In article <3qiufc$i2c at charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, plaudrup at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Peter Laudrup) writes:
>It is argued that research is an investment and will be paid back
>as the cost of treatment goes down. I need help here: isn't
>treatment a private (/insurance) issue?
medicare and medicaid are public subsidies, and lofty ones at that.
>I think the scientific community will be far better off facing
>the facts. There will be a cut - let's try to make it a 'good'
>one. If we turned to our representatives and agreed that a 10%
>cut is fair, we will carry our load in this matter, and then
>argued that the freeze on future funding might be hard to deal
>with, I think our voice would be respected more. A serious
>negotiation instead of a headless protest. In this way it would
>be possible to push for legislation that encourage the suggested
hmmm.... this is a good point. when, though, would it be an effective thing
to do? (and who will represent us?)
>Let us then turn our efforts inside. A lot of expensive equipment
>is idle in one lab, while another lab is buying new. We could
>optimize the scientific process, which would speed up progress
>and probably save about 10%.
excellent suggestion, peter!! although it is my understanding that
universities already keep record of all the equiptment bought for labs (not
necessaritly off of private grants) for this purpose. am i right about this
(does anyone know?). i am just wondering if there is a poorly managed system
in place or no system whatsoever.