Noted by Waters was T H Elliot's 20-year-old undergraduate who brought in the new idea of how to map drosophila phylogenetics (does anyone know this?).
1) Audacious Science, Minnesota Public Radio Website.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Science Funding
Again, NPR spurring this discussion (1). We seem very well suited to have this conversation but notice that we have not yet had it on here. How is science funded and what kinds of behavior spawns from that funding? Conservative? How does a single person make an impact or is incrementalism the name of the game (caveat before joining a lab: get used to that fact)? David Montgomery (the MacArthur Genius Grant Winner 2008 for geoscience) said at one point, "my risky projects are dove-tailed to nights and weekends... not one has been funded." The other guest on the show is Kenneth Waters (who I just met last Friday), philosophy of science professor.
Noted by Waters was T H Elliot's 20-year-old undergraduate who brought in the new idea of how to map drosophila phylogenetics (does anyone know this?).
1) Audacious Science, Minnesota Public Radio Website. Accessed Sept 30, 2009.
Noted by Waters was T H Elliot's 20-year-old undergraduate who brought in the new idea of how to map drosophila phylogenetics (does anyone know this?).
1) Audacious Science, Minnesota Public Radio Website.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Sorry for the delay in posting. I just had a chance to listen to "audacious science" today. One of the things that stuck out was David Montgomery bias toward conservatives and religious authority (who make false accusations). I found this interesting because Waters did not mimic Montgomery's claims. I think Montgomery's field, geoscience (ergo plate tectonics, evolution, fossil record) means that he is bumping heads with the aforemention religious crowd more than a Philosophy of Science Professor.
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for all sciences, but at least in human research, the field is greatly improved by having private competition. You would need a lobbyist to get really audacious science funded by NIH (see genome project). Whereas, some rich guy/girl that wants to be remembere for something, and likely has little understanding of scietific research foundations, would fund audacious science. As I said, this is probably more true for the human research sector as opposed to geosciences, etc.
In general, all science is conducted on the coattails of a previous investigation. The "ah-ha" moments we charish from the 19th century and prior, are probably products of poor information keeping (few newspapers, no internet). This does raise the metaphysical question though, if all discoveries are products of previous research, what was the "first" discovery? To this I suggest 2001:Space Odyssey. I think when ape/man realized there was something bigger than himself, it had dramatic effects on cognition and we started to question our surroundings and our actions.
In conclusion, I don't feel NIH is too conservative. They are liable to tax payers. If anything, the fact that NIH and NSF fund some 80% of science research hinders true progress more than it helps.