I suspect the only reason McCain is still using it, is he likes to joke about it. The grizzly bear study was important and needed here in the NW. We’ve long suspicioned that grizzlies were bearly hanging on, that there was little or no genetic exchange between widely spaced populations.
My own little area here in the Selkirks and Cabinets has long been affected by the relatively little knowledge of bear resource. Prior to the study in question, we trapped the bears in various snares, not only endangering the researchers, but habituating bears to humans.
The new DNA hair testing allowed a much wider sample, and in fact, finally gave results that surprised researchers everywhere, finding approximately 765 bears where 250-350 were thought to be.
Nor was the money squandered. Most of the data was collected using competitive contract labor and I’m here to tell you, folks did it for the love of the work, not because of the pay.
This particular earmark had wide support from both houses of congress and a wide assortment of private individuals and organizations. Furthermore, most of the work was done on Federal and State land, where one would expect the government to spend a bit on inventorying and managing their resources.
Here is an good article on the matter from the Missoulian.
Thank you for pointing out research in the science has practical applications. Thank you for pointing out the capitalism is a very short term economic system, and someone has to pick up the long term slack. Thank you for arguing that Earmarks are not automatically evil.
I would rather my tax dollar went to scientific research (and bridges) than a hell of a lot of other things.
I expect my senators and representatives to bring home as much Federal bacon as they can get their hands on; ideally for something useful, like research, but even incredibly expensive never-ending road construction project stimulate the economy.
And, honestly, how can anyone bitch about 3 million? Didn’t the US spend over 3 trillion? In my budget, proportionally, that comes to about the price of a single piece of gum over the entire year.* I hate waste as much as anyone, and more than most, but wake me when we’re talking billions.
unless I’ve screwed up a few powers of ten, which is entirely possible.
I know it’s a bit of a cliche and overly simplistic, but I always liked the bumper sticker that said something to the effect of:
Wouldn’t it be great if libraries and schools had all the money they needed and the army had to hold bakesales to buy bombs?
You’re welcome. It scares the ever-lovin’ shit out of me that this country has been cutting funding for the sciences. Sooner or later, we’re going to be shifted out of economic dominance on the world stage by the Chinese. If we have any hope of remaining relevant once that happens, we must retain our leadership in the sciences. Otherwise, they’ll treat us the way the rest of the world has treated the Russians: Ignore 'em until either it looks like one of their nuclear warheads might go missing, or they invade someone. If we really believe in things like democratic ideals and human rights, then we cannot allow this nation to slip into the kind of quagmire that Russia fell into after the collapse of the USSR. Funding the sciences (all of 'em, not just the ones related to weapons development) is the only way we have for this to happen.
I don’t even mind if we only fund science research with military application; the military is composed of men, women, and their babies, who all need food, housing, and medical care.
I have heard proposals to cut funding to the National Weather Service and to return maintaining highways to the states. Granted, I would prefer a Federal commitment to rail and public transport, but even I can see the military and economic importance of roads.
No research is not related to defense; you connected bear DNA to a military benefit.
The Cold War was the best thing that ever happened to science.
Yeah, but military research can only go so far, and many things developed for the military stay “in-house” (i.e. classified) for a long period of time. Not to mention that weapons development tends to focus a lot on the “sexier” items, and not necessarily the ones with a broad range of early applications. It also neglects the “pure sciences” like astronomy, particle research, etc., that tend to pay big dividends decades later. (Who knew in 1905 that Einstein’s theory of relativity would have practical applications in GPS systems or that it would lead to quantum mechanics, which has paved the way for so many sci-fi sounding technologies?)
But I was talking about how a grant application has to be written to its audience; if military has the money, talk up the military application …
… and about how a lot of research is relatively cheap.
Besides, you can’t keep informed minds classified. People may not talk about the details of their research, but what they have learned will color even casual professional chat.
There is military funding and military funding. Multics was designed on an ONR grant, and we all know about ARPANet. But most of the money seems to be going for more immediate research. A moderating factor is that a lot of faculty won’t take a grant that won’t let them publish.
But even more researchy things are less researchy. I used to review NSF grants for real research. That seems to have dried up in my area, and now I review SBIR grants, which are supposed to result in products in the very near future. I’m less than impressed with most of them. I’m sure the case for immediate payoff is easier to make for these, but I’ve never seen real numbers on payoffs in the introductory slides before the panel.
As an aside, that’s where my family is from, too. And it’s my understanding that Johnstown’s economic woes started with being bypassed by the interstate highway system, long before the steel mills started going under.
Quoth Tuckerfan:
Actually, astronomers have benefitted greatly from the Stockpile Stewardship Program. It turns out that the same computer systems used to study nuclear weapons can also be used to study supernovae. There have also been a variety of projects funded by the DoD as busywork for ex-Soviet weapons scientists, which have nonetheless produced valuable scientific results. Granted, I’d prefer to see dollars channeled directly to astronomy and other pure sciences, but I’ll never complain about money spent on any sort of research.
Including bear DNA. If even outsiders like you and I can think of practical applications for that research, just think what the professional biologists can do with it. Though it’s the first and I suspect last time that I’ll ever agree with Judy Martz on anything.
Imagine you’re a Congressman and the year is 1979. A bill is proposed asking for $3.5 million for a professor/scientist in another Congressman’s constituency to research whether or not Cameroon natives can develop viruses from eating the meat of “sick” apes. You can imagine how this bill would have been lampooned and used for example:
“Who the hell cares if you can get chimp viruses by eating bad monkey meat! If you’re worried about it don’t eat monkeys!”
“Cameroon? I thought that was some kind of a nut!”
“They want millions of your dollars to find out if Tarzan could get sick if he got bit by Cheetah, can’ y’all imagine?!”
That scenario is the problem I have when I hear about these “wasteful” bills. Some are legitimately ridiculous ($9 million to commemorate the birthplace of an obscure Civil War colonel or whatever) but some are a helluva lot more complex or serve purposes much further reaching than they sound. I honestly haven’t read the Bear DNA details, but it pisses me off so many people scoff at the very notion of it without having read it themselves. It’s a really huge and really tiny world out there and you never know what information is going to be critical tomorrow. To quote one of my favorite quotes from one of the authors I can’t stand:
Italics mine. Ya never know where that alexin’s gonna be found.
Yes, I know there’s some technology transfer/overlap, and while I’m sure that the various space probes launched have benefitted hugely from the work on targetting systems for ICBMs and other missiles, none of that means squat if you don’t have the funds to launch a probe.
Too bad the politicians can’t. Sen. Proxmire is apparently alive and well, the prick.