13 ms·

How a Shrimp Treadmill Became a Political Plaything

296 points by benbreen 12y ago

guard-of-terra 12y ago
I've heard same thing happened in Europe to a research of mechanism of flea jumping. Which, as you can imagine, is very important in both tackling flea-borne infections in animals and, potentially, in jumping mechanisms. The truth is, further a person is removed from productive activity, more fierce they become towards "wasting on needless research" or whatever. Politicians are a good example
trhway 12y ago
War on Science in US is astounding. It is amazing how US still manages to be ahead in most areas of science and technology.
- exstudent 12y ago
  It's not just the US. Just today the UK press made the lead scientist of the Rosetta mission cry by attacking his SHIRT instead of celebrating his achievements. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-mission-scientist-Dr-Matt-Taylor-cries-during-apology-over-offensive-shirt.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-mi...
  - lern_too_spel 12y ago
    Nonsense. His achievement was celebrated as well. His shirt is the kind of thing that keeps women away from science, so the fact that he publicly acknowledged his error will make other scientists more consciously think about inclusivity, helping science in the long run.
    - exstudent 12y ago
      Incorrect, women aren't as weak as you think they are. He worked with many awesome women to make this mission happen BTW. More likely this type of overreaction and hysteria will keep free thinking individuals out of science.
      - lern_too_spel 12y ago
        If you think this is not a big deal, you should become familiar with the Petrie multiplier. Women shouldn't need thicker skin than men to work in science, but that won't get fixed as long as we keep ignoring the problem, limiting the speed of scientific advancement by limiting the population of scientists. http://iangent.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-petrie-multiplier-why-attack-on.html http://iangent.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-petrie-multiplier-wh...
        exstudent 12y ago
        This wasn't an attack on "men" it was an attack on a specific man and yes, it was totally outrageous. Women don't need thicker skin. No man or woman should be criticized for how they dress.
        lern_too_spel 12y ago
        You didn't even read what the Petrie multiplier is, making your whole post a straw man attack.
        trhway 12y ago
        man, 'vei just read what the Petrie multiplier is. It clearly explains why, given equal sexism by men and women, women's experience is worst. Thus to equalize experience, according to the Petrie multiplier, men should decrease their sexism way below women's. Forcing men to decrease their sexism way below women's is an attack on men by definition, and the Petrie multiplier provides mathematical foundation for it.
        lern_too_spel 12y ago
        Is it really that much of a burden not to be sexist or racist? The obliviousness I see in this supposedly enlightened industry astounds me.
        12y ago
    - jack-r-abbit 12y ago
      But at the same time, this guy is bound to get other people interested in science that may not have been before. He's a freaking inked up metal fan.[1] I don't think every person needs to make "more women in STEM" their life's mission. It is something that needs to be done. But what about a mission of "more [other people] in STEM" for a few of them. [1] http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/11/13/dr-matt-taylor-dude-put-probe-comet-cannibal-corpse-fan/ http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/11/13/dr-matt-taylor-dude-put...
      - Maxious 12y ago
        How many people need to make it their life's mission before there is at least one person who could have explained to this guy to wear a hoodie over his shirt? Why does it take a world wide live stream audience before it is possible to find someone in the building to make that conversation happen?
        jack-r-abbit 12y ago
        Maybe it took a world wide live stream audience to find enough loud people to complain about it. Not every one has an issue with his shirt. So it is not without reason to think that nobody he works with took offense to his shirt because they know him for more than his clothes.
    - OSButler 12y ago
      His shirt is the kind of thing that keeps women away from science? This all started with s.o. being offended by it while watching the original interview, but how can you come to such a conclusion based on that? Did the female student's lecture attendance/signup rate plummet since that interview? Is there any kind of imperial evidence that this person's shirt is making female students turn away from science? I honestly don't understand how it's even possible to get to that conclusion. If there's s.o. interested in a specific field and (s)he witnesses a major scientific breakthrough, then the last thing on your mind would be '...but how could the person be wearing that?'. If you're offended by it, then ask why this happened in the first place, because maybe there's an actual good explanation behind it. For me it's in the same category as people saying they don't want anything to do with computers because Turing was gay - how does one thing have anything to do with the other?
      - inclemnet 12y ago
        > but how can you come to such a conclusion based on that? I don't think anyone can prove it right now, only find it plausible or probable. Of course that's a long way from proof, but the opposite is also true - can you demonstrate that this shirt, in the context of a wider trend of what people can and do wear, does not affect the number of women in science? > Did the female student's lecture attendance/signup rate plummet since that interview? This is disingenuous, I'm sure you know that no criticism of the shirt is because this specific, individual incident would be perceived to be of overwhelming importance for any given statistic, and I think your attempt to portray things this way is a strawman or a horrible misunderstanding. As above, it is the example of wearing this shirt in the context of wider trends in what people do (and wear) that people are criticising. You can still disagree with them, but at least disagree on a point you didn't just make up.
        xtrumanx 12y ago
        > can you demonstrate that this shirt, in the context of a wider trend of what people can and do wear, does not affect the number of women in science? We also can't demonstrate that it was in fact the shirt that made him such a great scientist.
    - hobs 12y ago
      No, his shirt wont keep women away from science. The entire fiasco is not about science, it is LITERALLY the thing that I would want to avoid if I had planned going into this field, and I assume that women also do not want long drawn out discussions about what they are wearing INSTEAD of their impressive scientific achievements.
      - bayesianhorse 12y ago
        So you are saying pictures of scenes degrading and objectifying women as sexual objects can't make women feel degraded and objectified?
        Evolved 12y ago
        They're only scenes degrading and objectifying women as sexual objects if women feel degraded and objectified as sexual objects about the scenes. As a woman made the shirt and gave it to him then it seems to be the case that at least 1 woman does not feel degraded and objectified as a sexual object about it which makes your blanket assertion disingenuous and patently false.
        jarin 12y ago
        Consider that it may be more degrading and objectifying to treat all women as weak, fragile beings who must constantly be sheltered from things like shirts with retro tattoo art on them. While the rest of us are busy trying to help provide opportunities for more women to get into STEM careers, there's a whole cadre of privileged, middle class noise generators doing a great deal of harm (or at the very least, not helping) with these sexist stereotypes.
        jobposter1234 12y ago
        No, he is saying this: 'No, his shirt wont keep women away from science. The entire fiasco is not about science, it is LITERALLY the thing that I would want to avoid if I had planned going into this field, and I assume that women also do not want long drawn out discussions about what they are wearing INSTEAD of their impressive scientific achievements.'
        12y ago
    - eruiu88 12y ago
      I have put my dinner plate down to write this comment. What the fuck did you just say ? You dumb cunt. Do you have any idea what the fuck you are talking about ? Instead of celebrating his achievements on landing speceship on comet you motherfucking femiNAZI focus on his shirt ? I 100 % guarantee In you last 10 generation no one has achieved anything and in next 10 generations also no one will achieve anything. Seriously , if you are so obsessed about women in tech and science why not just leave this planet and create your own instead of CUNTing around ? I bet my $1M stock options on any woman, YES you FUCKING CUNT, on any women , worthy of this precise level of achievement. Seriously, you are burden on humanity.
    - astrange 12y ago
      His shirt was a handmade gift from his friend's wife, who's a tattoo artist. I would personally be surprised to find out that tattoo artists are the kind of thing that keeps women away from science. I mean, it's probably a rare interaction. Blaming their parents seems more productive.
      - NeverEnough 12y ago
        it is that he found it an appropriate shirt to wear. as an extreme comparison, if it was a woman dominated field and they commonly wore shirts depicting scantily clad men with bulging pants, I think it would impact my desire to enter that field. I don't know that the parents can be blamed so readily. Here in Los Angeles at least, I've been very dissaspointed with what my classmates consider appropriate.
        1stop 12y ago
        As far as gender oppression goes... that shirt ranks pretty low. Lets solve, pay disparity and workplace harrassment before we deciding whether to worry about shirts. Feminism is not about being precious, it's about equality (which shirts have very little to do with).
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        > it is that he found it an appropriate shirt to wear. It was a hand-made gift from a friend. He did it to make her smile. In such circumstances I'd probably do the same thing.
    - iuer98 12y ago
      Keep you fucking feminzai thoughts to yourself. Don't ever again post this site. This is your father's property. Also, never ever ever show up in front me in real life. I will fuck you so hard your all feminist thoughts will become stone age. Now , go FUCK yourself.
    - kingofkings 12y ago
      Are you fucking autistic beta ? Go fuck yourself and grow some balls instead of whinning. You mentally retarded sick fuck. Is this what your mother father have taught you ? Judge by who is wearing what ? No wonder US is bastardized country.
    - fucksaywhat 12y ago
      You idiot. People like you are disgrace to scientific community. Seriously , your sick thoughts are the problem , no one else. You son / daughter of a bitch are now going to control who is wearing what ? Really ? May be that's why you are such small person commenting on this stupid site and won't achieve anything better in life. Seriously, check your mental health. You retard fuck.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - HarryHirsch 12y ago
    Oh, That Shirt. I thought that was just some feminists divorced from reality who got busy complaining. Meanwhile, during the livecast, when the go/no-go decisions took place the night before the comet landing, you could see one woman engineer and two or three men engineers on duty in the control room, and they all interacted with each other as if they were peers. I'm blessed to be ignorant about sexism in Silicon Valley, but in Darmstadt it looks that as a woman you are just fine.
    - inclemnet 12y ago
      > you could see one woman engineer and two or three men engineers on duty in the control room, and they all interacted with each other as if they were peers. This is a remarkably short sighted attitude. I mean, maybe there is totally no problem with the shirt, but it's just a false argument to say 'I saw some women in science so there is no problem'.
      - HarryHirsch 12y ago
        No, it shows that civilization has arrived in Darmstadt. It's an ideal to aspire to, and the folks in the ESO control room have managed to get there. (I believe that in my old university department we have arrived in the same place.) Everywhere should be like that, and I doubt you get there by banning shirts with surfer babes on. Jesus was up to something when he said "But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person." This was in the context of observing the divine commandments. It's the problem I have with overly specific codes of conduct. If you are an asshole you can and will work around the specific stipulations, and you are and remain an asshole.
  - trhway 12y ago
    the world we're increasingly living at. "I'd not know "- "What to wear? You'll come up with something." https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tHRyrybn_2w#t=4184 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tH...
  - Volundr 12y ago
    This is the first I've heard of this, but it hardly seems like the UK press made him do it. The lady asked a question about his achievement and he responded talking about his shirt. Perhaps he genuinely felt bad about what he (probably unthinkingly) chose to wear, the possible message it sends, and wanted to address it?
    - exstudent 12y ago
      It was a reaction to an article yesterday on The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shirt-is-holding-back-progress http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shir...) So sadly, it was the US press that made this happen.
      - trhway 12y ago
        American prudes can spoil a party like nobody else, you have to give them that.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Like /u/exstudent says, it was a reaction to a Verge article and a huge shi(r)tstorm that followed after that, on Twitter and elsewhere. SJWs made the guy completely break down.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Moaning about a scientist's sexist shirt is probably a case of misplaced priorites, but it's not like anyone is denying the existence of the landing or the spaceship, whereas here you have public figures who cheerfully deny the reality of biological evolution or climate change in order to chase votes. It's not like anyone is going to gut the European Space Agency budget over Dr. Wossname's shirt, though.
    - exstudent 12y ago
      No, but it's horribly unfair to ruin what is probably going to be the most important day in this guy's life. The shirt was made by a woman who's friends with the guy anyway. He's just quirky, not sexist. We shouldn't label him as such.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        I really don't care. It's not relevant to the original article about the misrepresentation of science in politics, yet your derail has become the largest thing in the thread and sucked all the oxygen out of the original discussion.
  - Blahah 12y ago
    Nothing to do with attacking science and everything to do with making diverse members of the science community feel welcome.
    - exstudent 12y ago
      Diverse, as long as you dress EXACTLY how you're "supposed" to. A friend made him this shirt. He was wearing it as a tribute since the day was important to him. He got nailed to the wall. Remember when scientists and engineers could dress how they wanted and be independent thinkers? It's sad to see that coming to an end. This is not a win for science or free thought.
      - Blahah 12y ago
        Diverse, as long as you respect your colleagues. Wearing a t-shirt with scantily clad women (or men) on it is not acceptable in any workplace. Just like watching porn is not appropriate in the workplace. There is no end in sight for independent thought in science, but the end of thoughtless marginalisation of women is most definitely overdue. edit: honestly - downvotes for this? Think about what that means.
        exstudent 12y ago
        His female colleagues had no issue with the shirt. It was the guy who wrote The Verge article and the following pile on that had issue with it. In fact some of his female colleagues came to his defense on Twitter.
        abstractbill 12y ago
        In fact some of his female colleagues came to his defense on Twitter. (as did the woman who made the shirt in the first place: https://twitter.com/ellypriZeMaN/status/533287464497332225 https://twitter.com/ellypriZeMaN/status/533287464497332225)
        Blahah 12y ago
        That's completely irrelevant. The problem is that he wore a shirt that sexualises women in a televised major scientific event. Millions of people saw the video, and the image he projected was that he's more interested in sex than in making women feel welcome and valued in science. Which is incidentally the same image you're portraying.
  - nyrulez 12y ago
    Why is this shirt sexist ? Since when are scantily clad women based themes sexist ? Or was it something he said that's missing in the article ?
    - mikeyouse 12y ago
      It was a questionably appropriate shirt but when they interviewed him, he gave a strange answer about how this comet was “The sexiest mission there’s ever been. She’s sexy, but I never said she was easy.” http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/13/why-women-in-science-are-annoyed-at-rosetta-mission-scientists-clothing http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/13/why-women-in-...
      - Evolved 12y ago
        Thankfully, the term "sexy" doesn't just apply to sex as the informal definition is something exciting, appealing, interesting and/or stimulating.
        mikeyouse 12y ago
        Meh, it was still a weird interview, especially combined with his shirt. I watched it live with my fiance and we were both confused and actually said out loud, "We'll be hearing about him later on." I don't think he's sexist, I'm sure he's a well-respected and well-liked scientist, and I don't think it's fair to judge someone's worth based on a short interview when they're not used to being in the spotlight. At the same time, I would expect more professionalism from the whole staff at ESA. Are there any offices where wearing this [http://i.imgur.com/oJ9bVDt.jpg http://i.imgur.com/oJ9bVDt.jpg] shirt would be okay? People are making a big deal about the fact that a woman made the shirt for him, but they seem to be omitting that he provided the fabric and asked her to make it.. A large part of the rationale for missions like Rosetta is the inspiration it provides to the next generation of scientists. Hearing crude jokes about how 'easy' the mission was from a guy wearing a nudie shirt doesn't exactly invoke inspiration. It's a shame all of the other incredibly smart, professional, and inspirational people involved with the project are overshadowed by this.
  - maxine0says 12y ago
    This is stupid. His shirt looks like old pinball artwork. It's obviously a vintage throwback that's harmless to anyone who isn't currently obsessed with gender politics. These feminists are so divorced from reality they are desperate and seeing everything through the prism of their bunk thought-experiments that they have to make literally everything about their imaginary oppression. Can we have one good news story without trying to make it relevant to your gender-studies major?
    - trhway 12y ago
      He should have had naked males in leather straps there too, I guess.
      - hellgas00 12y ago
        I really doubt people would be freaking out on twitter if some animated firemen looking guys were printed on his shirt, especially if was an established art-form like anime. I guess what offends one offends all and should be banned because it promotes oppressions, a lot to read into from the anime printed on a shirt.
- bjt 12y ago
  See European freakouts about GMOs for evidence that it's not just the US.
- saalweachter 12y ago
  The thing to remember is that the War on Science is really a lot of little battles. Science says a lot of things that people take offense to, inside or outside the US. For instance: * Releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has significant, negative consequences. * Most complementary & alternative medicines are ineffective in most cases. * Contraceptions are not abortifacients. * Tobacco use causes cancer. * There is no compelling evidence that ESP or any other psychic powers exist. * Cuts to government spending during a downturn can weaken the economy. * Oswald, acting alone and for his own reasons, killed Kennedy. * Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth, including humans. But just because someone takes offense to one or more things science says, most people don't take offense to all things science says. This fragments the War -- there aren't two sides, there are a million -- and lets science as a whole progress even as individual areas and projects face varying amounts of hostilities from individuals, organizations, and corporations.
  - tzs 12y ago
    How does science say that Oswald was acting alone and for his own reasons? I am aware of how it can show he was the only shooter, but have not seen any science showing that no one else was involved in the overall operation.
    - mgkimsal 12y ago
      i thought the same thing, although things like disproving the need for a 'magic bullet' takes the wind out of a lot of conspiracy theories. science may not ever 100% prove oswald was 100% alone, but it makes a lot of the whacko theories a lot less required.
sharkweek 12y ago
I highly recommend folks watch Particle Fever (for a variety of reasons, and it's on Netflix), but one section particularly stuck out, when the documentary addresses the original LHC location in Texas being de-funded. It shows members of congress arguing how "discovering the origins of the universe" should not be a priority. I think it's easy to make a very public argument against budgeting research, as the general public doesn't necessarily understand the larger implications of these experiments (at a cursory glance, I rarely see it myself, but I generally give research the benefit of the doubt). Particle Fever addresses this point blank with the discovery of Radio Waves, how nobody really knew what this discovery meant until years/decades later when it became a massive step forward in communication. My dad is a bit old fashioned, and if you told him in a soundbite that congress was spending money on shrimp treadmills, with no other context he'd immediately make his snap judgement that the government is once again wasting his money. Hard thing to overcome, no matter how important the research might end up being.
- wozniacki 12y ago
  When these topics, concerning the general disinterestedness and the indifference of the voting populace toward science and technology come up, one is left to wonder how it is even arithmetically possible in 2014, that there isn't yet a financially lofty interest-group apparatus in Washington, advancing policies that collectively foster the cause of basic research in science & tech. Where are the think tanks? Where are the high powered K-street lobbyists? ( I'm discounting the nascent and newfangled lobby groups, here.[1] ) We could not even help elect a single legislator in our own backyard.[2] Surely, it certainly isn't for the lack of war-chests. What is it then? Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3] I know images of a bleak and soulless future rings more bells at the box office than visions of a verdant tech-enabled one. Nonetheless, tens of millions of people watch these movies to nurture their already well-developed dislike for science & rational thought on one side and their embrace of religious dogma and superstition on the other. [1] Tech Firms and Lobbyists: Now Intertwined, but Not Eager to Reveal It http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-lobbyists-now-intertwined-but-not-eager-to-reveal-it.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-lobb... [2] Tech Industry Flexes Muscle in California Race http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-industry-flexes-muscle-in-california-race.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-industry-... [3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809/Blade-Runner-The-Final-Cut-review.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809...
8_hours_ago 12y ago
Add it to the list along with the million dollar space pen[0]. Oversimplifying things like that seems to be pretty common in politics. When you say something like "the government spent millions of dollars on a shrimp treadmill!!", the desired reaction is achieved well before any well-reasoned rebuttal can be made. And by the time that the truth comes out -- if it ever does -- it's too late to correct the audience's idea that the government is wasting money. [0]: http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago
  "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes" Very few people will see this truth.
  - techsupporter 12y ago
    I've pretty much stopped talking, with actual words through actual speech, politics with people around me. What usually happens is "damn, did you hear about the stupid shrimp treadmill." Right as I go to inhale[0], whomever said the first sentence will inevitably cut me off with "yeah, yeah, I'm sure it's not that bad and there is some reasonable explanation that I'm not gonna get, but shit, man, shrimp treadmills, what the fuck?!" 0 - I freely admit that I can also be a little overenthusiastic about political matters, mostly because I'm really starting to dislike the sigh-and-keep-quiet approach.
- Gravityloss 12y ago
  Wouldn't it work to discredit enough of these stories coming from the same sources - that way, after a certain period, claims coming from the source can be discarded by default, and only assumed true if they can be verified via some other means. Ad hominem, basically.
HarryHirsch 12y ago
It's of course that politicians are only speaking what the electorate wants to hear. Anti-science language wouldn't fly if it didn't result in votes. The sentiment against science in large tracts of the country is frankly scary. When you see that the Department of Biology at Baylor University, a respectable institution associated with the Baptist Church, feels compelled to make a statement in favour of evolution (http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=77368 http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=77368) you know it's time to emigrate.
- meepmorp 12y ago
  > It's of course that politicians are only speaking what the electorate wants to hear. Anti-science language wouldn't fly if it didn't result in votes It's not anti-science language, per se. It's a "hey, look at this wasteful stuff your tax dollars are getting spent on," which only incidentally plays on anti-intellectual/anti-scientific sentiments in the electorate. It's hard to explain why something like this is actually a valuable use of resources, and doubly so when it's easy to characterize as a ridiculous thing.
serve_yay 12y ago
I can't deal with politics since about five years ago, it just makes me feel stressed-out and sad. Living in DC made me hate it, all of it. (I moved.)
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Reminds me of the research into French fruit flies that Palin tried to make the same political point with - http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2008/10/french-fruit-fly-fracas http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2008/10/french-fruit-fly-f... I wonder if they just find it icky and are then rationalizing the politics afterwards.
- jordanb 12y ago
  Palin shares her hatred of Fruit Fly research with Stalinist Soviet Russia[0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
  - ljegou 12y ago
    And her hatred about France (at the time) too.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rebootthesystem 12y ago
Before. Ask this question I must issue a disclaimer: We waste more money giving religious groups all kinds of priviledges (tax exemptions for TV evangelists!!!) than university researchers will ever waste. Every dollar invested in science is a dollar well spent. That said, scientists are not beyond wasting resources. I think it is absolutely proper and important to hold scientific research accountable to the degree it is possible. I am not making a comment about the shrimp treadmill, this is more of a general observation.
Zikes 12y ago
What about three times as much on a video game nobody's heard of? http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-10-million-on-a-video-game-about-escaping-a-fat-town/ http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-10-million-on-a-vide...
- hellgas00 12y ago
  Does it lead to kids changing their dietary habits? I would have to guess not. If it did, would it be justifiable? The effectiveness of the product should be discussed first then the cost effectiveness of the product can be considered. There is no point of waving and screaming look at all of this money being spent on this thing, unless you also examine the thing which the money is being spent on.
  - induscreep 12y ago
    I saw discussion about this on reddit. The top comment noted that kids sit on the couch (and do not need move) while playing this video game - so it's not clear how this video game helps. I guess it's a very bad idea that also was poorly planned and managed.
DanBC 12y ago
> Mike Huckabee linked the National Science Foundation’s funding of shrimp-treadmill studies to limited military spending How the fuck did he manage that? How many hours would $300m last the military?
- nikomen 12y ago
  According to Wikipedia, US military spending is about $643 billion. So, $300m would last about 4 hours. Those shrimp really are stealing a lot from the military. </sarcasm>
kefka 12y ago
http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBUe78awZMT0&start1=4&video2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZnHmskwqCCQ&start2=&authorName=Shrinpety+Shrimp http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube....
enziobodoni 12y ago
This reminds me a bit of when Sarah Palin derided worm research (C elegans), ignorant of the fact that such research was the backbone of genetics and neurobiology research.
protomyth 12y ago
Look, this happens for every facet of government spending and both parties know exactly how to phrase their soundbite to make it worse. Anyone taking government funding for any project better be ready to deal with an out of context soundbite in a professional and calm manner. It is the nature of the beast. You are using someone else's money for something and the someone else gets a bit peeved that s/he had to give up the money in the first place. The common refrain that Republicans don't understand science or Democrats don't understand business is not true and not your friend. JackFr's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8611038 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8611038 points out some of the good lines that contradict the tried and true arguments. The proper way to deal with these type of things is learn that you are taking money, its not your right, and show how you are actually being innovative and saving the taxpayers money or show what family members you are saving with your activity. I've seen enough people doing amazing work on the taxpayers dime that really saved the taxpayers money in the long run (early childhood screenings for example) that knew how to properly phrase their work to make both parties their champion. tldr: you take the taxpayer's money then be ready to do PR
induscreep 12y ago
What I don't understand is that this sort of thing happens between other sectors - for example, 'defense dollars could be used to provide healthcare', or 'subsidies could be used to pay teachers more and improve schools'. In these cases, the sectors each have their own lobby, and they are able to fight back with publicity and ads. But scientists are defenseless. Where is the pro-scientist lobby? Should universities just get together and throw some dollars at hiring a lobbying firm? EDIT: the scientist lobby could release an ad that said this: "politicians are spending millions on armament that was never used and rusted away...do YOU want bacteria in your seafood? do YOU want cheap shrimp buffets? If so, say YES to NSF!" The "say yes to nsf" actually rhymes haha.
rwallace 12y ago
That's a great explanation - for an audience willing to take the time to read it. But your arsenal of political weapons needs to include soundbites for an audience not willing to take the time to read. Here's how I would summarize the content more quotably: "Actually it cost fifty dollars, and we were trying to figure out how to stop people dying of food poisoning. Is your life worth fifty dollars?"
cehlen 12y ago
I don't have a problem with the $3M, shrimp on a tread mill, or $3M for shrimp on a tread mill. The problem I have is I still don't know what this guy was trying to discover even after I read the article. If your going to ask tax payers for $3M do us all a favor and spend a couple of hundred explaining in layman's terms why!

296 points by benbreen 12y ago

I've heard same thing happened in Europe to a research of mechanism of flea jumping. Which, as you can imagine, is very important in both tackling flea-borne infections in animals and, potentially, in jumping mechanisms. The truth is, further a person is removed from productive activity, more fierce they become towards "wasting on needless research" or whatever. Politicians are a good example

trhway 12y ago

War on Science in US is astounding. It is amazing how US still manages to be ahead in most areas of science and technology.

exstudent 12y ago
It's not just the US. Just today the UK press made the lead scientist of the Rosetta mission cry by attacking his SHIRT instead of celebrating his achievements. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-mission-scientist-Dr-Matt-Taylor-cries-during-apology-over-offensive-shirt.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-mi...
- lern_too_spel 12y ago
  Nonsense. His achievement was celebrated as well. His shirt is the kind of thing that keeps women away from science, so the fact that he publicly acknowledged his error will make other scientists more consciously think about inclusivity, helping science in the long run.
  - exstudent 12y ago
    Incorrect, women aren't as weak as you think they are. He worked with many awesome women to make this mission happen BTW. More likely this type of overreaction and hysteria will keep free thinking individuals out of science.
    - lern_too_spel 12y ago
      If you think this is not a big deal, you should become familiar with the Petrie multiplier. Women shouldn't need thicker skin than men to work in science, but that won't get fixed as long as we keep ignoring the problem, limiting the speed of scientific advancement by limiting the population of scientists. http://iangent.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-petrie-multiplier-why-attack-on.html http://iangent.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-petrie-multiplier-wh...
      - exstudent 12y ago
        This wasn't an attack on "men" it was an attack on a specific man and yes, it was totally outrageous. Women don't need thicker skin. No man or woman should be criticized for how they dress.
        lern_too_spel 12y ago
        You didn't even read what the Petrie multiplier is, making your whole post a straw man attack.
        trhway 12y ago
        man, 'vei just read what the Petrie multiplier is. It clearly explains why, given equal sexism by men and women, women's experience is worst. Thus to equalize experience, according to the Petrie multiplier, men should decrease their sexism way below women's. Forcing men to decrease their sexism way below women's is an attack on men by definition, and the Petrie multiplier provides mathematical foundation for it.
        lern_too_spel 12y ago
        Is it really that much of a burden not to be sexist or racist? The obliviousness I see in this supposedly enlightened industry astounds me.
        12y ago
  - jack-r-abbit 12y ago
    But at the same time, this guy is bound to get other people interested in science that may not have been before. He's a freaking inked up metal fan.[1] I don't think every person needs to make "more women in STEM" their life's mission. It is something that needs to be done. But what about a mission of "more [other people] in STEM" for a few of them. [1] http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/11/13/dr-matt-taylor-dude-put-probe-comet-cannibal-corpse-fan/ http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/11/13/dr-matt-taylor-dude-put...
    - Maxious 12y ago
      How many people need to make it their life's mission before there is at least one person who could have explained to this guy to wear a hoodie over his shirt? Why does it take a world wide live stream audience before it is possible to find someone in the building to make that conversation happen?
      - jack-r-abbit 12y ago
        Maybe it took a world wide live stream audience to find enough loud people to complain about it. Not every one has an issue with his shirt. So it is not without reason to think that nobody he works with took offense to his shirt because they know him for more than his clothes.
  - OSButler 12y ago
    His shirt is the kind of thing that keeps women away from science? This all started with s.o. being offended by it while watching the original interview, but how can you come to such a conclusion based on that? Did the female student's lecture attendance/signup rate plummet since that interview? Is there any kind of imperial evidence that this person's shirt is making female students turn away from science? I honestly don't understand how it's even possible to get to that conclusion. If there's s.o. interested in a specific field and (s)he witnesses a major scientific breakthrough, then the last thing on your mind would be '...but how could the person be wearing that?'. If you're offended by it, then ask why this happened in the first place, because maybe there's an actual good explanation behind it. For me it's in the same category as people saying they don't want anything to do with computers because Turing was gay - how does one thing have anything to do with the other?
    - inclemnet 12y ago
      > but how can you come to such a conclusion based on that? I don't think anyone can prove it right now, only find it plausible or probable. Of course that's a long way from proof, but the opposite is also true - can you demonstrate that this shirt, in the context of a wider trend of what people can and do wear, does not affect the number of women in science? > Did the female student's lecture attendance/signup rate plummet since that interview? This is disingenuous, I'm sure you know that no criticism of the shirt is because this specific, individual incident would be perceived to be of overwhelming importance for any given statistic, and I think your attempt to portray things this way is a strawman or a horrible misunderstanding. As above, it is the example of wearing this shirt in the context of wider trends in what people do (and wear) that people are criticising. You can still disagree with them, but at least disagree on a point you didn't just make up.
      - xtrumanx 12y ago
        > can you demonstrate that this shirt, in the context of a wider trend of what people can and do wear, does not affect the number of women in science? We also can't demonstrate that it was in fact the shirt that made him such a great scientist.
  - hobs 12y ago
    No, his shirt wont keep women away from science. The entire fiasco is not about science, it is LITERALLY the thing that I would want to avoid if I had planned going into this field, and I assume that women also do not want long drawn out discussions about what they are wearing INSTEAD of their impressive scientific achievements.
    - bayesianhorse 12y ago
      So you are saying pictures of scenes degrading and objectifying women as sexual objects can't make women feel degraded and objectified?
      - Evolved 12y ago
        They're only scenes degrading and objectifying women as sexual objects if women feel degraded and objectified as sexual objects about the scenes. As a woman made the shirt and gave it to him then it seems to be the case that at least 1 woman does not feel degraded and objectified as a sexual object about it which makes your blanket assertion disingenuous and patently false.
      - jarin 12y ago
        Consider that it may be more degrading and objectifying to treat all women as weak, fragile beings who must constantly be sheltered from things like shirts with retro tattoo art on them. While the rest of us are busy trying to help provide opportunities for more women to get into STEM careers, there's a whole cadre of privileged, middle class noise generators doing a great deal of harm (or at the very least, not helping) with these sexist stereotypes.
      - jobposter1234 12y ago
        No, he is saying this: 'No, his shirt wont keep women away from science. The entire fiasco is not about science, it is LITERALLY the thing that I would want to avoid if I had planned going into this field, and I assume that women also do not want long drawn out discussions about what they are wearing INSTEAD of their impressive scientific achievements.'
      - 12y ago
  - eruiu88 12y ago
    I have put my dinner plate down to write this comment. What the fuck did you just say ? You dumb cunt. Do you have any idea what the fuck you are talking about ? Instead of celebrating his achievements on landing speceship on comet you motherfucking femiNAZI focus on his shirt ? I 100 % guarantee In you last 10 generation no one has achieved anything and in next 10 generations also no one will achieve anything. Seriously , if you are so obsessed about women in tech and science why not just leave this planet and create your own instead of CUNTing around ? I bet my $1M stock options on any woman, YES you FUCKING CUNT, on any women , worthy of this precise level of achievement. Seriously, you are burden on humanity.
  - astrange 12y ago
    His shirt was a handmade gift from his friend's wife, who's a tattoo artist. I would personally be surprised to find out that tattoo artists are the kind of thing that keeps women away from science. I mean, it's probably a rare interaction. Blaming their parents seems more productive.
    - NeverEnough 12y ago
      it is that he found it an appropriate shirt to wear. as an extreme comparison, if it was a woman dominated field and they commonly wore shirts depicting scantily clad men with bulging pants, I think it would impact my desire to enter that field. I don't know that the parents can be blamed so readily. Here in Los Angeles at least, I've been very dissaspointed with what my classmates consider appropriate.
      - 1stop 12y ago
        As far as gender oppression goes... that shirt ranks pretty low. Lets solve, pay disparity and workplace harrassment before we deciding whether to worry about shirts. Feminism is not about being precious, it's about equality (which shirts have very little to do with).
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        > it is that he found it an appropriate shirt to wear. It was a hand-made gift from a friend. He did it to make her smile. In such circumstances I'd probably do the same thing.
  - iuer98 12y ago
    Keep you fucking feminzai thoughts to yourself. Don't ever again post this site. This is your father's property. Also, never ever ever show up in front me in real life. I will fuck you so hard your all feminist thoughts will become stone age. Now , go FUCK yourself.
  - kingofkings 12y ago
    Are you fucking autistic beta ? Go fuck yourself and grow some balls instead of whinning. You mentally retarded sick fuck. Is this what your mother father have taught you ? Judge by who is wearing what ? No wonder US is bastardized country.
  - fucksaywhat 12y ago
    You idiot. People like you are disgrace to scientific community. Seriously , your sick thoughts are the problem , no one else. You son / daughter of a bitch are now going to control who is wearing what ? Really ? May be that's why you are such small person commenting on this stupid site and won't achieve anything better in life. Seriously, check your mental health. You retard fuck.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- HarryHirsch 12y ago
  Oh, That Shirt. I thought that was just some feminists divorced from reality who got busy complaining. Meanwhile, during the livecast, when the go/no-go decisions took place the night before the comet landing, you could see one woman engineer and two or three men engineers on duty in the control room, and they all interacted with each other as if they were peers. I'm blessed to be ignorant about sexism in Silicon Valley, but in Darmstadt it looks that as a woman you are just fine.
  - inclemnet 12y ago
    > you could see one woman engineer and two or three men engineers on duty in the control room, and they all interacted with each other as if they were peers. This is a remarkably short sighted attitude. I mean, maybe there is totally no problem with the shirt, but it's just a false argument to say 'I saw some women in science so there is no problem'.
    - HarryHirsch 12y ago
      No, it shows that civilization has arrived in Darmstadt. It's an ideal to aspire to, and the folks in the ESO control room have managed to get there. (I believe that in my old university department we have arrived in the same place.) Everywhere should be like that, and I doubt you get there by banning shirts with surfer babes on. Jesus was up to something when he said "But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person." This was in the context of observing the divine commandments. It's the problem I have with overly specific codes of conduct. If you are an asshole you can and will work around the specific stipulations, and you are and remain an asshole.
- trhway 12y ago
  the world we're increasingly living at. "I'd not know "- "What to wear? You'll come up with something." https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tHRyrybn_2w#t=4184 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tH...
- Volundr 12y ago
  This is the first I've heard of this, but it hardly seems like the UK press made him do it. The lady asked a question about his achievement and he responded talking about his shirt. Perhaps he genuinely felt bad about what he (probably unthinkingly) chose to wear, the possible message it sends, and wanted to address it?
  - exstudent 12y ago
    It was a reaction to an article yesterday on The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shirt-is-holding-back-progress http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shir...) So sadly, it was the US press that made this happen.
    - trhway 12y ago
      American prudes can spoil a party like nobody else, you have to give them that.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Like /u/exstudent says, it was a reaction to a Verge article and a huge shi(r)tstorm that followed after that, on Twitter and elsewhere. SJWs made the guy completely break down.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Moaning about a scientist's sexist shirt is probably a case of misplaced priorites, but it's not like anyone is denying the existence of the landing or the spaceship, whereas here you have public figures who cheerfully deny the reality of biological evolution or climate change in order to chase votes. It's not like anyone is going to gut the European Space Agency budget over Dr. Wossname's shirt, though.
  - exstudent 12y ago
    No, but it's horribly unfair to ruin what is probably going to be the most important day in this guy's life. The shirt was made by a woman who's friends with the guy anyway. He's just quirky, not sexist. We shouldn't label him as such.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      I really don't care. It's not relevant to the original article about the misrepresentation of science in politics, yet your derail has become the largest thing in the thread and sucked all the oxygen out of the original discussion.
- Blahah 12y ago
  Nothing to do with attacking science and everything to do with making diverse members of the science community feel welcome.
  - exstudent 12y ago
    Diverse, as long as you dress EXACTLY how you're "supposed" to. A friend made him this shirt. He was wearing it as a tribute since the day was important to him. He got nailed to the wall. Remember when scientists and engineers could dress how they wanted and be independent thinkers? It's sad to see that coming to an end. This is not a win for science or free thought.
    - Blahah 12y ago
      Diverse, as long as you respect your colleagues. Wearing a t-shirt with scantily clad women (or men) on it is not acceptable in any workplace. Just like watching porn is not appropriate in the workplace. There is no end in sight for independent thought in science, but the end of thoughtless marginalisation of women is most definitely overdue. edit: honestly - downvotes for this? Think about what that means.
      - exstudent 12y ago
        His female colleagues had no issue with the shirt. It was the guy who wrote The Verge article and the following pile on that had issue with it. In fact some of his female colleagues came to his defense on Twitter.
        abstractbill 12y ago
        In fact some of his female colleagues came to his defense on Twitter. (as did the woman who made the shirt in the first place: https://twitter.com/ellypriZeMaN/status/533287464497332225 https://twitter.com/ellypriZeMaN/status/533287464497332225)
        Blahah 12y ago
        That's completely irrelevant. The problem is that he wore a shirt that sexualises women in a televised major scientific event. Millions of people saw the video, and the image he projected was that he's more interested in sex than in making women feel welcome and valued in science. Which is incidentally the same image you're portraying.
- nyrulez 12y ago
  Why is this shirt sexist ? Since when are scantily clad women based themes sexist ? Or was it something he said that's missing in the article ?
  - mikeyouse 12y ago
    It was a questionably appropriate shirt but when they interviewed him, he gave a strange answer about how this comet was “The sexiest mission there’s ever been. She’s sexy, but I never said she was easy.” http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/13/why-women-in-science-are-annoyed-at-rosetta-mission-scientists-clothing http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/13/why-women-in-...
    - Evolved 12y ago
      Thankfully, the term "sexy" doesn't just apply to sex as the informal definition is something exciting, appealing, interesting and/or stimulating.
      - mikeyouse 12y ago
        Meh, it was still a weird interview, especially combined with his shirt. I watched it live with my fiance and we were both confused and actually said out loud, "We'll be hearing about him later on." I don't think he's sexist, I'm sure he's a well-respected and well-liked scientist, and I don't think it's fair to judge someone's worth based on a short interview when they're not used to being in the spotlight. At the same time, I would expect more professionalism from the whole staff at ESA. Are there any offices where wearing this [http://i.imgur.com/oJ9bVDt.jpg http://i.imgur.com/oJ9bVDt.jpg] shirt would be okay? People are making a big deal about the fact that a woman made the shirt for him, but they seem to be omitting that he provided the fabric and asked her to make it.. A large part of the rationale for missions like Rosetta is the inspiration it provides to the next generation of scientists. Hearing crude jokes about how 'easy' the mission was from a guy wearing a nudie shirt doesn't exactly invoke inspiration. It's a shame all of the other incredibly smart, professional, and inspirational people involved with the project are overshadowed by this.
- maxine0says 12y ago
  This is stupid. His shirt looks like old pinball artwork. It's obviously a vintage throwback that's harmless to anyone who isn't currently obsessed with gender politics. These feminists are so divorced from reality they are desperate and seeing everything through the prism of their bunk thought-experiments that they have to make literally everything about their imaginary oppression. Can we have one good news story without trying to make it relevant to your gender-studies major?
  - trhway 12y ago
    He should have had naked males in leather straps there too, I guess.
    - hellgas00 12y ago
      I really doubt people would be freaking out on twitter if some animated firemen looking guys were printed on his shirt, especially if was an established art-form like anime. I guess what offends one offends all and should be banned because it promotes oppressions, a lot to read into from the anime printed on a shirt.
bjt 12y ago
See European freakouts about GMOs for evidence that it's not just the US.
saalweachter 12y ago
The thing to remember is that the War on Science is really a lot of little battles. Science says a lot of things that people take offense to, inside or outside the US. For instance: * Releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has significant, negative consequences. * Most complementary & alternative medicines are ineffective in most cases. * Contraceptions are not abortifacients. * Tobacco use causes cancer. * There is no compelling evidence that ESP or any other psychic powers exist. * Cuts to government spending during a downturn can weaken the economy. * Oswald, acting alone and for his own reasons, killed Kennedy. * Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth, including humans. But just because someone takes offense to one or more things science says, most people don't take offense to all things science says. This fragments the War -- there aren't two sides, there are a million -- and lets science as a whole progress even as individual areas and projects face varying amounts of hostilities from individuals, organizations, and corporations.
- tzs 12y ago
  How does science say that Oswald was acting alone and for his own reasons? I am aware of how it can show he was the only shooter, but have not seen any science showing that no one else was involved in the overall operation.
  - mgkimsal 12y ago
    i thought the same thing, although things like disproving the need for a 'magic bullet' takes the wind out of a lot of conspiracy theories. science may not ever 100% prove oswald was 100% alone, but it makes a lot of the whacko theories a lot less required.

sharkweek 12y ago

I highly recommend folks watch Particle Fever (for a variety of reasons, and it's on Netflix), but one section particularly stuck out, when the documentary addresses the original LHC location in Texas being de-funded. It shows members of congress arguing how "discovering the origins of the universe" should not be a priority. I think it's easy to make a very public argument against budgeting research, as the general public doesn't necessarily understand the larger implications of these experiments (at a cursory glance, I rarely see it myself, but I generally give research the benefit of the doubt). Particle Fever addresses this point blank with the discovery of Radio Waves, how nobody really knew what this discovery meant until years/decades later when it became a massive step forward in communication. My dad is a bit old fashioned, and if you told him in a soundbite that congress was spending money on shrimp treadmills, with no other context he'd immediately make his snap judgement that the government is once again wasting his money. Hard thing to overcome, no matter how important the research might end up being.

wozniacki 12y ago
When these topics, concerning the general disinterestedness and the indifference of the voting populace toward science and technology come up, one is left to wonder how it is even arithmetically possible in 2014, that there isn't yet a financially lofty interest-group apparatus in Washington, advancing policies that collectively foster the cause of basic research in science & tech. Where are the think tanks? Where are the high powered K-street lobbyists? ( I'm discounting the nascent and newfangled lobby groups, here.[1] ) We could not even help elect a single legislator in our own backyard.[2] Surely, it certainly isn't for the lack of war-chests. What is it then? Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3] I know images of a bleak and soulless future rings more bells at the box office than visions of a verdant tech-enabled one. Nonetheless, tens of millions of people watch these movies to nurture their already well-developed dislike for science & rational thought on one side and their embrace of religious dogma and superstition on the other. [1] Tech Firms and Lobbyists: Now Intertwined, but Not Eager to Reveal It http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-lobbyists-now-intertwined-but-not-eager-to-reveal-it.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-lobb... [2] Tech Industry Flexes Muscle in California Race http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-industry-flexes-muscle-in-california-race.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-industry-... [3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809/Blade-Runner-The-Final-Cut-review.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809...

8_hours_ago 12y ago

Add it to the list along with the million dollar space pen[0]. Oversimplifying things like that seems to be pretty common in politics. When you say something like "the government spent millions of dollars on a shrimp treadmill!!", the desired reaction is achieved well before any well-reasoned rebuttal can be made. And by the time that the truth comes out -- if it ever does -- it's too late to correct the audience's idea that the government is wasting money. [0]: http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

jack-r-abbit 12y ago
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes" Very few people will see this truth.
- techsupporter 12y ago
  I've pretty much stopped talking, with actual words through actual speech, politics with people around me. What usually happens is "damn, did you hear about the stupid shrimp treadmill." Right as I go to inhale[0], whomever said the first sentence will inevitably cut me off with "yeah, yeah, I'm sure it's not that bad and there is some reasonable explanation that I'm not gonna get, but shit, man, shrimp treadmills, what the fuck?!" 0 - I freely admit that I can also be a little overenthusiastic about political matters, mostly because I'm really starting to dislike the sigh-and-keep-quiet approach.
Gravityloss 12y ago
Wouldn't it work to discredit enough of these stories coming from the same sources - that way, after a certain period, claims coming from the source can be discarded by default, and only assumed true if they can be verified via some other means. Ad hominem, basically.

HarryHirsch 12y ago

It's of course that politicians are only speaking what the electorate wants to hear. Anti-science language wouldn't fly if it didn't result in votes. The sentiment against science in large tracts of the country is frankly scary. When you see that the Department of Biology at Baylor University, a respectable institution associated with the Baptist Church, feels compelled to make a statement in favour of evolution (http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=77368 http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=77368) you know it's time to emigrate.

meepmorp 12y ago
> It's of course that politicians are only speaking what the electorate wants to hear. Anti-science language wouldn't fly if it didn't result in votes It's not anti-science language, per se. It's a "hey, look at this wasteful stuff your tax dollars are getting spent on," which only incidentally plays on anti-intellectual/anti-scientific sentiments in the electorate. It's hard to explain why something like this is actually a valuable use of resources, and doubly so when it's easy to characterize as a ridiculous thing.

serve_yay 12y ago

I can't deal with politics since about five years ago, it just makes me feel stressed-out and sad. Living in DC made me hate it, all of it. (I moved.)

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Reminds me of the research into French fruit flies that Palin tried to make the same political point with - http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2008/10/french-fruit-fly-fracas http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2008/10/french-fruit-fly-f... I wonder if they just find it icky and are then rationalizing the politics afterwards.

jordanb 12y ago
Palin shares her hatred of Fruit Fly research with Stalinist Soviet Russia[0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
- ljegou 12y ago
  And her hatred about France (at the time) too.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rebootthesystem 12y ago

Before. Ask this question I must issue a disclaimer: We waste more money giving religious groups all kinds of priviledges (tax exemptions for TV evangelists!!!) than university researchers will ever waste. Every dollar invested in science is a dollar well spent. That said, scientists are not beyond wasting resources. I think it is absolutely proper and important to hold scientific research accountable to the degree it is possible. I am not making a comment about the shrimp treadmill, this is more of a general observation.

Zikes 12y ago

What about three times as much on a video game nobody's heard of? http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-10-million-on-a-video-game-about-escaping-a-fat-town/ http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-10-million-on-a-vide...

hellgas00 12y ago
Does it lead to kids changing their dietary habits? I would have to guess not. If it did, would it be justifiable? The effectiveness of the product should be discussed first then the cost effectiveness of the product can be considered. There is no point of waving and screaming look at all of this money being spent on this thing, unless you also examine the thing which the money is being spent on.
- induscreep 12y ago
  I saw discussion about this on reddit. The top comment noted that kids sit on the couch (and do not need move) while playing this video game - so it's not clear how this video game helps. I guess it's a very bad idea that also was poorly planned and managed.

DanBC 12y ago

> Mike Huckabee linked the National Science Foundation’s funding of shrimp-treadmill studies to limited military spending How the fuck did he manage that? How many hours would $300m last the military?

nikomen 12y ago
According to Wikipedia, US military spending is about $643 billion. So, $300m would last about 4 hours. Those shrimp really are stealing a lot from the military. </sarcasm>

kefka 12y ago

http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBUe78awZMT0&start1=4&video2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZnHmskwqCCQ&start2=&authorName=Shrinpety+Shrimp http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube....

enziobodoni 12y ago

This reminds me a bit of when Sarah Palin derided worm research (C elegans), ignorant of the fact that such research was the backbone of genetics and neurobiology research.

protomyth 12y ago

Look, this happens for every facet of government spending and both parties know exactly how to phrase their soundbite to make it worse. Anyone taking government funding for any project better be ready to deal with an out of context soundbite in a professional and calm manner. It is the nature of the beast. You are using someone else's money for something and the someone else gets a bit peeved that s/he had to give up the money in the first place. The common refrain that Republicans don't understand science or Democrats don't understand business is not true and not your friend. JackFr's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8611038 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8611038 points out some of the good lines that contradict the tried and true arguments. The proper way to deal with these type of things is learn that you are taking money, its not your right, and show how you are actually being innovative and saving the taxpayers money or show what family members you are saving with your activity. I've seen enough people doing amazing work on the taxpayers dime that really saved the taxpayers money in the long run (early childhood screenings for example) that knew how to properly phrase their work to make both parties their champion. tldr: you take the taxpayer's money then be ready to do PR

induscreep 12y ago

What I don't understand is that this sort of thing happens between other sectors - for example, 'defense dollars could be used to provide healthcare', or 'subsidies could be used to pay teachers more and improve schools'. In these cases, the sectors each have their own lobby, and they are able to fight back with publicity and ads. But scientists are defenseless. Where is the pro-scientist lobby? Should universities just get together and throw some dollars at hiring a lobbying firm? EDIT: the scientist lobby could release an ad that said this: "politicians are spending millions on armament that was never used and rusted away...do YOU want bacteria in your seafood? do YOU want cheap shrimp buffets? If so, say YES to NSF!" The "say yes to nsf" actually rhymes haha.

rwallace 12y ago

That's a great explanation - for an audience willing to take the time to read it. But your arsenal of political weapons needs to include soundbites for an audience not willing to take the time to read. Here's how I would summarize the content more quotably: "Actually it cost fifty dollars, and we were trying to figure out how to stop people dying of food poisoning. Is your life worth fifty dollars?"

cehlen 12y ago

I don't have a problem with the $3M, shrimp on a tread mill, or $3M for shrimp on a tread mill. The problem I have is I still don't know what this guy was trying to discover even after I read the article. If your going to ask tax payers for $3M do us all a favor and spend a couple of hundred explaining in layman's terms why!