Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, February 14, 2012
Science Prospecting Science
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:42 AM
I really cant stand this sort of thing:
Researchers at the Salk Institute have discovered a startling feature of early brain development that helps to explain how complex neuron wiring patterns are programmed using just a handful of critical genes. The findings, published in Cell, may help scientists develop new therapies for neurological disorders, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and provide insight into certain cancers.Why always this need for a justification? Why can it just be interesting, fascinating, cool? Almost every article about a scientific breakthrough is required to show how it will save lives, and saving lives only means one thing: making money for pharmaceutical corporations. This attitude is degrading; it makes all of our hard work and human brilliance look cheap. It makes it look as if one becomes a scientist because he/she wants to discover something that will make them rich (the coded of which is: save lives). In the current order of things, scientists are nothing more than gold prospectors, women and men panning for nuggets. How do we get out of this impoverished vision of science? A vision that's so doggedly reinforced.
1
as a research scientist, I can tell you that the reason there is always some "justification" is that scientists don't print money. They need grants, and when writing grants, if there is no problem to be solved, no money to be made, then there is no grant awarded, no budget for equipment or staff, and no science.
2
As a scientist- this comes from the purse strings.. People don't want to fund your science unless they're going to get something out of it..
Getting around this philosophy is the idea of the Howard Hughes' Medical Institute (HHMI)- where scientists who have"proven their mettle" get a lot of money to study with fewer of those limitations.
Getting around this philosophy is the idea of the Howard Hughes' Medical Institute (HHMI)- where scientists who have"proven their mettle" get a lot of money to study with fewer of those limitations.
3
Your comment is idiotic. Pharmaceutical companies and pharma research are a very small part of life sciences research, which in turn is a small part of scientific research in general. Your cynical bias and lack of knowledge about the subject make you sound ridiculous.
4
Well... we could always go back to the Cold War. A major national competitor/adversary does tend to spur the search for knowledge which would convey superiority to your rival.
Failing that, people have to find other motivations.
Failing that, people have to find other motivations.
5
Because fully half of Americans (GOP) not only don't give a shit about understanding reality, they actively work towards eradicating the knowledge we've already accumulated. So forget about much basic research being funded. Your best bet is to spin your research as cancer-related with some sort of immediate payoff for healthcare.
6
Seriously? You have a problem with the fact that something amazingly good might come from this research? Seriously? Also, when research is talked about in the popular press it's because it has some real world application. Otherwise non-science people aren't going to i) give a shit or ii) understand why the fuck the research is being talked about. Science publications for scientists are the only place where they might not outright state what practical applications the research might have. Also, most scientists I know like it when there's a practical application. I've never seen a scientist pissed off that their research can be used for a good, practical reason. Ever.
8
If you have a problem with science learning things, feel free not to follow it. For FSM's sake Charles, what is it like living in your world? Can we help adjust your recreational pharmaceuticals to get you out of this cycle?
9
Many, if not most, scientists are problem solvers at heart. It's entirely likely that the people working on this project were drawn to it *because* of its implications for cancer and the potential to help people.
Leave it to Charles to complain that science is too focused on societal benefit, and to think that it's "degrading" to solve actual problems that real people have. What I don't get is how a very humanistic pub like The Stranger tolerates such a sociopath.
Leave it to Charles to complain that science is too focused on societal benefit, and to think that it's "degrading" to solve actual problems that real people have. What I don't get is how a very humanistic pub like The Stranger tolerates such a sociopath.
11
I think Charles may have been making the point that the quest to more fully understand the universe and everything in it should be enough of a reason to do research. As we more fully understand our world, of course we'll find more and more ways to use that knowledge for good, but that doesn't mean that the goal has to be new medicines or treatments. The goal should be greater knowledge of the world, knowing that this greater knowledge will naturally lead to a greater ability to control and change that world.
12
@9
Lighten the fuck up, asswipe.
As for doing science that's just cool for cool's sake, isn't that what the space program is all about? I mean, there's no life saving involved in walking on the moon, but we've still put billions into it.
All of you fuckers need to lay off Charles by the way. At least he's engaged in intellectual thought and not in cranking out tiresome political rants like the rest of SLOG.
Lighten the fuck up, asswipe.
As for doing science that's just cool for cool's sake, isn't that what the space program is all about? I mean, there's no life saving involved in walking on the moon, but we've still put billions into it.
All of you fuckers need to lay off Charles by the way. At least he's engaged in intellectual thought and not in cranking out tiresome political rants like the rest of SLOG.
13
Given the above, I wonder if the correct justifications are being employed.
For the most part, the reality-based community believes in advancing knowledge for its own sake and that advanced knowledge tends to eventually find utility and application.
Therefore, as long as we're adding speculative benefits to the end of such articles, I think we should show some love to people who might not otherwise be interested...
These findings, published in Cell, may prove the existence of God, lower taxes and send illegal immigrants back where they came from.
For the most part, the reality-based community believes in advancing knowledge for its own sake and that advanced knowledge tends to eventually find utility and application.
Therefore, as long as we're adding speculative benefits to the end of such articles, I think we should show some love to people who might not otherwise be interested...
These findings, published in Cell, may prove the existence of God, lower taxes and send illegal immigrants back where they came from.
15
If you still stop insulting us for a moment, Charles, I will tell you why:
Non-scientists.
Scientists would *love* to do things just because they're cool. All of us go into science because we are obsessed with figuring out how things work just for the sake of it, because HOLY CRAP ISN'T THAT RAD THAT THAT JUST LIKE, EVOLVED IN HUMANS.
But you will never, ever, ever, ever, ever (getting my point here?) get funding to do research with that attitude and explanation. You always have to prove the worth of your research, because money for science comes from companies or the government, and they only care about making more money or getting something done.
So, please, stop blaming us and insulting us. It's not us. I don't know a single scientist who wouldn't be happy to just do the research the want just for the sake of it. But you can't do science in the current political/economic climate like that, so we have to justify what we do so that we can keep figuring stuff out.
Maybe talk to a scientist before you start accusing us of things or making claims about us.
Non-scientists.
Scientists would *love* to do things just because they're cool. All of us go into science because we are obsessed with figuring out how things work just for the sake of it, because HOLY CRAP ISN'T THAT RAD THAT THAT JUST LIKE, EVOLVED IN HUMANS.
But you will never, ever, ever, ever, ever (getting my point here?) get funding to do research with that attitude and explanation. You always have to prove the worth of your research, because money for science comes from companies or the government, and they only care about making more money or getting something done.
So, please, stop blaming us and insulting us. It's not us. I don't know a single scientist who wouldn't be happy to just do the research the want just for the sake of it. But you can't do science in the current political/economic climate like that, so we have to justify what we do so that we can keep figuring stuff out.
Maybe talk to a scientist before you start accusing us of things or making claims about us.
16
@11: Thank you.
@12: Whelp, not that it's the sole purpose of the space program, but the only way we're gonna stop the next extinction level rock headed our way is with a space program that can handle getting to those rocks in time and altering their trajectories.
@12: Whelp, not that it's the sole purpose of the space program, but the only way we're gonna stop the next extinction level rock headed our way is with a space program that can handle getting to those rocks in time and altering their trajectories.
17
As a scientist, who knows that I am never going to make any money in this career, I have to say a big "FUCK YOU." It is mother fuckers like you that cheapen MY hard work. When was the last time that you did anything to help save a life or make it better?!
I will give it to you that the pharmaceutical are a bunch of money-hungry asses, but the scientists?? I have not been in research that long (going on 8 years), but from what I have witnessed is that it is not the scientist that are doing this for profit (because most of us know that we won't ever be making the big bucks in this field). We do it because we love it. We do it for the chance that some day, some how, all of our hard work is going to pay off and make the world a better place. We do it because it is so fucking cool to say, "yeah, I'm a scientist" (side note, I am a neuroscientist, which is pretty fucking awesome to say). We certainly don't do it for the pay check.
I will give it to you that the pharmaceutical are a bunch of money-hungry asses, but the scientists?? I have not been in research that long (going on 8 years), but from what I have witnessed is that it is not the scientist that are doing this for profit (because most of us know that we won't ever be making the big bucks in this field). We do it because we love it. We do it for the chance that some day, some how, all of our hard work is going to pay off and make the world a better place. We do it because it is so fucking cool to say, "yeah, I'm a scientist" (side note, I am a neuroscientist, which is pretty fucking awesome to say). We certainly don't do it for the pay check.
18
@12: Wow, you think Charles is intellectual because he acts superior and all-knowing? You must be, what, 15? May recommend Ayn Rand books? You'll love 'em.
BTW, the space program is not at all about doing cool research for the sake of it. Some articles that might help educate you, if you're open to it:
http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/phy…
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/14/spa…
BTW, the space program is not at all about doing cool research for the sake of it. Some articles that might help educate you, if you're open to it:
http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/phy…
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/14/spa…
19
Helix @15 gets it exactly right.
Reality is this: we write grants to the National Institutes of Health, not the National Institutes of This Really Great Idea I Have.
I also don't think it is unreasonable of the taxpayers that support us to the tune of $42 bn/year to expect the occasional tangible return on their investments in our crazy ideas.
Reality is this: we write grants to the National Institutes of Health, not the National Institutes of This Really Great Idea I Have.
I also don't think it is unreasonable of the taxpayers that support us to the tune of $42 bn/year to expect the occasional tangible return on their investments in our crazy ideas.
20
Perhaps curious readers would like to know the prospective applications of any particular scientific progress... You see justification whereas I see information.
(Plus if I am searching the internet for information on a disease - wowee, I get an extra hit that might be relevant to future possibilities of treatment. Nice.)
(Plus if I am searching the internet for information on a disease - wowee, I get an extra hit that might be relevant to future possibilities of treatment. Nice.)
21
Another research scientist here. I pretty much agree with what all the other scientist commenters have been saying.
But I also think there are some decent reasons for it. It directs more people to look at the same problem. This causes its own issues, of course, but it also means that you have more brains, and diverse brains, working on important things, hastening their completion. I wholly believe that there should be science being done for science's sake, but I also think that if that were the only motivation, our world would be the poorer for it. I think a decent mix of both would be far better.
But I also think there are some decent reasons for it. It directs more people to look at the same problem. This causes its own issues, of course, but it also means that you have more brains, and diverse brains, working on important things, hastening their completion. I wholly believe that there should be science being done for science's sake, but I also think that if that were the only motivation, our world would be the poorer for it. I think a decent mix of both would be far better.
22
I also want to echo what @17 said. We make shit for money, and unless you're like that one guy who discovers some amazing drug, you're not going to make much until maaaybe 20 years into your career, if you happen to get tenure and run a big successful lab with tons of grants.
No one does this job for the money. Grad school alone should be a deterrent - I work 60-70 hour weeks and most weekends for a fraction of what my friends who just got jobs are making.
No one does this job for the money. Grad school alone should be a deterrent - I work 60-70 hour weeks and most weekends for a fraction of what my friends who just got jobs are making.
23
(not trying to complain or have a martyr complex here - I love this and couldn't imagine doing anything else, just trying to state the facts about this job)
24
Today, in our current fully devolved state of society, almost anything can be sold to the public -- as long is it enhances iPhone sales.
25
I was almost with you until you said:
Sorry WHAT? No Charles, saving lives means saving lives. As a scientist, I can assure you that the vast majority of scientists, who work for public institutions the world over, are not the slightest bit concerned with helping the pharmacutical companies bottom line. Eventually, loooong down the line, a pharmacutical company will make money producing a drug, but honestly if that leads to fewer deaths and better quality of life, why should it matter?
I agree that it's unfortunate that everything has to be framed in terms of eventual uses in medicine, but that's a natural consequence of the way science is funded. Science is chiefly funded by government, and government is chiefly concerned with practical things to make people's lives better. The chunk of money set aside for biomedical research is fantastically larger than the money set aside for "pure" no-way-it-could-cure-you research. I'm a biochemist, and if I'm writing a grant proposal I'd rather be looking to get some money from the biomedical pot than from the teaspoon set aside for the poor zoologists.
It's true that it would be better if society appreciated pure research more, and hence government felt less of a need to tie research funds to future economic or medical benefits, but that's a cultural shift that's going to have to happen over time and will require a generalized appreciation of knowledge (known these days in some circles as "elitism").
Almost every article about a scientific breakthrough is required to show how it will save lives, and saving lives means onlyone thing: making money for pharmaceutical corporations.
Sorry WHAT? No Charles, saving lives means saving lives. As a scientist, I can assure you that the vast majority of scientists, who work for public institutions the world over, are not the slightest bit concerned with helping the pharmacutical companies bottom line. Eventually, loooong down the line, a pharmacutical company will make money producing a drug, but honestly if that leads to fewer deaths and better quality of life, why should it matter?
I agree that it's unfortunate that everything has to be framed in terms of eventual uses in medicine, but that's a natural consequence of the way science is funded. Science is chiefly funded by government, and government is chiefly concerned with practical things to make people's lives better. The chunk of money set aside for biomedical research is fantastically larger than the money set aside for "pure" no-way-it-could-cure-you research. I'm a biochemist, and if I'm writing a grant proposal I'd rather be looking to get some money from the biomedical pot than from the teaspoon set aside for the poor zoologists.
It's true that it would be better if society appreciated pure research more, and hence government felt less of a need to tie research funds to future economic or medical benefits, but that's a cultural shift that's going to have to happen over time and will require a generalized appreciation of knowledge (known these days in some circles as "elitism").
26
because of funding and grants. Science must constantly justify its self as a capitalistic venture in order to survive ignorance and apathy.
27
You could just as easily go after Alfred Nobel then. The main requirement originally in winning the Nobel prize was to invent or develop something that benefitted humanity.
28
It may be of interest to note that Isaac Newton spent a lot of his time trying to transmute lead into gold while he was busy not getting rich from discovering gravity, inventing calculus and writing the laws of thermo-dynamics. Many scientist feel that patenting their work is contrary to the goal of greater knowledge and science for science's sake is a noble and laudable pursit, but someone always manages to make money from good science. People working in pure science make amazing discoveries and someone else comes along and commodifies it and gets rich. Because "knowledge desires to be free" Mr. Science gets zip. which hardly seems fair.
29
Actually, all research needs justification and not primarily because of its cost. Motivation for research is needed to situate a study in relationship to other work: what do we know, what do we stand to learn and what will it enable us to work on. Something being cool isn't sufficient motivation as, for example, we may already have the process pretty well understood and doing further studies may not reveal anything new.
31
The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
33
".. making money for pharmaceutical corporations.."
I think Mr. M makes some fine and most cogent points.
And speaking of pharmaceutical companies:
http://www.thelocal.se/39070/20120213/
The crucial question, of course, is who actually owns these major pharma corps? If it's the same people who own the oil companies, the banks, and the munitions makers, they we see a closed loop of ultimate profit going on here.
Further sources:
http://www.thelocal.se/34044/20110528/
http://bonjourplanetearth.blogspot.com/2…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-161…
http://dangerousprescriptiondrugs.weebly…
I think Mr. M makes some fine and most cogent points.
And speaking of pharmaceutical companies:
http://www.thelocal.se/39070/20120213/
So far, around 150 children in Sweden have developed narcolepsy from the Pandemrix swine flu vaccine, but that number could rise, according to Tomas Norberg, chair of the Swedish Narcolepsy Association (Narkolepsiföreningen).
The crucial question, of course, is who actually owns these major pharma corps? If it's the same people who own the oil companies, the banks, and the munitions makers, they we see a closed loop of ultimate profit going on here.
Further sources:
http://www.thelocal.se/34044/20110528/
http://bonjourplanetearth.blogspot.com/2…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-161…
http://dangerousprescriptiondrugs.weebly…
34
The increasingly competitive funding environment requires scientists justify their research by framing it in terms of its practical applications, even those who seek funding from federal agencies (NIH funding has been gutted over the past few years, although this shift in priorities has been happening for quite a while now). I agree this is not a good thing. Research is at its heart a very creative field. Scientific advances are stifled when researchers are expected to abide by the applicability of their work rather than their own interests.
35
"Why always this need for a justification? Why can it just be interesting, fascinating, cool?"
A combination of grants, idiot science reporters, and whoever the intended audience of the article is.
A combination of grants, idiot science reporters, and whoever the intended audience of the article is.
36
Why always this need for a justification?
Because federal grants only fund scientific research if it has the potential to produce some tangible benefit to society.
More often than not, however, that potential is pretty remote, so a lot of research is in effect just basic science done for the sake of enlightenment. Still, you'll always see references to real world applications in science PR releases such as this in order to satisfy the people holding the purse strings.
Because federal grants only fund scientific research if it has the potential to produce some tangible benefit to society.
More often than not, however, that potential is pretty remote, so a lot of research is in effect just basic science done for the sake of enlightenment. Still, you'll always see references to real world applications in science PR releases such as this in order to satisfy the people holding the purse strings.
38
because when science says it's designed an algorithm to predict the exact curvature of a ponytail based upon a number of different variables, the first hundred comments are "why are we spending hard-earned tax dollars to fund this rubbish?"
39
@37: "Oh Charles. Do you think about what you write before you write it?"
Of course he does. He thinks "what can I say that will make people think/respond?"
Of course he does. He thinks "what can I say that will make people think/respond?"
40
Researchers at the Salk Institute are only trying to attract research grants from those with deep pockets. Applied research is generally easier to attract funding for. Pure research is less likely to be immediately profitable, or even profitable in the foreseeable future, and cannot in this manner attract the attention of innovation-minded investment.
41
The best humble brag I've ever heard in conversation came from a scientist related to the Salk Institute:
"Oh, me? I'm a scientist. I'm not interested in making money... I'm just trying to help people live forever..."
"Oh, me? I'm a scientist. I'm not interested in making money... I'm just trying to help people live forever..."
43
@42, ahh venomlash, going all latin fallacy on the anti-vaxxers. Your youthful optimism is so refreshing ;-)
Don't forget, by being scientists who back one of the most useful and life-saving forms of medicine their is, we are one of "them", on the payroll to Big Pharma and mere useful idiots.
Don't forget, by being scientists who back one of the most useful and life-saving forms of medicine their is, we are one of "them", on the payroll to Big Pharma and mere useful idiots.
44
@25 FTW
"saving lives only means one thing: making money for pharmaceutical corporations"
Umm... no. Saving lives might only mean that to YOU and other self-absorbed assholes like you, but it means a hell of a lot more to the people whose lives were saved.
I'm sure if it was your miserable life that were saved or the life of a family member, then maybe the purchase of the life-saving drugs would mean something more to you than profit for a pharmaceutical corporation.
What a callous bastard you are.
"saving lives only means one thing: making money for pharmaceutical corporations"
Umm... no. Saving lives might only mean that to YOU and other self-absorbed assholes like you, but it means a hell of a lot more to the people whose lives were saved.
I'm sure if it was your miserable life that were saved or the life of a family member, then maybe the purchase of the life-saving drugs would mean something more to you than profit for a pharmaceutical corporation.
What a callous bastard you are.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (46) RSS