vol_scouter

Packsaddle, It is not only unwise butit is downright stupid to ask the public to somehow vote on the science to be done. Clearly as taxpaers, the public should have a voice in the level of funding for science as compared to other budgetary concerns but the general public does not have the means to judge the quality or appropriateness of scientific research. That is not because the public is dumb but rather a lack of education. Also, it is due to the degree of specialization in the various fields. As a scientist with a varied background,I can understand most research that I read about. However, I am not able to judge the importance or quality of work in fields that are very far from my own endeavors. Trevorum, The issue, as I see it, is how do we communicate with a public that has little understanding of science and less patience to learn. Making matters worse, when there is a scientific issue discussed in the news media, the topic is either given too little time to explain the science or the 'experts' are celebrities with 8th grade educations (and not stellar to that point I would wager). I agree with you that our professional societies should work on this more. Perhaps, the professional societies should work together on some issues. Science should also be very wary of science that is used politically as in global warming. After a very cold winter experienced by the entire northern hemisphere that was not predicted by any climate models, the public is understandably dubious. As scientists, we know that says that the model has problems but the concerns and conclusions have not been totally invalidated. The public does not understand that kind of naunced position and tends to lose faith in science. Science would be much better off to report findings to political committees and not to claim any particular result until the models and data is far better than today. I fear for the futre of our country when science is starting to be denigrated along with the ridicule of learning and intelligence in the popular culture. Those attitudes make me concerned in a big picture way for the country.

CalicoPenn, I think that the government supporting research is not only a beneficial to the economy but it is also a critical national security issue. The world is a very dangerous place and the defense of the country is clearly a duty of the US government. The clause that you cite clearly was written to have a patent system and possibly a copyright system as well. Whatever a court might rule (and I hope that time and money are never waste on such a suit), I think that the intent was most likely for a patent system and not paying for research. Reeling in the budget is another full discussion. In that discussion, I agree that nothing should be off the table but I believe that cutting the military is something that is done with attendant peril. Packsaddle, Very astute comments. I try to be optimistic about our country but the scientific illiteracy is something else that seems to potentially doom the country. I am imagine that you are an outstanding teacher.

As we all know, what may sound to be a frivolous project will usually have an important serious goal. Also, most projects survive very critical peer reviews so that only the best are ever funded. I heard Proxmire making fun of a project that was about the mating habits of an insect. The insect was threatening a large crop (fruit I believe but that was many years ago). Since that time, I have seen several strategies that decrease the impact of certain insects by disrupting their mating. Such a website could negatively impact the careers of top notch scientists. This kind of effort is misguided and likely political grandstanding. CalicoPenn, If you cut the Department of Defense, the first thing that it will do is cut research funding. Also, I would point out that the federal government has no constitutional requirement to fund research (though I think that it is an important role for the survival of the country) but it does have a constitutional responsibility to defend the country. Such cuts to defense are ill advised.

packsaddle, I agree with you there. I try to read some from Science and Nature each week along with the New England Journal of Medicine. That is almost all online. I receive email alerts in medicine from professional organizations that spurs some reading. The rest of my reading is directly related to my various research fields. It is difficult to impossible to frame scientific problems that have social implications in terms that most people can understand. Our society is nearly scientifically illiterate. That is partly an educational problem and partly due to the complexity of today's science. You are so correct that politicians and often attorneys get a particular view point that has some truth but does not represent the entire issue. I have found that you can change the mind of an attorney but it takes a lot of effort. In medicine, I have found a related issue - informed consent - to have the same issues. It is nearly impossible to obtain truly informed consent with many folks because they do not understand anything about their own body. One cannot spend a few minutes to overcome that. I have also tell family members that their loved one is doing poorly in the ICU. After spending 20-30 minutes painting a grim picture, the only thing remembered is the minor positive finding. In science, it is easy to find reasonably good and reliable information in the top peer reviewed journals. This is not true for political and social issues where misinformation is rampant. I should expect it, because most science stories are wrong or the story teller draws inaccurate conclusions.

Merlyn, I don't lie - both my careers are based upon integrity and mine has never been challenged. Others have said the same things about you on this forum. I used your own words. If the statement was poorly written, you could have politely said so and I would have accepted that. Instead, you response makes me believe that you meant what you wrote but decided that you did not want it out. As always, all you can do is call people names whan you lose on facts.

Gern, Since your are staffing OKPIK, I take it that you have been before. Is it a good experience? I have wanted to attend but it is a long way from Tennessee. By the way, you live in a beautiful state.

Merlyn, As always, when shown to be wrong, you resort to insults. You are the one arguing to make more psychoactive drugs available which will harm innocent people - not me. I quoted your response from your post, it speaks for itself. I debated whether to respond to you and as always, I regret doing so. You are wrong and cannot admit it and always become hateful. I am trying to save lives harmed by the drugs that you want to make legal so only more will be harmed.

Merlyn, You seem to fail to understand. Most cancer patients have a port that can be accessed at home to give IV drugs and IV fluids or to do so as an outpatient. Yes, it is better to admit anyone who is having intractable emesis because they may have other factors such as a previously unknown brain metastasis which is causing the emesis. So if self treatment fails then it is better medical care to admit the patient than smoking. Smoking marijuana impairs the judgment of drivers and it definitely harms innocent people. Since your brother was seriously injured by a drunk driver, I cannot believe that you want to add another legal drug that causes the same problems - I have seen the results far too often. Once a family of four - both parents died in the ER along with one child, the remaining child (~8 as I recall) suffered serious injuries. There is no reason to add another psycho-active drug to alcohol as legal drugs. Surely you can see that. There is damage from second smoke and that is worse with marijuana because it can affect the judgment of people receiving it secondhand in addition to all the health effects from COPD etc. We can use morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone, fentanyl, demerol, codeine, nubain, methadone, and other narcotic as well as non-narcotic analgesics to relieve pain. Darvon and its compounds was just removed for use by the FDA. I repeat, heroin cannot be used in a clinical situation. It is illegal. Only certain laboratories with special licenses can use it in studies (not on patients). You quoted me: "So you have no problem with folks high on marijuana harming innocent men women, and children? " and then you responded: "Nope. " So you do not care if innocent people are harmed. That leaves me speechless. Such a cold heart. It explains a lot about you.

Smoking marijuana causes harm to innocent people, is a carcinogen, causes lung disease, and is not needed medically since marinol is available and efficacious. There are no current medical uses for cocaine or heroin. Both are only available to researchers with special licenses. There are other narcotics and members of the cocaine family that have medical uses, are ordered by physicians, and dispensed by pharmacists. So you have no problem with folks high on marijuana harming innocent men women, and children?

Merlyn, It is the standard of care for most patients receiving chemotherapy to have a port placed so that they can be given IV anti-emetics such as phenergan, compazine, and zofran. Some cancer patients have mild persistent nausea that PO marinol sometimes helps. If they have significant emesis, they should receive IV meds through their port and may require fluid resuscitation. Smoking marijuana is not needed. As far as whats the harm, how many families including minors have you seen killed or maimed by someone high on marijuana? How many accidents of other kinds have you seen due to being high? I have and continue to see far too many people harmed by the drug. Since it is fat soluble, it remains in the body much longer than alcohol. The real point in this thread is that the news media does such a poor job in reporting all of the pertinent facts in the debate. Most people believe that the only way to get the benefits of the active drugs in marijuana is to smoke it. That is not true, the users just don't get high. That is clearly an important point not brought out so that people can make fully informed decisions.

Gern, I listened to the healthcare bill debate over the various news outlets and I have not heard of republicans attaching amendments or being included in any form in the healthcare bill. Another scouter has claimed that as not being correct. I assume that he knows that to be true without insisting on providing facts. Obama did not campaign on redistributing the wealth. He campaigned on healthcare reform which means what? Does it mean some insurance reform to expand the scope of coverage and prevent people with illnesses from losing their coverage or does it mean a total government run system? It meant to each person what they wanted it to mean. Did Obama campaign on over riding experienced generals in the field saying that he knows better than they do about how many troops are needed in Afghanistan (even though he has absolutely no experience or training upon which to draw upon to make that decision). He campaigned on change in general terms with few specifics which is not unique to Obama. I have in many instances in other discussions presented you with facts about medical practice which you refuse to believe. We all provide our opinions here and use the facts that we have at our command. If it is our field of expertise, then we speak with authority. If it is out of that field of expertise, we mostly get our information from various internet sources which are sometimes correct and sometimes not. I am sorry that you get so angry that the democrats are solely responsible for the healthcare bill (more accurately a medical care bill because patients must participate to have health care whereas medical is what is provided to patients). If you are angry that it is not a total government take over you need to blame the democrats. If you think that it went to far and is a disaster as many of us do, only the democrats are to blame. Part of the disaster was outlined in the link that I provided citing 74% of physicians want to retire or otherwise remove themselves from their medical practices (I have not tried to look up the article and verify its references). With too few physicians, this is a disaster by itself. Many voted against President Bush and projected onto Obama what they wanted him to be. The last election showed that they did not like the agenda that he has presented. There is no need for help from you.

Gern, I gave the answer several times: The democrats wrote their own version of healthcare reform. If they copied anyone else's, it makes no difference because they were free to draft whatever they wished. The healthcare plan solely belongs to the democrats. If providing opinions is lying, then it applies in both directions. I would rather think that we are scouters here and would not resort to such attacks. I have not surveyed the country but I do travel a moderate amount. In my discussions, people have projected onto Obama what they wanted to see and hear. I said to them after the election that he was for socialized medicine and cap & trade only to be told that I didn't know what I was talking about. Obama had a brilliant campaign strategy by running on change and focusing on President Bush. Obama ran on letting the Patriot act expire only to renew it. He said that the surge was bad and would not work only to see it bring success in Iraq. He then used the same strategy in Afghanistan.

I usually listen to NPR everyday and watch Foxnews in the evening combined with internet sites such as the Drudgereport. I have tried watching CNN, MSNBC, etc. but they are consistently biased. Fox presents the most even handed news but is light on facts and heavy on opinions. With the exception of NPR, no news outlet does even a poor job with science stories - they all get an 'F'. Only NPR will interview scientists about a story. Even then, NPR wants to have a human interest aspect to the story if possible instead of focusing on the science. Everyone else will have politicians and even worse celebrities to discuss a science topic. They are nearly uniformly wrong. I wonder if the attorneys would say the same for legal issues - maybe not since they do have attorneys on and Fox has many attorneys presenting the news. Along those lines of bias, I have never heard on any news outlet who discussed legalizing marijuana the drug marinol. Marinol has the active drugs in marijuana and has been available legally for decades. Due to a more gradual absorption, marinol does not provide a high as smoking marijuana does. Legalizing marijuana is all about legalizing people getting high - it has nothing to do with helping to treat glaucoma, nausea in cancer, and cachexia in cancer. This to me is an important component to the discussion but none of the news outlets want to discuss this. It makes me concerned that I cannot find reliable information from any source with any regularity on any subject.

Obama never discussed his agenda. He ran simply on change. I have talked with dozens of people who voted for him and they tended to see what they wanted to see in him - not what he actually wrote about in is books. When some of his agenda came out, such as wealth redistribution, many people said that to believe that about him was silly, it was made up to discredit him. Obama got elected without telling the American people much of his agenda except change. The change that he brought has now been thoroughly rejected by the voters. He has failed at foreign policy, he has failed at the economy, and he has failed to enact most of his extremist agenda despite having substantial majorities in both houses of congress.

Gern, Once again, the healthcare bill was written and passed by democrats without republican input. The bill is what the democrat party wanted by definition since they were the only ones involved in writing it. Take a look at the link to see some of the early fallout. I know many who have similar plans. It will only get worse and it is only the democrats fault. The healthcare bill is a democrat bill that thet wrote and own.

Obama. Pelosi, and Reid pushed through a bill that was not wanted by the people of the USA. They did not ask for any republican input. If the bill does not satisfy you, blame the democrats. Had they had good leadership, they could have passed most anything. Had it been a good bill instead of this disaster, it would have passed easily. You might want to watch this: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4449244/exodus-of-physicians-in-america/

Why did the democrats adopt the GOP healthcare plan? They did everything without GOP or conservative input or involvement. The healthcare plan is all democrat. It is a disaster as you and others will discover if lawsuits do not successfully halt this travesty. Obama has not failed at everything. He got socialized medicine through which was part of his agenda. His foreign policy is a total failure. His economic plan is certainly not a success. Fortunately, he did not pass cap and trade and other terrible plans. He did not end the Patriot Act that he campaigned upon. He is the worst president that I have lived under which dates back to Eisenhower.

Clearly, Sarah Palin can hunt, shoot - first shot with a properly aligned rifle - and clean & dress large game which I daresay is far above the capabilities of most recent democrat candidates for president and vice president.

There are twice the number of self described conservatives to liberals. The country is still a center right country. Keep thinking that way Gern. If all democrats will only continue to think that way, the party will soon become a minor party. If you were correct, moderate democrats would have lost by the hordes in the primaries followed by trouncing their conservative competition in the general elections. That is clearly not what happened. The people did not want the healthcare bill - single payor or not - and made their displeasure known only to be treated arrogantly by the democrat party. The democrat party paid dearly for their arrogance as the republicans had four years before.

Have to agree with Beavah here. It is not terrorism or treason. Assange is clearly an enemy. The reason for the leaks is that he is a leftist who would like to see the USA destroyed. It is difficult to envision an easy way to deal with him since to try to remove him by some manner, either legally or by covert means violates what we stand for. It would also make us much like Russia dealing with Alexander Litvinenko by poisoning him with 210Po.

Gern, Obama didn't need the republicans for the first year of his presidency. He had substantial majorities in both houses and still could only pass a healthcare bill that it a disaster and required bribes that became public knowledge to pass it because it is such a bad bill. Democrats are not joining republican initiatives so therefore they are blocking the republicans carrying out the will of the people. Blocking important legislation or protecting the republic is a matter of point of view. If a congressman is the way that his or her constituents would likely vote, then they are ding their jobs. If they are not voting the way that their constituents vote, then they have no business being in office in a representative democracy and should be voted out of office. The democrats refused to listen to their constituents and got what they deserved as had the republicans four years before. The republicans are not the cause of Obama's legislative failures. Obama's failures are his fault alone.

Eagle92, I totally agree with your comments on Wikipedia - that is precisely why I quote it as the source. I do not believe that it is accurate on the Valerie Plame Wilson story but frankly, I consider this an informal discussion around the campfire so better references are not necessary for most discussions. If I use Wikipedia, I say so in order for everyone to make their own decisions as to the veracity of the story. Beavah, As is often the case, I agree.

CalicoPenn, At least according to Wikipedia, Plame was an active CIA agent when her identity was revealed. That was a despicable act apparently by Richard Armitage but one has to wonder if that is the correct leak since there was never a prosecution. In reading the article on Wikipedia, the obvious question also comes up - why wasn't Joe Wilson ever prosecuted for releasing classified information about the assessment for WMD in Iraq? I am certain that he would likely claim whistleblower status which in this circumstance might be justified. The lack of prosecutions makes me believe that there is far more to this story than has ever been released. From what I read at the time, the Wilson's were democrats who disliked President Bush and wanted to discredit him. At the same time, I could see the possibility that they disliked him because they felt like that the President was not honest about the WMD reasons to attack Iraq. Likely only they will ever know that truth. If they disliked President Bush and that caused them to not carry out the duties of their positions to the best of other abilities, they should have resigned. When Joe Wilson published an op-ed piece in the NYT, he knew that it would likely have repercussions. That would in no way justify revealing Valerie Plame's identity. I agree with you on the first point. The third point could also be that Assange has enough notoriety that somehow removing him would be viewed much as the west viewed the Po poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko.

Former President George W. Bush earned a Bachelor's degree from Yale and then was accepted into the MBA program at Harvard which he completed. He is the only president to have earned an MBA for whatever that is worth. So Harvard must have thought that he had received an Ivy League education. Otherwise, you are saying that an Ivy League education is not what it is touted in a learning sense (attending an Ivy League school clearly opens doors that others do no have opened). It was Al Gore that had academic problems - not former President Bush.

Basementdweller, As you read this thread, there is agreement that though decisions that must be made and many things cut or eliminated. I was surprised because it was universal. Some of my favorite sparring buddies on the left and arch conservatives alike all agreed. I believe that the public is more accepting than the politicians.