Doesn't answer why we (US) should pay for this.
Sounds, to me at least, like a problem that should be addressed completely by the Chinese gov't.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
You don't really expect an answer on Fox News do you?
http://www.media.way...ntervention-study
(Li is the author of the abstract cited in your link.) HTH. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Or from the receivers employer either.
Its not like there aren't other examples where grant money hasn't been applied in even worse ways that this. However, the appropriateness of spending any "free" money needs to be examined..because all of this would be better served being spent in support of internal issues...like providing dental care for that woman's kid in Tampa instead of sending her to jail. Instead, we're under threat of the "fat tax" to pay for things like that.
If this issue is important to China, then the grant should have come from China. Indeed, though, this can't be an issue with the current administration...it does fall squarely at the feet of the prior administration. And it was granted before the current financial crisis, so indian-giving would be bad form. Point awarded to Another Scott. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
Where to begin...
1) You haven't demonstrated that there's anything at all wrong with Li getting a grant to study HIV transmission in China. Instead, you've linked to a story that fits in with the right-wing talking points about the federal government funding stupid or wasteful research. The people who usually raise these criticisms know nothing about how science works in the real world. It's just to get people riled up about "wasting my tax dollars" when they can't see the big picture.
2) A lot of research at universities is funded to train new researchers. Students won't go to graduate school unless they can get funding to pay for it (via teaching or research assistance-ships). A lot of that funding comes from federal agencies, to help pay for research that the agencies often can't do themselves. How do you suppose one does such training? You have them study problems that others aren't working on, and sometimes that means studying things outside the US. Methods developed and expertise gained helps everyone, including the US. The researchers are from the US and are being funded, in part, by a US agency. 3) The grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and the NIH can only fund research that someone proposes to work on. Perhaps nobody proposed research on dental care in Tampa? 4) The issue is important to the US and China and lots of other places because we all need to find the best ways to limit the spread of HIV. HIV didn't first appear in the US, you know. 5) The administration has almost nothing to do with deciding who gets a 5 year research grant from a federal agency. That's decided on a competitive basis, with scoring determined by independent researchers who rank the proposals. 6) $2.2M or $2.6M over 5 years is cheap. Many universities charge 100% or more overhead (to pay for labs, management, keeping the lights on, etc.) Taking $1.3M over 5 years gives $260k a year to actually pay for the research. You know how expensive employees are. Graduate students are cheaper, but you're still looking at maybe 3-4 people working on this project for 5 years (and that doesn't count the Prof, who probably has to teach and work on other projects as well). It's hardly a boondoggle. Look at sugar subsidies if you want to get riled up. Science funding in the US has been gutted over the last few decades. 7) If you're really interested in how NIH funding works, you're not going to get anything other than noise from Fox. Look around here instead: http://grants.nih.go.../guide/index.html HTH. Cheers, Scott. (Who has a raw nerve about some of this "war on science" stuff...) |
|
Aside from the fact that I already awarded you the point
I have given you what I think is wrong with Li getting this funding from a US agency to study a Chinese problem.
I am NOT a world citizen. It is all well and good to study western techniques and their application in China ONLY if the end produces a Chinese government willing to implement those changes. Better chance of that if they are footing the bill. Its not research into limiting the spread of aids within the US. (if it was, it would be more acceptable)...unless you are saying that the chinese sex workers are coming to LA to form a new joint venture. As for how the grants are awarded..yeehaw...they are competitive. Good deal. As for graduating a new class of researchers...does it truly matter what the study is? The administration sets the direction of those agencies by the appointment of the leadership. And yes, Virginia, there is a whole bunch of other crap the government does that gets me riled up ;-) I don't think giving a billion to a bunch of FL yeehaws to tear up the everglades is a good deal...and I don't particular think one could argue that sugar is as dear to national security as, say, iron milling and steel production. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
I reject the point.
:-p
There is nothing wrong with the NIH funding this study. Bush being the former president has nothing to do with the worth or lack thereof of Li getting funding, either. I have given you what I think is wrong with Li getting this funding from a US agency to study a Chinese problem. You threw up some snark. I gave you some facts. HIV/AIDS is not a "Chinese problem." Are you saying the US should only fund research conducted within the boundaries of the USA? Or are you saying that the US should fund research done in China (by US researchers) only if the Chinese government says *before the research is done* that they will implement recommendations from the researchers (who are not US government agents and who do not set policy) even if the researchers never propose any policy recommendations? Don't you see how silly this line of argument is? Li will be doing research. Research doesn't set policy. Research can inform policy, but it usually doesn't. There is no telling where research will lead. There may be profound discoveries from talented new scientists, or there may be nothing more than a list of statistics, or something in between. The NIH won't know before funding the research, and they won't know until after the work was done. That's the point - to learn more and maybe to come up something that leads to more knowledge and possibly a clear path to policy recommendations or even treatments and cures. Scientific research is the process of trying to find out information about something that isn't known, and then trying to explain the findings in the context of what is known. Even when it "fails", it is serving an important purpose and helping to expand knowledge. As for graduating a new class of researchers...does it truly matter what the study is? ? Yes, the field studied matters. NIH probably doesn't have too much interest in astrophysics. NIH probably isn't interested in funding an HIV/AIDS researcher doing work on inner-city dental problems. I'm having trouble following your train of thought... Different skills are needed in biomedical research than superconductors than stellar evolution than ... The administration sets the direction of those agencies by the appointment of the leadership. The NIH director is a caretaker (acting) - http://www.nih.gov/a...irector/index.htm He was appointed by Bush last Halloween. The director of NIH does not have anything to do with Li's project getting funded. No director of an organization as large as NIH - $29B annual - is going to be looking at *individual* grants. http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm Do you think the NIH should not be funding research on HIV/AIDS and the factors that affect how it is spread, ways to reduce the spread, etc., etc.? I'm about done on this topic... :-/ Cheers, Scott. |
|
Fine
what I'm saying is that the study of high risk behavior among Chinese hookers is something for the chinese to study. While HIV might be a global issue, there are certainly places in the US that could benefit for that money being spend studying behavior here that impacts the spread of HIV.
? Yes, the field studied matters. NIH probably doesn't have too much interest in astrophysics. Excuse me...but ..."no d'uh". Are you saying there isn't any health issue worth studying inside our borders? We have no HIV here so we need to go find it in chinese hookers? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
I was responding to your comment.
You said, "As for graduating a new class of researchers...does it truly matter what the study is?" What did you mean in the context of the thread?
Are you saying there isn't any health issue worth studying inside our borders? We have no HIV here so we need to go find it in chinese hookers? Why does it have to be black and white? The NIH funds a lot more than Dr. Li. Why can't the NIH fund the work of US researchers and let them do their work wherever the researcher thinks is most appropriate? But we're just going over the same area again.... If you think that the NIH should fund some particular research, then get your favorite medical researcher to propose a project. R21 seems to be designed for that - http://grants.nih.go...es/PA-09-164.html 1. Research Objectives If you think the NIH and the federal government should only fund research done in the USA, then why not talk to Bill Gates about redirecting the money that he's dumping into fighting malaria into economic literacy in the US instead? After all, Africa is a rich continent and we've got too many people who can't pay their mortgage... :-/ Cheers, Scott. |
|
Bill Gates can do what he wants.
Its his money, not mine..well, sort of anyway:-)
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
China funds the NIH, not you. ;-)
|
|
Touche
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
Oh hell...
this charade is just a bit too much...
combat of the spread of aids, research for cancer cures, research into infectious diseases, etc...is all good. Its all global in nature... I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
come off it beep
some smart guy got a ton of government money to party with chinese hookers, he should get a medal
|
|
That is too true
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
I'm just thankful that..
Your random-walk through 'study subjects' is not setting priorities for anyone..
You can't even tell when your Nationalism-logic becomes irrelevant to the aims of (whatever topic, but especially science.) Even after it's (amazingly-patiently) Pointed Out in clear English. (Oh, as to whether a 'biz-science' exists.. other than the pseudo- sort whereby corrupt mathematicians invent 'instruments' intended to spread Risk amongst enough dupes as to evade jail, and similar cha cha cha -??- I dunno.) But the thought that there could be such an oxymoron (?) quite exceeds my ability to fantasize. |
|
You be thankful
because until that day that we become the global commune...there is still ours and theirs. We have plenty of our own need on the health front and somehow I don't see the behavior of chinese hookers solving any of those issues for us.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
Then I'll make it really simple, as in biz-simple:
AIDS
HOW, WHERE you 'study' the phenomenon of its spread, prevention, modified vectors etc. is about all aspects within the fields of immunology, epidemiology -- and the various ways that psych and human idiocy all interact. *YOU* are expert in not a single one of these (and other) related disciplines, let alone competent to perform triage amongst competing what-if-we-try-THIS? approaches re *any* proposed investigation, suggested by the informed. These decisions are not made by spreadsheet-math, remember? While you are unable to see the limits of your imagined omniscient ability to parse any issue, even well-beyond your ken: anyone Not-You can see the bloviation behind this pointless thread. Ayn Rand: now There's where your best capabilities for creating humor for others, lies. IMhO, of course. But please stay well-away from my Petri dishes. Or anywhere near the box labelled, DANGER !!! HV *ON* 'K?? |
|
One thing I am certain of
..don't want to have anything to do with your petri dishes at all.
I can only push so far before the game is no fun, even for me. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
Something to keep in mind, though...
It's not a game.
We all enjoy poking each others buttons here, but this story can have real consequences. When Congress gets goaded into changing policies as a result of people getting riled, as opposed to dispassionately examining the issues and considering the facts, it can have real consequences. C.f. what happened with the furor over crack cocaine. http://en.wikipedia...._v._United_States Cheers, Scott. (Who realizes the 54 users here probably don't have much impact on what Congress does ;-), but who doesn't like feeding destructive memes.) |
|
Re: Then I'll make it really simple, as in biz-simple:
Ash, It's good to see you still got it.
Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends! (Disk crashes notwithstanding...) jb4 |
|
Re: Then I'll make it really simple, as in biz-simple:
Got what?
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
no its not, he just rents it from the government :-)
|