TRUTH about US R&D SPENDING from BRITISH NATURE

Troy Shinbrot shinbrot at nwu1.edu
Sat Apr 20 22:03:31 EST 1996


In article <4la5ta$aiu at b.stat.purdue.edu>, hrubin at b.stat.purdue.edu
(Herman Rubin) wrote:

<snip>

Excellent.  So let's just summarize what we've learned so far.

(1) You believe that the government should stop spending money on
research, but you see nothing contradictory with using things that came
from government-funded research.
(2) Now that you have gone through public-funded primary and secondary
education, you feel that the public should stop funding these things.
(3) You think that your (college) education "would not have been affected"
by removing government funding for research and education. 
(4) You believe that the government has spent "darn little basic cancer
research."
(5) Your position is that more money should be spent on basic research,
but that the government should spend less.
(6) You think that disease research should be provided by private
organizations such as the March of Dimes, annual budget generously in the
millions, rather than the National Institutes of Health, annual budget
exceeding $10 billion.
(7) You imagine that particle accelerators and the Hubble Space Telescope
were not funded by the government.
(8) You believe that the government "eradicated [the] long term base" of
research.
(9) You think that medical research was better off in the 1920's than it
is today.
(10) You believe that the US government would "bring in troops" to stop a
private company from participating in "real space activities" and that
"government regulations" prevent "tens of millions" of people from funding
these activities.

So you have shown yourself to be ignorant of the basics of logic (1),
fairness (2), fiscal reality (3), cancer research (4), simple addition
(6), historical fact (7),(9), and law (10).  Is there anything else that
you want to show us, or do you think it might be smart to quit while
you're ahead?

-Troy



More information about the Bioforum mailing list