but most of the mid-level people now have to refocus on the new topic du jour until the next regime changes the priorities again.  Republican zampolits would only make the process worse.
 
2013-05-04 12:45:11 PM  
You are all accused of heresy against doctrine.
s23.postimg.org
 
2013-05-04 12:45:47 PM  

utah dude: i'm a scientist, dawg. but i'm living in the US - - so unless u can score me a postdoc in canada or singapore or something i'm going full-derp- until endtimes.


In that case, I retract my kids' table comment.

What's your field?  Canada's heading down the same road as the States, so I can't promise much except a lack of competition from me - my path leads to teaching, not post-dockery.
 
2013-05-04 12:50:44 PM  
B

ondith: Shaggy_C: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Ah, so you definitely don't understand science funding. You could have just said that from the beginning, you know.

You're right; I forgot that most scientists live as paupers.  The money they receive from grants is used in their experiments, normally as fuel for the Bunsen burners, though sometimes they also place stacks of hundred dollar bills in different liquids like sulfuric acid or liquid nitrogen.

If there's a point you're trying to make here, it's getting lost in the sarcasm.


That's a feature, not a bug. Some posters like to use heavy sarcasm so that when the point they are obviously making is shown to be pure unadulterated hoersecrap, they can say "I never said that" or "I was just asking questions" .They're not interested in discussion, they just want to score some points for their team

Most of them don't have the balls to make their assertions in a clear, straightforward way.
 
2013-05-04 12:50:56 PM  

m3000: But all my letter writing and calling won't make a difference, since thanks to gerrymandering, the rest of his district will vote for him as long as he doesn't insult the Jesus. Our system is so farked up.


while i agree in principle and sympathize i still email regularly. if nothing else i can say i did something even knowing it's far too little.
 
2013-05-04 12:54:07 PM  

Bondith: not post-dockery.


I've never seen that spelling before. damn, that's good.

Bondith: What's your field?


currently chemistry and herbal supplements. but doctorate was more bioinformatics, plant genetics, genomics, biostats.
 
2013-05-04 12:54:36 PM  
Vague bill is very vague. I read it... It seems to want the director to post that this is approved by the director before funding... and then a year later report to the senate.
 
2013-05-04 12:59:55 PM  

utah dude: Bondith: not post-dockery.

I've never seen that spelling before. damn, that's good.


*bows*  Can't do research worth shiat, but I have a way with words.

Bondith: What's your field?

currently chemistry and herbal supplements. but doctorate was more bioinformatics, plant genetics, genomics, biostats.


Go chemistry.  We're an organometallic catalysis group (I see plants as merely a source of biofuels), and the natural products prof at this school is going back to emeritus status (dude just won't retire).  I think there are groups over in the Bio department that do stuff similar to your PhD work - I know I presented a chem magic show once with a guy who was doing something involving biostats.

http://www.biology.uottawa.ca/bio/professors.html
 
Displayed 50 of 246 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report