Can Research Funds Be Used More Wisely?

This is a question that should be asked on a regular basis after all public funding is quite extensive in this area. Evolutionary science mainly relies on the hypothesis or theory first method.

This means if the theory requires for certain  mechanisms like in this case, generate mass, equipment is used to fit it into the desired framework.  Large Hadron Collider is a typical example of this,  they are hoping to find evidence of this particle that Nobel laureate Leon Lederman called the “God particle.” This machine cost over 6 billion dollars to manufacture plus all the hours researchers put in. Then there is a ‘theory’ which is not observable called, “Dark matter.”

This idea was invented in order to fill in a gap that was a major problem…

“Dark matter is a proposed form of matter that could make up 22 percent of the universe’s mass-energy budget, vastly outweighing all the normal matter, like stars and galaxies. Astronomers can’t observe dark matter directly, but they think it’s there because of the gravitational pull it seems to exert on everything else. Without dark matter, the thinking goes, galaxies would fly apart.

“As if that weren’t weird enough, scientists think another 74 percent of the mass-energy budget could be made of some strange quantity called dark energy. This force is thought to be responsible for the accelerating pace of the expansion of the universe. (For those keeping track, that would leave only a measly 4 percent of the universe composed of normal matter.”

Calibrating accurately how much smoothing, or blurring the telescope is causing to its images is being debated by some in this area, because if the calibration is off, so are the assumptions of dark matter and dark energy. I’ve been critical of scientists embracing such a concept because of the limitations for observing space. Jumping to conclusions is a major problem with research, there are many other examples not related to space as well.  Millions of hard earned money from the public have been spent on researching this area.

On a brighter note, adult stem cell research continues to reach new highs. A new treatment restored a man’s vision which he lost 60 years ago! Stem cell transplants may in fact be critical treatment for chemical burns! And since the stem cells are from the patient themselves, there is no worries of rejection. Could funds be shifted into better research that has promising results that benefit mankind rather than into a complex model that scientists research for many years and most likely can be falsified or can never be verified?

The answer is, “yes” there is a lot of waste going on in the field of science and by shifting the funds from non-important research to more important will vastly improve scientific research!

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Can Research Funds Be Used More Wisely?

  1. Michael: “Then there is a ‘theory’ which is not observable called, “Dark matter.””

    Dark matter is not a theory. It is a type of matter, and observable. It is also accepted by most astronomers. That’s not quite the case for dark energy.
    But hooray Michael, you finally stop confusing the two. A major milestone.

    Michael: “Calibrating accurately how much smoothing, or blurring the telescope is causing to its images is being debated by some in this area, because if the calibration is off, so are the assumptions of dark matter and dark energy. ”

    Que ? What on earth are you talking about ?

    Of course I’m still waiting for an answer to these four outstanding questions:

    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

  2. Michael: “The answer is, “yes” there is a lot of waste going on in the field of science and by shifting the funds from non-important research to more important will vastly improve scientific research!”

    Oh, I agree. All science funding should go to cosmology, obviously.

  3. Michael,

    I still want you to refute me on what I show about the bacterial flagellum. . . .

    . . . the flagellum IS NOT EVEN IRREDUCIBLE. — In 1988, G. Kuwajima was able to remove ONE-THIRD of the 497 amino acids from the flagellum, AND IT STILL WORKED PERFECTLY!!!!! . . . Also, we know that the L and the P-rings can be taken away from the flagellum, and it will STILL work. . . .

    Still waiting for a refutation . . . .

    You realize that failure to refute can be taken as an indirect admission?

  4. This is getting a little tiring. But Michael seems determined not to leave his dark corner.


    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

    Here’s another one of the questions to see whether Michael is as smarty as a cave-man: Even prehistoric people used soap for washing. Michael, how would a cave-man make soap. Come on—only two ingredients, and both can be found in any suburban cave.

  5. Poor Michael. He frets over a Large hadron Collider that cost a mere billion dollars.

    But he is too ignorant even to notice the really big boondoggles.

    Hey, Michael, what about the National Ignition Facility? Fourteen billion dollars over ten years and it has not uyet worked at all! Many people think it will never work, let alone produce net energy.

    How about ITER? Almost four billion and counting. Same deal. Won’t even be ready for testing until 2019, and, again operability is in grave doubt.

    How about it, Michael? At least the LHC works. If you’re going to coomplain, wehy not complain about these gigantic money maws? Because you don’t know what you’re talking about?

    .

    This time we have an entire post on one of Michael’s stock phrases: “(3) “Scientists squander millions (billions) of hard-earned (our tax) dollars on xxx research.” Fill in xxx = fossil reconstruction, cosmic background radiation, hot chicken soup, etc.]” See Post dated March 22, 2010 (New Discovery On The Bacterial Flagellum), Comment dated March 22, 2010 at 10:49 am by Socrates Puppette.

  6. Speaking of whom, Soc Puppette reminded me of Einstein’s famous dictum—

    If we knew what it was we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research. would it?

  7. Do we really need any more eviidenc4eof Michael’s incompetwence to discuss sxcience?

    Evolutionary science mainly relies on the hypothesis or theory first method.

    Every science generates hypotheses first. That’s how you know what data to collect.

    This means if the theory requires for certain mechanisms like in this case, generate mass, equipment is used to fit it into the desired framework.

    Can anyone make any grammatical sense of this one, much less any scientific sense?

    Calibrating accurately how much smoothing, or blurring the telescope is causing to its images is being debated by some in this area, because if the calibration is off, so are the assumptions of dark matter and dark energy.

    Eelco, can you exp[alin any connection whatever between telescope image blurring and detecting dark matter? I think Michael was reading several different articles and got them all jumbled together.

    I’ve been critical of scientists embracing such a concept [dark matter] because of the limitations for observing space.

    Can anyone tell me what constitutes “observing space”? What is there to see about it? (No, Michael, you’ve been critical of dark matter because, for some unfathomable reason, you think it contravenes creationism. Face it; there are enough problems with creationism without making up new ones.)

    .The evidence of Michael’s lack of qualifications waxes full. Maybe he doesn’t have to tell us he doesn’t have any.

  8. On a brighter note, adult stem cell research continues to reach new highs. A new treatment restored a man’s vision which he lost 60 years ago! Stem cell transplants may in fact be critical treatment for chemical burns!

    OK, Michael. Now tell us that ity was creationists who disscovered adult stem cells. Or predicted them. Or something.

    Fat chance, huh?

  9. The answer is, “yes” there is a lot of waste going on in the field of science and by shifting the funds from non-important research to more important will vastly improve scientific research!

    Yer on, Michael. Name a dozen areas of research that you think should have much more funding. Please no generalities such as “cancer” or “world peace.” Be specific—such as the role of chromosomal anomalies n tumor angiogenesis of tertiary lung cancer, or haploid duplication for advancing the guided differentiation of adult human stem cells.

    One reason for requiring specificity is that scientists already submit grant applications and get funded fior what they and the NIH, Gates Foundation, NIST, Kavli, and others think is the best use of their funds. IF YOU THINK YOU CAN DO BETTER, PLEASE LET US HAVE YOUR INSIGHTS.

    Another reason is that many, if not most, significant discoveries are made while researching something else. For example—

    ==Cosmic microwave radiation — while investigating static in telephone circuits.
    ==Atomic energy — while trying to explain the constancy of the speed of light.
    ==Computers — while investigating the completeness and consistency of mathematics
    ==Blood thinners—while investigating why clover was making cows sick
    ==First anti-psychotic drug — during research into preventing surgical shock
    ==Anti-cancer drug cisplatin — study of effects of electrical fields on bacterial growth
    ==Rayon — discovered in Louis Pasteur’s medical lab.
    ==Aniline dyes — research into medical effects of quinine
    ==Iodine — explosives development
    ==High-temperature superconductors — research into electrical insulators.
    ==Microwave oven — military radar

    Those are just a few instances I recall offhand where an important discovery was made while doing research in a different field—in some cases, in a different area of science altogether. So, Michael, we’d like to know WHAT RESEARCH AREAS WILL NEVER PRODUCE ANY DISCOVERIES THAT BENEFIT MANKIND, so that we can yank their funding.

    Failure to respond will indicate that you don’t have a clue. Good luck.

  10. Yesterday (on June 26, 2010 at 7:51 pm) I unfairly took Michael to task about a connection between telescope observational defects and CMB measurements. I should have read the article he cited before commenting on his contortion of it.

    Sorry, Micvhael

  11. Another example of serendipitous disvories crossed the back yard of my mind today.

    Would Michael fund research into how crickets synchronize their chirps? How about it, Michael? Up or down?

    A 1990 investigation on this topic led to a seminal discovery in network theory. The researcher’s paper led to the design of Google’s search engine. And it is employed in analyzing the reliability of the US electrical power grid. And a few other major applications….

    So, Micahel, would that change your mind about funding this type of research? We’re waiting…….

    Chirp . . . . . chirp . . . . . chirp . . . . . chirp . . . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s