Republican bill to require political approval of scientific papers

[bluefrog]

Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas circulated a bill draft among colleagues this week which would in effect add a politician into scientific studies..

The bill, titled the High Quality Research Act, would require the director of the NSF to certify in writing that every grant handed out by the federal agency is for work that is "the finest quality, is ground breaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and ... is not duplicative of other research project being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies."

 

[blazerboy30]

Ummmm, misleading thread title.

 

[Further]

Fucking stupid and impossible to implement. And, it's attempting to fix something that isn't a problem. This politician is a moron who deserves a slow painful disease.

 

[speeds]

Same d-bag who introduced SOPA.

 

[BlazerWookee]

I didn't read the whole thing, but it sounds like they're trying to tighten the purse strings on the NSF before money goes out, not after work is done...

 

[Further]

Today I saw a talk at my confrence titled
CD164 and FCRL3 are highly expressed on CD4+CD26-T cells in Sézary syndrome patients.

And a dozen other talks with equally tricky subjects and titles. Do you really think there is anyone who can determine which research is quality? No! Grants are read by several scientists in the specific field of study for that grant and if they feel its worthy, they give it high grades. And even so, most with high marks sti ll don't get funding because there is so little funding that only the best of the best garner funds. Lets see congressman douche understand the poster we are presenting at conference "EDIT I removed the title because I don't want someone who is googling our research to see my drunk postings. If you want to read the title it is in the photo of the poster in my next post " And that's just the title of the poster, a much dumbed down version of what would be submitted for a grant.

Fuck this douche in the eye with a red hot poker!

 

[Nikolokolus]

this will end well.

 

[Further]

Here is our poster. Do you think this congressional fucktard would understand it?

 

[BlazerWookee]

Here is our poster. Do you think this congressional fucktard would understand it?

Maybe if the photo was a little sharper, it's kinda hard to read...

 

[Further]

I'm pissed and a tad drunk!

But had a wonderful night at a pub here with some live music. Going out now for another round.

Fucking douche of a congressman will cause innocent people pain and misery. He should burn!

 

[Further]

Maybe if the photo was a little sharper, it's kinda hard to read...

Sorry, I'll add some better pics when I return.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Some drunk has stolen my avatar!

Bastard!

 

[Nikolokolus]

Here is our poster. Do you think this congressional fucktard would understand it?

The first order of business will be to deny grants for projects with words in the title that the esteemed congressman doesn't understand.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The first order of business will be to deny grants for projects with words in the title that the esteemed congressman doesn't understand.

Homeostatic clearly has something to do with the gays and marriage. The homeosexuals need god, not science!

 

[blazerboy30]

I don't think I understand the outrage. Should there not be any approvals necessary to get federal grants for research? Perhaps this isn't the best implementation, but obviously there should be vetting that occurs instead of just wasting money willy-nilly on frivolous research.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Which assumes that the current method of awarding grants is done willy-nilly and frivolously.

 

[blazerboy30]

Which assumes that the current method of awarding grants is done willy-nilly and frivolously.

It kind of is.

 

[PapaG]

Fiscal responsibility is a terrible idea. Just hand out as many grants as possible w/out any oversight.

The tread title is completely misleading, by the way.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Just hand out as many grants as possible w/out any oversight.

The tread title is completely misleading, by the way.

Honestly the first line of your post is far more misleading.

 

[Further]

I don't think I understand the outrage. Should there not be any approvals necessary to get federal grants for research? Perhaps this isn't the best implementation, but obviously there should be vetting that occurs instead of just wasting money willy-nilly on frivolous research.

Warning, drunk posting.

There are peers who approve or deny already. But anyone else would not understand the science in order to know if the research is worthy. So decisions would be based on feelings instead of science, like some congressman not wanting to approve research done on flies or worms because they did not understand the science behind a fly model. Or they don't understand the importance of research on pluripotent cells from adult cells but since the term stem cells is used they deny a grant.

And if they are wanting today people who can understand the research to work for them and give a thumbs up or down, I suspect it would cost about $2000 per submission to fully vet. Considering only five percent of grant proposals get funded, that would be about $40,000 in expenditures per for getting one grant approved.

This research by definition is cutting edge and only a couple hundred people could truly understand the fine nuances of proposed research. If I am studying the inflamasome signaling for ten years, I can't be up to date on psoriasis. The speciality requires that the only people who have the knowledge to grade a proposal are those who work in the exact field.

 

[Further]

Maybe if the photo was a little sharper, it's kinda hard to read...

Ok, here are a little better I hope. I don't have the file here, so still only photos. But this is just a poster, basically a cheat sheet for work already done, much easier to relate and far less complex than proposed research.

 

[PapaG]

Honestly the first line of your post is far more misleading.

Once grants are handed out, there is no oversight. How is that misleading?

 

[Further]

Once grants are handed out, there is no oversight. How is that misleading?

How money is spent is in the grant. Not every penny is accounted for, but the majority is. We can't even buy a pizza for our lab meeting on the grant. It's only permitted to buy science related shit. The university goes over every item we purchase, so there is oversight. If you wanted more oversight the cost would become prohibitive.

 

[Further]

At OHSU 70%!of the funds go to the university to pay for space rental, electricity, cleaning crews and all the oversight and secretaries. The lab only receives 30% of the awarded grant.

 

[Denny Crane]

Somehow, "shrimp on a treadmill" passed peer scrutiny.

If the politician and the science guys on his advisory staff realize "shrimp on a treadmill" is a waste of money, where's the beef?

http://pobeptsworld.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/not-so-funny-wasteful-science-grants-more-waste-of-tax-payer-dollars/

 

[Further]

It's all part of the process. Andre Geim won the IG Nobel (basically a prize for worst science) for magnetically levitating a frog, then a few years later in 2010 won the actual Nobel Prize in physics for his work on graphene. I don't know the thought behind the shrimp on a treadmill, but that does not mean that the science is not important either directly or indirectly. Steps into the unknown need to be taken for science to move forward, and if you restrict those steps to only obvious steps, well, the quality of breakthrough will be greatly reduced.

 

[TripTango]

It's all part of the process. Andre Geim won the IG Nobel (basically a prize for worst science) for magnetically levitating a frog, then a few years later in 2010 won the actual Nobel Prize in physics for his work on graphene.

I think "worst science" is unfair to the Ig Nobel prizes... The research topics of their winners are often esoteric and/or light-hearted, but they aren't done poorly, in general.

 

[blazerboy30]

Interesting that many posters in this thread are outraged about the idea of a stricter approval process for getting research grants because

Steps into the unknown need to be taken for science to move forward, and if you restrict those steps to only obvious steps, well, the quality of breakthrough will be greatly reduced

Yet those same posters are in favor of socialized medicine, pharma company profit limits, and obamacare.

Ironic.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I don't think I understand the outrage. Should there not be any approvals necessary to get federal grants for research? Perhaps this isn't the best implementation, but obviously there should be vetting that occurs instead of just wasting money willy-nilly on frivolous research.

this

 

[jlprk]

The purpose of making an agency head "certify" that all research is "highest quality" is to politicize his agency. You find microscopic faults, hold hearings, and rake him over the rails for not micromanaging scientists who aren't employees of his agency. Certifying allows you to get personal with him, in order to get yourself votes from the Texas morons at home.

It's just another Southern fascist politician. So Lamar is the one who introduced SOPA, eh?