The Most anti science congress now in session

[guno]

Over the last four years, Congress developed a reputation for institutionalizing an“anti-science” attitude. During the 112th and 113th Congresses, the label was typically applied to its Republicans, who controlled the House of Representatives, and typically because of their propensity to dismiss climate change science. Typically, but not only—misinformed musings about women’s reproductive processes, support for creationist education, attempts to remove the peer review process at the National Science Foundation, and efforts to roll back funding for research programs also ignited the ire of the science-loving public.

The Most Anti-Science Congress in Recent History Is Now in Session Motherboard

 

[guno]

The anti-scientists on the House Science Committee
Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has ignited controversy with his recent remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."

Broun -- a physician who earned a bachelor's in chemistry from the University of Georgia and a medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta -- made the controversial comments in a Sept. 27 speech at a sportsmen's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Ga.

Adding to the uproar is the fact that Broun sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

The anti-scientists on the House Science Committee

 

[Agit8r]

The anti-scientists on the House Science Committee
Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has ignited controversy with his recent remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."

Broun -- a physician who earned a bachelor's in chemistry from the University of Georgia and a medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta -- made the controversial comments in a Sept. 27 speech at a sportsmen's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Ga.

Adding to the uproar is the fact that Broun sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

The anti-scientists on the House Science Committee

Sadly not without precedence. Recall that a few years ago a science committee member claimed that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Republicans always have people who do not believe in a certain task of government oversee that function of government.

 

[ScienceRocks]

And they accuse Obama for wanting to destroy America? These idiots honestly feel that only a strong military makes a super power. IF that is so, why wasn't Iraq under Saddam or North Korea under Kim considered a super power?

History seems to paint the picture that the nation with the biggest economy, biggest science infrastructure and the highest per capital incomes throughout the populations are the normally the super powers.

We must invest in science as we must invest in our military or we won't be. Anyone that does different is really the one that wants to cause Americas down fall.

Cut, slash and burn isn't a plan! It is dumb....

The roman or British didn't slash science and infrastructure funding as they were becoming a great power.

 

[guno]

Seems like the anti science crowd isn't commenting on this

 

[Anathema]

The US Government has NO legitimate power to be involved in science or technology issues beyond the issuance of patents and trademarks.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The US Government has NO legitimate power to be involved in science or technology issues beyond the issuance of patents and trademarks.

Based on what? It would be the first "first" world government to have such a constitution. Haiti also doesn't invest in their roads or science programs.

Please show me....Because America sure as fuck wouldn't be a leader in shit if we got rid of it. And even if it was it is high time to amend such a dumb mistake.

Our government has been investing in infrastructure, science and r&d since the days of Washington, adams and Madison. We wouldn't be a super power without it.

Jefferson funded non-military stuff too like lewis and clark going to the pacific. The moon mission of the day.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Nine Government Investments That Made Us an Industrial Economic Leader
Sep 8, 2011William Lazonick


Let's look at some highlights of that history:

1. Railroads:Under the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 through 1866, the U.S. government handed railroad companies 103 million acres of public land that could be sold or used as loan collateral to finance the construction of transcontinental railroad lines. These land grants were equivalent to 5.34 percent of the size of the continental United States and greater than the size of California.
2. Universities:Under the Morrill Land-Grant Act of 1862, the U.S. government gifted every state in the nation 30,000 acres of land as an endowment for an institution of higher education for the "agricultural and mechanical arts." Besides many eponymous state universities, Cornell, MIT, Purdue, and Rutgers all originated as land-grant colleges. The Morrill Act of 1890 provided each state with annual federal financial support for the colleges. By the early 20th century, the success of "mechanical arts" education within this public system compelled elite private universities such as Harvard and Yale to launch engineering courses and degrees.
3. Agriculture:The Hatch Act of 1887 provided federal funding for agricultural experiment stations, most of them set up in proximity to land-grant colleges, to engage in state-of-the-art research that could increase the productivity of the nation's farms. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 funded cooperative extension services, including the employment of thousands of "county agents," to diffuse the latest knowledge to farmers.
4. Aircraft:In the 1920s, the U.S. government played the leading role in not only supporting aeronautics research but also promoting air mail services. Under the Contract Air Mail Act of 1925, the U.S. Postmaster General gave subsidized air mail contracts to a select number of commercial airline companies to encourage the airlines to demand safer, quieter, and larger planes from aircraft manufacturers so that passenger travel would increase. Five years later, when little progress in the development of passenger-friendly aircraft had been made, the Air Mail Act of 1930 changed the subsidy from the amount of mail carried on a plane to the size of the plane in which mail was carried, even if the plane carried only one letter. This generous government incentive scheme worked: By 1933, plane manufacturers Boeing and Douglas had each developed the modern all-metal, two-engine monoplane for the airlines, and air travel for people took off.
5. Jet engines:The turbojet engine, invented in Britain in the mid-1930s by Royal Air Force officer Frank Whittle, was given to the U.S company General Electric (GE) in 1942 to develop for use in World War II. GE was not in the aviation business, but, as the leading producer of electric power equipment, had been doing gas-turbine research since 1903. The jet engine was not put into service during World War II, but after the war GE continued to develop it for the U.S. military and also shared the technology with Pratt & Whitney, the leading producer of commercial airplane engines. In 1974, GE entered the commercial jet engine business through a joint venture, CFM International, with SNECMA, a French state-owned company, to provide engines to midsized Airbus planes. GE is now the world's leading producer of commercial jet engines.
6. College-educated labor force:While the land-grant college acts created a national system of higher education in the late 19th century, it was only in the aftermath of World War II that a large proportion of the population gained ready access to it. In 1944, Congress passed the Serviceman's Readjustment Act, popularly known as the G.I. Bill of Rights, which provided funding to U.S. veterans of World War II to obtain college educations, buy homes, and start businesses. By the time the initial program ended in 1956, almost 50 percent of the 16 million veterans of World War II had received education and training benefits under the G. I. Bill.
7. Interstate highway system:Under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, the government committed to pay for 90 percent of the cost of building 41,000 miles of interstate highways. President Eisenhower justified this expenditure on the grounds that the highways were needed to defend the United States in case of a military attack on U.S. soil. Whatever the rationale for this investment, the system has provided businesses and households with a fundamental physical infrastructure for civilian purposes.
8. Computers and the Internet: A 1999 study, "Funding a Revolution: Government Support of for Computing Research," stated, "Federal funding not only financed development of most of the nation's early digital computers, but also has continued to enable breakthroughs in areas as wide ranging as computer time-sharing, the Internet, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality as the industry has matured." Among other things, the study details the now well-known role of the U.S. government in developing the ARPANET and the NSFNET for over three decades before it became available commercially as the Internet.
9. Life sciences:The 2010 budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for life sciences research was $30.9 billion, almost double in real terms the budget of 1993 and triple in real terms the budget of 1985. From the founding of the first national institute in 1938 through 2010, NIH spending totaled $738 billion in 2010 dollars. The 2011 budget is $30.9 billion, and the request for 2012 is $32 billion. In addition, federal and state governments provide many subsidies to the medical field. For example, the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 has been critical to the development of the biopharmaceutical industry.

One could go on to talk about the U.S. government's support for nanotechnology and renewable energy, among other programs. None of these government programs is a secret. Indeed, prominent corporate executives lobby for them (and you won't find the Tea Party attacking them). Yet there is a widespread belief that the U.S. government plays at most a regulatory role in the economy.

Recent research has exposed this myth. In "State of Innovation: The U.S. Government's Role in Technology Development," based on a project funded by the Ford Foundation, Fred Block and Matthew R. Keller have thrown the spotlight on the "invisible" developmental state. Also attacking the myth is a pamphlet, "The Entrepreneurial State," produced by Mariana Mazzucato, my colleague in projects funded by the European Commission and the Institute for New Economic Thinking. In a similar vein, the Breakthrough Institute has documented the history of U.S. government support for technology and innovation. Based on research on the microelectronics and biotech industries, I have argued that entrepreneurial ventures such as those found in Silicon Valley and many other U.S. high-tech districts could not exist without the U.S. developmental state.

So why has the role of the state in the development of the U.S. economy been hidden from view? No doubt, many leading free market ideologues are just ignorant of U.S. history. But it's more than that. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, often with the Cold War as a motivation, business interests both provided a fairer share of taxes to support developmental expenditures by the U.S. government and invested complementary corporate resources in physical equipment and human capital in the United States. Today, business interests remain happy to have the government spend this money, but they refuse to pay a fair share of the taxes to support it, while the business investments in productive capability that build on U.S. government spending on science and technology are increasingly being made overseas.

Meanwhile, the prime type of corporate investment within the United States over the past two decades has been the stock buyback. Trillions have been spent jacking up stock prices and, in the process, inflating executive pay. Yes, America has an investment problem. But the problem is big business, not big government.
Nine Government Investments That Made Us an Industrial Economic Leader Next New Deal

I don't want you cock sucking loserterians to blame the president when our economy slides to 3rd or 4th in economic power because of your ideas of slash, cut and burn.

 

[Anathema]

Based on what? It would be the first "first" world government to have such a constitution. Haiti also doesn't invest in their roads or science programs.

Please show me....Because America sure as fuck wouldn't be a leader in shit if we got rid of it. And even if it was it is high time to amend such a dumb mistake.

Our government has been investing in infrastructure, science and r&d since the days of Washington, adams and Madison. We wouldn't be a super power without it.

Jefferson funded non-military stuff too like lewis and clark going to the pacific. The moon mission of the day.

It's not what's IN the Constitution. It's what ISN'T there. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution indicates the powers of Congress. The only mention of science or research is in reference to Patents and Trademarks. Infrastructure is a different topic.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We'd be like Somalia if it wasn't for the economic frame work and defense our government provides. Sure, one could argue that there's a lot of dumb regulations but only because of dumb leadership. NOT because of government.

Hell, yes the government has a place in investing in roads...We pay tax dollars for our government to do that.

Hell, yes the government has a place in policing. We pay tax dollars for our government to do that.

Hell, yes the government has a place in science and infrastructure!

 

[orogenicman]

Based on what? It would be the first "first" world government to have such a constitution. Haiti also doesn't invest in their roads or science programs.

Please show me....Because America sure as fuck wouldn't be a leader in shit if we got rid of it. And even if it was it is high time to amend such a dumb mistake.

Our government has been investing in infrastructure, science and r&d since the days of Washington, adams and Madison. We wouldn't be a super power without it.

Jefferson funded non-military stuff too like lewis and clark going to the pacific. The moon mission of the day.

It's not what's IN the Constitution. It's what ISN'T there. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution indicates the powers of Congress. The only mention of science or research is in reference to Patents and Trademarks. Infrastructure is a different topic.

So you would have the rest of the country be as utterly stupid as you are? Oh dear.

 

[Anathema]

So you would have the rest of the country be as utterly stupid as you are? Oh dear.

The necessary technologies would come from private investment and we'd have a lot less of the crap technology we have today.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Probably lives in the woods on a dirt road. The guy wishes to turn the entire country into that.

 

[orogenicman]

So you would have the rest of the country be as utterly stupid as you are? Oh dear.

The necessary technologies would come from private investment and we'd have a lot less of the crap technology we have today.

And what of those technologies that aren't profitable but vital to American interests (such as medicines for rare diseases)? And of course, the internet, MRI, nuclear energy, advanced weapons, clean energy, and a host of other technologies and scientific discoveries funded by government? Don't need those do we? Of course, unless private investment spurs it on (which, of course, it didn't).

 

[Anathema]

And what of those technologies that aren't profitable but vital to American interests (such as medicines for rare diseases)? And of course, the internet, MRI, nuclear energy, advanced weapons, clean energy, and a host of other technologies and scientific discoveries funded by government? Don't need those do we? Of course, unless private investment spurs it on (which, of course, it didn't).

No we don't NEED them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate change as proposed by the AGWCult has nothing in common with science, Consensus and denier are anti-science words

 

[SillyWabbit]

The anti-scientists on the House Science Committee
Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has ignited controversy with his recent remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."

Broun -- a physician who earned a bachelor's in chemistry from the University of Georgia and a medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta -- made the controversial comments in a Sept. 27 speech at a sportsmen's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Ga.

Adding to the uproar is the fact that Broun sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

The anti-scientists on the House Science Committee

Sadly not without precedence. Recall that a few years ago a science committee member claimed that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Republicans always have people who do not believe in a certain task of government oversee that function of government.

Are we living in an Idiocracy? Why do people keep re-electing these Dust Heads?

 

[orogenicman]

And what of those technologies that aren't profitable but vital to American interests (such as medicines for rare diseases)? And of course, the internet, MRI, nuclear energy, advanced weapons, clean energy, and a host of other technologies and scientific discoveries funded by government? Don't need those do we? Of course, unless private investment spurs it on (which, of course, it didn't).

No we don't NEED them.

Speak for yourself, because I am quite certain that you are in the minority in that opinion. But hey, if you don't need the internet, smart phones, computers, etc., then you should get off your devices, sell them all, and stop posting your drivel here. After all, you don't need them, right? And with friends like you, who needs enemas?

 

[Anathema]

[Speak for yourself, because I am quite certain that you are in the minority in that opinion. But hey, if you don't need the internet, smart phones, computers, etc., then you should get off your devices, sell them all, and stop posting your drivel here. After all, you don't need them, right? And with friends like you, who needs enemas?

Unfortunately my job requires the continued use of these devices. Given my preference I'd be in the woods of North Carolina in a compound with no gate and no electricity.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We'd be a better off if we doubled science and infrastructure funding here at home.