|
|
#61
12-15-2006, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Political Interference in the Scientific Process
[ QUOTE ]
This is not always true. Why do you think Harvard has such a large endowment? [/ QUOTE ] Tax incentives 
|
|
#62
12-15-2006, 10:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Political Interference in the Scientific Process
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You could probably apply that sentiment to all areas currently funded by tax dollars. [/ QUOTE ]  [/ QUOTE ] ROFLMAO!!! This would make a great avatar [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#63
12-15-2006, 11:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Political Interference in the Scientific Process
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is not always true. Why do you think Harvard has such a large endowment? [/ QUOTE ] Tax incentives [/ QUOTE ] Have you ever been right?
|
|
#64
12-16-2006, 02:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Political Interference in the Scientific Process
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This is not always true. Why do you think Harvard has such a large endowment? [/ QUOTE ] Tax incentives [/ QUOTE ] Have you ever been right? [/ QUOTE ] He's far right...
|
|
#65
12-16-2006, 11:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Political Interference in the Scientific Process
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This is not always true. Why do you think Harvard has such a large endowment? [/ QUOTE ] Tax incentives [/ QUOTE ] Have you ever been right? [/ QUOTE ] He's far right... [/ QUOTE ] It's rediculous to think people would donate $1M to save $350,000 in taxes FOR ONLY that reason. Plus, people when they die often give huge chunks of their estate away. But, must be for a tax purpose, Copernicus says so!
|
|
#67
12-17-2006, 01:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Political Interference in the Scientific Process
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This is not always true. Why do you think Harvard has such a large endowment? [/ QUOTE ] Tax incentives [/ QUOTE ] Have you ever been right? [/ QUOTE ] He's far right... [/ QUOTE ] It's rediculous to think people would donate $1M to save $350,000 in taxes FOR ONLY that reason. Plus, people when they die often give huge chunks of their estate away. But, must be for a tax purpose, Copernicus says so! [/ QUOTE ] Its called trusts. If you think an endowment grant only gets treatment as an itemized deduction, youve got some tax law to learn.
|
|
#68
12-17-2006, 08:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Political Interference in the Scientific Process
[ QUOTE ]
Natedogg, [ QUOTE ] Stop funding science with government money. [/ QUOTE ] Your blind religion has nothing to do with that petition. This petition isn't about funding science, it's about acknowledging/ignoring what the science says. [/ QUOTE ]No matter what you say, or what the subject is, the ACer will always sneak in an argument about the bad, bad state being the root of all evil. Yet when I gently point out that this is akin to the religious fundamentalists' ways, they get all indignant. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Once upon a time, when a European Minister of Culture (they have that kind of portfolio in European governments, yes) asked a famous artist, well, what was the government supposed to do with the Arts, he got the response "Your job as a government is to fund the Arts and get the hell out without asking questions". The message was that the government is supposed to support the arts - but not interfere in the creative process itself. The exact same thing can be said about government funding and scientific research. Mickey Brausch
|
|
#69
12-17-2006, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Political Interference in the Scientific Process
[ QUOTE ]
The message was that the government is supposed to support the arts - but not interfere in the creative process itself. The exact same thing can be said about government funding and anything and everything, and it is just as laughable there, too. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#70
12-17-2006, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Political Interference in the Scientific Process
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Natedogg, [ QUOTE ] Stop funding science with government money. [/ QUOTE ] Your blind religion has nothing to do with that petition. This petition isn't about funding science, it's about acknowledging/ignoring what the science says. [/ QUOTE ]No matter what you say, or what the subject is, the ACer will always sneak in an argument about the bad, bad state being the root of all evil. Yet when I gently point out that this is akin to the religious fundamentalists' ways, they get all indignant. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Once upon a time, when a European Minister of Culture (they have that kind of portfolio in European governments, yes) asked a famous artist, well, what was the government supposed to do with the Arts, he got the response "Your job as a government is to fund the Arts and get the hell out without asking questions". The message was that the government is supposed to support the arts - but not interfere in the creative process itself. The exact same thing can be said about government funding and scientific research. Mickey Brausch [/ QUOTE ] Except that in reality this wont' happen, ever. And you know it. No political body, party, or politician will ever willingly refrain from interference in anything they distribute money to, and in fact the *people* want it that way too. Everyone has their own ideas of how to interfere with the scientific process, even wacki who decries it (when it goes against his own pet views but not when it conforms to them) Arguing over exactly HOW to interfere with science reporting and research is missing the point. The OP posted an article about scientists complaining about "politics interfering with the scientific process". The only way that's going to stop happening is if the govt stops spending money on science. Period. Idealistic hopes aside... natedogg
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
