Subscription Center
Oct 27, 2008 04:48 PM | 27
Amid the hoopla about Sarah Palin's very un-hockey mom $150,000 campaign wardrobe, the Republican veep candidate managed to drop another flammable tidbit that set off the science community,
not to mention the blogosphere.
During a speech on her ticket's special needs policy last week, Palin, who has held up her Down's syndrome young son as a symbol of her kinship with all parents of special needs children, mocked earmarks better known as pork for eating up much-needed federal funds.
She vowed – as she has many times -- that if she and running mate John McCain are elected, they will nix such fat that's tacked onto budget bills by lawmakers eager to win points back home-- projects that "really don't make a whole lot of sense" and have "little or nothing to do with the public good. . . things like fruit fly research in Paris, France."
"I kid you not," she declared with a chuckle.
One problem: the research she chose to highlight as a waste of cash just happens to have borne some, well, fruit. And for special needs kids, no less. Among such projects: a 2007 University of North Carolina study that researchers said might be key to better understanding the root of autism spectrum disorders.
Picking on science research as an example of frivolous spending seems to be a theme with the McCain-Palin campaign. McCain, for instance, has been making a point of dissing research of grizzly bear DNA in TV spots and on the campaign trail, and he brought it up again as recently as his first debate with Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. In fact, ScientificAmerican.com established in a February article that the study was crucial to determining whether grizzlies are a dying breed.
As bloggers and scientists have noted, next time McCain and Palin want to tout their devotion to special needs and health care, they might do well to avoid condemning the very science designed to address those issues.
Credit iStockphoto.com
Tags:
autism spectrum disorders,
scientific research,
mccain,
palin,
politics,
grizzly bears,
autism,
science policy,
fruit flies
More News Blog:
Next: Osteoporosis drugs up heart risk, study says
Previous: Tennis refs are people, too: Visual illusion to blame for all those bad calls
See what we're tweeting about
BecCrew RT @screen_info Congratulations to @BadenPailthorpe! http://t.co/4gc6DfL1gN
BoraZ Fasting: The New Fad Diet? http://t.co/AzNQ2HlXno
sciammind #SciAmBlogs Wednesday - niche construction, cicadas, ageing, Moon, pirates' dodo, sick caecilians, hurricane f... http://t.co/sVtkJrmrg2
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
27 Comments
Add CommentThis is typical of the know-nothing attitudes of these campaigners. Every American has a duty to send them where they belong--into the wilderness. Don't fail to vote--if there are long lines at the polling place, consider the wait as time well spent, Take along a book, not only to pass the time but to make a statement about the value of learning. (If you find suspicious circumstances at your polling place, call 1-800-OURVOTE.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not know that Chapel Hill was a suburb of Paris, France.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is truly scary when the abysmally uninformed are in a position to affect the quality and funding of scientific research. How hard is it to become even a little informed before opening your mouth (and inserting your foot)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe nation's vital scientific research should be done by average Joe Six-Packs and hockey moms from real America, not by university-educated elitists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that's the point she's trying to make.
I hope Joe the Plumber gets to be Surgeon General in the Palin/McCain administration. Or head of NASA.
I think the point she's trying to make is that US research money should be spent at institutions in the US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Wigler's rethinking of autism's cause stems from an exhaustive analysis of risk based on a database of families with more than one autistic child."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDidn't see anywhere it mentions studying fruit flies. But I appreciate the read!
There, of course, is crop research going on in Paris for our USDA. Is it so absurd that our country's crop (anti-pest) research be conducted with Drosophila (fruit fly)? This is a genetic organism that provides a vast impact on knowledge in our world of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease be careful... the earmark that Palin was referring to was the $211,000 that went to a USDA(i think) lab in france that was studying flies that have a negative impact on olives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShe was not talking about NIH, USDA or other legitimate funding mechanisms/funders for researchers. She was NOT negating the general positive value of research. she was just saying we have designated funds for research... we shouldn't be using earmarks. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena was the one who got the earmark for the research she is talking about.
It wasn't for the Duke scientists that study autism. It wasn't for other research supported by NIH funding.
She was specifically talking about earmarks. The blog here is misleading.
This sadly is another example of the left's inability to speak the truth or report the facts without a twisting. Whether it's an honest proposal for the elimination of future congressional pork or laying proper blame for the GSE implosions (thanks Frank, Obama & Dodd) the liberals have a very dishonest habit to break.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscomeonpeople wrote: "Please be careful... the earmark that Palin was referring to was the $211,000 that went to a USDA(i think) lab in france that was studying flies that have a negative impact on olives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShe was not talking about NIH, USDA or other legitimate funding mechanisms/funders for researchers. "
Wait, I'm confused. The earmark went to a USDA lab, but she wasn't talking about USDA or other legitimate funding? Does this make any sense at all?
From the USDA's own report: "The recent establishment of the olive fruit fly ... in California has threatened to destroy the U.S. olive industry."
There are approximately 1,500 farms in CA growing olives commercially, creating an industry worth nearly $85 million. But apparently this is not worth the $750,000 to study and fight this pest, $211,000 of which is used at the lab in France.
This is the same group that thinks replacing the projector at one of the nations top planetariums, which is perhaps the most important piece of equipment in the building, is a waste of money. Who scoff at research into endangered species using DNA samples to study populations. Who have consistently shown themselves to be anti-science. She thinks trying to fight agricultural pests is a waste of money? Maybe she should spend a little time thinking of all the science that goes into the food on her plate and the clean water that comes out of her taps, the sanitation that keeps her disease free, the modern medicine that keeps her and her family healthy. Or maybe she should just pray for protection from witches...
And from the Seattle Times (Sept. 2, 2008) "Just this year, she [Palin] sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million more, per person, than any other state."
Ah, the hypocrisy.
With just less than one week left until we find out who will be our Commander in Chief for the next four years, there are new controversies surrounding both the Democrat and Republican camps. News sources are excited to report that the Republican National Committee spent upwards of $150,000 on new clothes for Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin. While this story has been circulating, inspiring an avalanche of negative publicity, anti-Republican attacks, and the like, I am not rolling with this tide. As a matter of fact, considering that both Palin and Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama have spent large sums of money on clothing, it doesn’t make me disrespect or respect one more than the other. After all, we live in a society where looks, more than anything else, are the prime things that we judge people on. If you have one candidate in designer duds, but somebody else who looks as if they’ve gotten their entire wardrobe from the Wal-Mart clearance rack, the latter won’t be taken seriously. And, besides, look at the attention Sarah Palin is getting with her wardrobe. It doesn't seem like such a bad political move. They spent a lot less on Sarah's wardrobe than Obama spends on TV commercials. In the end, I really hope that the American people will judge the candidates on the issues, and vote for the candidate that supports Americans' right to freedom for personal financial responsibility and the continued rights to no fax payday loans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPost Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
If she meant "US research money should be spent at institutions in the US" she has a funny way of saying it. She said that this money was a waste, not that it would be less of a waste if it were spent here. She said that not only was it a waste of money to do this research but we were sending it to a foreign country to do it - giving it the double-whammy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hear these re-interpretations of what a candidate "meant" all the time as a way of trying to forgive or explain away a stupid statement. Check out the latest controversy over Michelle Bachmann's "are they American or un-American" statements here in Minnesota. I'm not buying it but I'm sure some will. It's the old tactic of selling outrage rather than facts. Who cares if pork is wasted money or actually does some good? Pick out a couple of items that sound really stupid but never check into the facts.
Oh, GOD, Please bless America--quickly!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, GOD, please bless our Country, quickly. When will the divide end. This group against that group and let us realize that we are one nation. and our interests should be that for all citizens of this great nation. And remember, that we do not live in a bubble--what is done here will have an affect on OUR world. GOD, please let your Kingdom come--quickly!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank God for your response--If only others read it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually you can not speak about science with people that has not a minimum understanding in your field (and then the minimum might be well above PHD if you are in a very specialized and cutting edge field), and you shouldn't be saying "I will cut fundings for this or that" just on a hot head, Remember the story of Russian quantum mechanics scientists, the party wanted to optimize the research done, and cut off everything that wasn't useful research, so the scientists in an institute renamed their lab "Janitor" or something like that, so when it was proved that Quantum Mechanics were valid good science, the only thing they did was to re label the lab.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHer I.Q. in high school was 83. She scored below 900 on her SATs. She believes that the earth is 5,000 years old. She doesn't read magazines or newspapers. She cannot form complete, coherent sentences in the one language she knows. She has shown repeatedly her total lack of knowledge concerning even the simplest of issues, like the job description of the position she is applying for. She's the perfect person to handle complex decisions about scientific research. What a nightmare!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismarcocruces wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis sadly is another example of the left's inability to speak the truth or report the facts without a twisting. Whether it's an honest proposal for the elimination of future congressional pork or laying proper blame for the GSE implosions (thanks Frank, Obama & Dodd) the liberals have a very dishonest habit to break.
uhhhhh, well welcome to politics, there is always twisting of the facts. and that is seen on the right as well as the left. I don't deny that politicians lie. I simply expect them to lie intelligently, and to be informed about facts relevant to the things which they are spouting. Such as the impacts of fruit-fly (and just plain scientific) research on our country and the rest of the world. And little special-needs babies, not to put a fruit-fly in the ointment.
By the way, does anyone else find this a little hypocritical coming from the woman who spent thousands of dollars on clothing? Just bringing it up.
And as far as honesty goes, perhaps the madia (and this isn't the politicians saying this you may notice, but a JOURNALIST) twists things a little. But at least they don't blatantly lie. "Obama will raise all taxes": lie. And we do need more revenue right now. Better that the taxes are foisted on people who can actually pay them.
Oh please, don't try to tell me that she was "only" talking about earmarks here. Or that research money should be allocated to institutions in the US. The scientific community is global and research projects are funded through international cooperations, independent of the location of experimentation! After my first appalled shock at her utter stupidity while watching the you tube recording of Mrs. Palin, I watched it a couple of more times and noticed at how calculated her delivery of "fruit fly research in Paris, France" was. With her copious facial mimicry, she even got a few simpletons in the crowd to laugh at the incredulity of such wasted money. Later after having spoken to friends and family members who are not involved it the scientific community and have forgotten their high school biology/genetics courses, I came to the horrible realization that they were not informed about the drosophila model, and what significant advances in basic and developmental research its use had implemented. Then it dawned on me like a cheap shot in the stomach. Sarah Palin may be an idiot, and by the look on her face, she was probably envisioning little white coated lab techs collected fruit flies that had congregated around the froie gras, but her speech writer is most likely not so pathetically stupid, and realized that if Palin delivered the line with her trademark folksy sarcasm, that most of the average Joes and Josephines out there would fall for this degrading reference to one of research's most useful models. They would fall for this ploy, unwittingly. I think that is the calculated risk that Palin and her speech writer decided to take....."Well those frivolous intellectuals are gonna get pretty worked up about this one, but what the heck, we won't get their votes anyway. Gosh darn it, let's get out there and mak'em look silly. The average Joe is sure ta laugh, and maybe later they'll vote for us....I kid you not!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisps what the heck does Palin know about Autism and special needs kids? She has a infant with Down's syndrome. She's been pretty busy lately, so I doubt she's had much time to actually cope with his special needs. I have nearly 17 years of daily hands on experience with Autism and let me tell you Ms Palin, educating a child with Down's Syndrome is a world of difference from educating a child on the Autistic spectrum.
If you look at the actual earmark, the money went to Montpellier, France where the USDA's European Biological Control Laboratory is located. And to top it all off, the earmark was on an Ag-Rural Development-FDA bill. California is the ONLY state with a commercially significant olive crop with over 400,000 acres devoted to growing them. Can you imagine how many Americans would lose jobs should this cease to exist? I think Palin should do a little research before she claims something would have "little or nothing to do with the public good."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChristopherTheAthiest at 04:14 PM on 10/29/08 said
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Her I.Q. in high school was 83. She scored below 900 on her SATs." Mr. The Athiest, could you please provide a link for where this information comes from? I would love to share this as much as possible as the campaign winds down (and possibly thereaffter).
If you do not believe in evolution, you probably don't believe in DNA, or understand how it works, how living things are related, and cannot fathom the benefit of studying Drosophila; after all, according to CTA, " She believes that the earth is 5,000 years old." (And wasn't it created on a Wednesday?)
I'm always surprised by the derogatory terms used to describe those with opposing scientific or political leanings. However, in terms of this discussion, if the science funding is truly a pork barrel grant I have a problem with it since good science grants should come from peer reviewed proposals and not political pork. Perhaps there was a better study proposed, but did not get funding because this was a political payback. Perhaps not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU BETCHA SARAH WUZ THINKIN' THA ONLY PRAYER WILL CURE AUTISM NOT PESKY FRUIT FLIES
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you honestly think Obama knows anything at all about biology?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgian I have to wonder how such biology literate individuals can flock to the left when everything we understand about the nature of life from evolution teachs principals embraced by the right?
The hypocrites on the liberal left who claim to have an understanding of evolution and what it teaches us about the way nature works should sit down and examine their liberal beliefs.
Hate religion if you do but at least acknowledge that the Republican party policies closely follows what we have come to understand about the natural world from evoltuion. The democratic party policies directly go against the very laws of the natural world.
Those best suited to their environment have an advantage and if they pass on their genetic material to offspring they have a survival advantage over others. Democrats want to lvl the playing feild and benefit those with not so adaptive qualities. Its your color or gender which matters not you capabilities.
Capitalism mimcs evolution a welfare system does not. Be thankful the right has religion because without it we would have an even uglier ceo than we have today....but that selfish, greedy, self-centered ceo is unfortunately an evolutionary winner and all you liberally 'educated' people should sit down and see which politcal party most accurately reflects what we understand about how the natural world operates.
Folks .... there are more ways to fund scientific research than to depend on the tax payer. Just the bloody strings that are attached to government funds are enough to send many toward foundations and corporate sources. Expecting any politician to be that specialized in science isn't fair or very realistic. The scientific community must still be educators in the 21st century as it always has... plus with an extra focus on the elected and appointed official. They will usually become advocates once informed. To
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscondem them before informing them is never a positive route to their support
Folks ...please be reminded that taxpayer funds are not the only source of
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispaying for scientific research. The strings alone are enough to send many
away from governments and towards foundations and corporations.
It's not fair or realistic to expect politicians to be specialized enough to understand the science and then get insightful support until they are informed by those inside the scientific community. Most will become advocates when given the concepts behind the research. Positive efforts to reach out wins more results than insults regardless of political party. They have a great deal more on their plate and list of responsibilities than what we see as necessary to our goals and too often myopic perspectives.
<a href="http://www.jimmy-choo-shoes.com">jimmy choo shoes</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this