After 50 Years Of Failed Predictions, Science Is In Crisis

[Cyber Liberty]

Maybe if our country was more of a meritocracy and actual scientists had more control over matters related to science things wouldn't be so screwed up. I won't give up on the potential government has for expediting technological growth. It's too important.

Too important?  Why?  AGW?

[Dexter]

I'm just glad he shot that car into space.  He did it for "profit."  BFD.

That was huge publicity for Spacex = money. Also Elon is a bit of an egomaniac. The private sector will never spend large sums of money on science when the benefits of are a generation or more away. They're in it for money, which sometimes is AMAZING because there is more of an emphasis on efficiency, but sometimes things worth doing aren't profitable for at least a while.

[Dexter]

Too important?  Why?  AGW?

Too important because the progress of humanity is directly linked to its understanding of science. Science and technology gave us every comfort we have. Nothing is more important for the future.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Elon Musk isn't going to do what NASA does (or should do). He's developing things that will make him money. When the goal is money rather than scientific discovery it limits the scope. The government is useful when the benefits of research are a generation away, because no private business is going to spend a bunch of money on that.

I just gave you three examples of private businesses that are doing exactly that, but go on making assertions based on how you feel things would be.

[Dexter]

I just gave you three examples of private businesses that are doing exactly that, but go on making assertions based on how you feel things would be.

How long do you think a company will stay in business if its main motivation isn't making money? No private business is going to take huge monetary losses for the sake of humanity. Not everything should be done and controlled by the private sector.

[Cyber Liberty]

That was huge publicity for Spacex = money. Also Elon is a bit of an egomaniac. The private sector will never spend large sums of money on science when the benefits of are a generation or more away. They're in it for money, which sometimes is AMAZING because there is more of an emphasis on efficiency, but sometimes things worth doing aren't profitable for at least a while.

And Obastard was motivated by charity when he wasted billions on Alt Energy.  Right.

One more time, in case you missed it:  I don't GAF why Musk did it.

[Cyber Liberty]

Too important because the progress of humanity is directly linked to its understanding of science. Science and technology gave us every comfort we have. Nothing is more important for the future.

And I maintain we should keep science out of the hands of government because politicians.  Nothing is more important for the future.

Your move.

[Dexter]

And Obastard was motivated by charity when he wasted billions on Alt Energy.  Right.

One more time, in case you missed it:  I don't GAF why Musk did it.

Obama foolishly wasted money in the wrong places, and what's worse is he managed to turn people like you off to the possibility that the government can do useful things.

[Dexter]

And I maintain we should keep science out of the hands of government because politicians.  Nothing is more important for the future.

Your move.

Your way limits scientific progress. I will never support that, ever.

[GrouchoTex]

Obama foolishly wasted money in the wrong places, and what's worse is he managed to turn people like you off to the possibility that the government can do useful things.

No, the best thing the Federal government can do is what it is constitutionally mandated to do, and no more.
Why we are in the dilemma we face now, even with this debate on climate change, is the Federal Government has tried to do more than it should have.
Millions upon millions ($ Trillions $) of examples of this.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

How long do you think a company will stay in business if its main motivation isn't making money? No private business is going to take huge monetary losses for the sake of humanity. Not everything should be done and controlled by the private sector.

I'd say close to a decade so far for at least one of those three I mentioned.

Maybe you can tell us how we'll never have a cure for polio from the private sector as well?

[Dexter]

I'd say close to a decade so far for at least one of those three I mentioned.

Which of those companies is taking huge losses with no monetary goals for the sake of human progress? Can you give examples of how they are doing that? Also the polio vaccine is not a cure but a prevention, and a lot of people have made a lot of money off of it. I think you either don't understand or are refusing to understand my point. I'm losing interest because we're getting nowhere.

[Dexter]

No, the best thing the Federal government can do is what it is constitutionally mandated to do, and no more.
Why we are in the dilemma we face now, even with this debate on climate change, is the Federal Government has tried to do more than it should have.
Millions upon millions ($ Trillions $) of examples of this.

If the government can use my taxes to help a bunch of dumb/unproductive people then I certainly have no issue with it using taxes to expedite the growth of technology. This is the world we live in. The government takes our shit and it'll never stop. This is a worthy cause though, unlike most others. Maybe instead of helping a bunch of poor Mexicans and overspending on the military we should do something that will actually help humanity. It'll also help America. I want us to be putting the rest of the world to shame. That's my kind of nationalism.

[Cyber Liberty]

Your way limits scientific progress. I will never support that, ever.

"Progress" advanced in the name of Socialism isn't progress at all. 

It's elusive, and you are damned right the politicization of science has turned me and just about every other sensible person off to the Idea of having government do it.

[Dexter]

"Progress" advanced in the name of Socialism isn't progress at all. 

It's elusive, and you are damned right the politicization of science has turned me and just about every other sensible person off to the Idea of having government do it.

Why not join the group of people that wants to get politics out of science so we can use the government to achieve amazing things that the private sector can't or won't do because it's not profitable for them? If we did it before we can do it again. Would you agree with what I'm suggesting if steps were taken to keep out politics?

[Smokin Joe]

The free market will never undertake research and development, or ANYTHING really, unless it's profitable in the near future, but sometimes things are still worth doing even if they aren't currently profitable. That's where the government can be useful. Exploration comes to mind. What private business is going to pay big money for space exploration they have no way of profiting off of? Thinking everything should be handled by the private sector is short-sighted.

Nonsense. The first Bakken horizontal wells were marginally profitable, and within a few years the changes included switching rigs to top drives, pad wells with walking rigs, vast improvements in MWD/LWD technology, and the batteries to power the tools downhole, and a host of other advancements. You see, being there with better tech, especially game changing tech, is the winner in fast paced, technology dependent markets. It is what makes your company the one to buy the other guys out, instead of the other way around.

For space exploration, there are a couple of companies working on that, the only problem is that the resources necessary to engage in such endeavours are often siphoned off by the government from the private sector.
It depends on how much it costs to do business. A big part of that cost is the government itself.

And, lest we forget, the huge drag on (national) space budgets was the cries of "Why spend that money there when we have problems right here at home?". So we subsidized the problems back here on Earth, and that worked out swimmingly.  By then we had reliable and accurate ICBMs, anyway, and most of the satellite network we wanted....

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Which of those companies is taking huge losses with no monetary goals for the sake of human progress? Can you give examples of how they are doing that? Also the polio vaccine is not a cure but a prevention, and a lot of people have made a lot of money off of it. I think you either don't understand or are refusing to understand my point. I'm losing interest because we're getting nowhere.

I get your point.  You think only government can do big things, and therefore any evidence to the contrary must be wrong.

I could give you examples, but you can't (won't?) leave the goal posts in one place.  First it's no business will make long term investments, then it's about money being the main motivation, then it's no monetary goals at all.

And you do understand that the word "cure" can also refer to the elimination of a problem at a population level, it doesn't simply mean eliminating an existing disease from an individual.  Nice try, though.

[GrouchoTex]

If the government can use my taxes to help a bunch of dumb/unproductive people then I certainly have no issue with it using taxes to expedite the growth of technology. This is the world we live in. The government takes our shit and it'll never stop. This is a worthy cause though, unlike most others. Maybe instead of helping a bunch of poor Mexicans and overspending on the military we should do something that will actually help humanity. It'll also help America. I want us to be putting the rest of the world to shame. That's my kind of nationalism.

Frankly, I have an issue with both

This is the world we live in. The government takes our shit and it'll never stop

Not by allowing it to do things that are a worthy cause to some.
How did we get here?

Maybe instead of helping a bunch of poor Mexicans and overspending on the military we should do something that will actually help humanity.

There are some people on both sides of the aisle who think these things are a worthy cause, and they are wrong, too, except the constitution does provide for a common defense.

[Dexter]

I get your point.  You think only government can do big things

No, I think only, or mostly only the government will make huge cost sacrifices to do big things. The private sector isn't going to make huge sacrifices for the advancement of humanity. They're willing to make big investments for the sake of their businesses, but if there's no clear path to making a lot of money then business owners won't be interested.

[Dexter]

Frankly, I have an issue with both

This is the world we live in. The government takes our shit and it'll never stop

Not by allowing it to do things that are a worthy cause to some.
How did we get here?

Maybe instead of helping a bunch of poor Mexicans and overspending on the military we should do something that will actually help humanity.

There are some people on both sides of the aisle who think these things are a worthy cause, and they are wrong, too, except the constitution does provide for a common defense.

How is expediting the advancement of technology not a worthy cause? It benefits all of humanity.

[GrouchoTex]

How is expediting the advancement of technology not a worthy cause? It benefits all of humanity.



How is not Obamacare and Welfare not a worthy cause? It benefits all of humanity.......

[Dexter]

How is not Obamacare and Welfare not a worthy cause? It benefits all of humanity.......

That's objectively not true. Your comparison doesn't work.

[Smokin Joe]

No, I think only, or mostly only the government will make huge cost sacrifices to do big things. The private sector isn't going to make huge sacrifices for the advancement of humanity. They're willing to make big investments for the sake of their businesses, but if there's no clear path to making a lot of money then business owners won't be interested.

Sure, the government will piss away huge sums without doing much besides feeding those who are involved, and making some rich. Results are nice, but not essential, after all it's all OPM.
In the event results are achieved, cost control isn't exactly first and foremost in the list of priorities.

In the instance of the space race (and the weapons deployment platform race which ran alongside it), I'm not so sure that just national prestige and the advancement of science were number one, so much as the ability to put a warhead where we wanted when we wanted to, which has an intangible benefit, one hard to measure in dollars--even though changing the (surviving) road signs to Russian would have been a mite spendy. So, the world gained (no apocalyptic nuclear war), and money was spent, not just on the devices, but the delivery systems, and we got some neat pics and rocks too. There is a potential long term gain in that, as well, from satellite images of the planet to information on low G environments and even the moon itself (how to land and be able to take off again). That may well come into play down the road on another planet, and likely should have in my lifetime, but time will tell. That doesn't mean a lot of money wasn't wasted, either.

In industry, yes, there has to be some benefit, whether it is immediate (although that can be short sighted) or long term (should a company be willing to make that investment for future returns). Wise companies keep costs from waste controlled (something government is notoriously bad at), and find ways to use off the shelf tech to do a job and refine that.

As another example, hydraulic fracturing as a completion method has been around well over half a century, but the adaptation of that to horizontal wellbores and multistage fracs (and the tools to do it) have been refined significantly, and those developments (continuously being refined) are what is fueling the present oil production in the US, as well as the ability to switch to natural gas for power generation purposes without making that same fuel too expensive for the millions of homeowners who use it for heat and cooking.

Many of those developments were made an experiment or a prototype at a time, until something that performed as desired was developed.

[Smokin Joe]

How is expediting the advancement of technology not a worthy cause? It benefits all of humanity.

Actually, technology is a rock. You can build with it, you can shape it into tools or use it as one. You can break it into little bits and extract things from it. Or you can knock your neighbor over the head with it.

It is neither good nor evil, in and of itself, it just is.

Now, how it is used is a different story. Much depends on who wields it.

[Dexter]

Sure, the government will piss away huge sums without doing much besides feeding those who are involved, and making some rich. Results are nice, but not essential, after all it's all OPM.
In the event results are achieved, cost control isn't exactly first and foremost in the list of priorities.

In the instance of the space race (and the weapons deployment platform race which ran alongside it), I'm not so sure that just national prestige and the advancement of science were number one, so much as the ability to put a warhead where we wanted when we wanted to, which has an intangible benefit, one hard to measure in dollars--even though changing the (surviving) road signs to Russian would have been a mite spendy. So, the world gained (no apocalyptic nuclear war), and money was spent, not just on the devices, but the delivery systems, and we got some neat pics and rocks too. There is a potential long term gain in that, as well, from satellite images of the planet to information on low G environments and even the moon itself (how to land and be able to take off again). That may well come into play down the road on another planet, and likely should have in my lifetime, but time will tell. That doesn't mean a lot of money wasn't wasted, either.

In industry, yes, there has to be some benefit, whether it is immediate (although that can be short sighted) or long term (should a company be willing to make that investment for future returns). Wise companies keep costs from waste controlled (something government is notoriously bad at), and find ways to use off the shelf tech to do a job and refine that.

As another example, hydraulic fracturing as a completion method has been around well over half a century, but the adaptation of that to horizontal wellbores and multistage fracs (and the tools to do it) have been refined significantly, and those developments (continuously being refined) are what is fueling the present oil production in the US, as well as the ability to switch to natural gas for power generation purposes without making that same fuel too expensive for the millions of homeowners who use it for heat and cooking.

Many of those developments were made an experiment or a prototype at a time, until something that performed as desired was developed.

Not everything worth doing will turn a profit. Some things won't be profitable for entire generations or more. We can't count on the private sector for that. It's not good business.

[Dexter]

Actually, technology is a rock. You can build with it, you can shape it into tools or use it as one. You can break it into little bits and extract things from it. Or you can knock your neighbor over the head with it.

It is neither good nor evil, in and of itself, it just is.

Now, how it is used is a different story. Much depends on who wields it.

Without technology I would have died as a baby, my brother too. My dad would have died in his 20s when he had to get his appendix removed, and then again in his 40s when he needed heart surgery. Without technology we wouldn't know how to read or write, and we wouldn't have an internet to express our thoughts to each other. We wouldn't be living in nice, warm houses with refrigerated food. Technology can be used for evil, but by and large it is the biggest boon that humanity has. Technology is everything.

[GrouchoTex]

That's objectively not true. Your comparison doesn't work.

Indeed, it does correlate .
The Federal Government is constitutionally mandated on what it can and cannot do.
Of course, it routinely oversteps it boundaries, and it fails every time it does so.
Every time.
Whether it be social reforms like Obamacare and welfare, or Science endeavors, it will become a large money pit, it will not go away, and the solution will always be to throw more money at it.
To say "They are spending our money, so they should spend it on something I want", is not a conservative argument.
You are not talking about a government too big, but that a big government that subsidizes what you want and taxes/penalizes that which you do not.

[GrouchoTex]

Without technology I would have died as a baby, my brother too. My dad would have died in his 20s when he had to get his appendix removed, and then again in his 40s when he needed heart surgery. Without technology we wouldn't know how to read or write, and we wouldn't have an internet to express our thoughts to each other. We wouldn't be living in nice, warm houses with refrigerated food. Technology can be used for evil, but by and large it is the biggest boon that humanity has. Technology is everything.

Which is the EXACT reason the Federal Government should have no part of it.
They can reap the benefits of it, as we all do, but that's where their involvement should end.

[Cyber Liberty]

Without technology I would have died as a baby, my brother too. My dad would have died in his 20s when he had to get his appendix removed, and then again in his 40s when he needed heart surgery. Without technology we wouldn't know how to read or write, and we wouldn't have an internet to express our thoughts to each other. We wouldn't be living in nice, warm houses with refrigerated food. Technology can be used for evil, but by and large it is the biggest boon that humanity has. Technology is everything.

(Looking around)

Who here has suggested we don't want technology?  You are engaging in fallacies again.  Nobody suggested doing away with it, or even slowing it.  What we object to is government creating research, then using its fudged results to try to force some Socialist crap down our throats.

If you continue to dance around and deny that point, then I'm finished here.  You went one fallacy too far, @Dexter. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Which is the EXACT reason the Federal Government should have no part of it.
They can reap the benefits of it, as we all do, but that's where their involvement should end.

I find it hysterical his examples of life-saving technology were all done by the private sector.  Left to government, his rels would be dead and he would not exist.

[GrouchoTex]

I find it hysterical his examples of life-saving technology were all done by the private sector.  Left to government, his rels would be dead and he would not exist.

@Cyber Liberty
I like @Dexter, but if he truly stops and seriously thinks about it, he would realize that these life-saving technologies were not begun by the Government.
I would submit, as you do, that if Goverment had their heavy hand in it, it probably would not exist, or at best, be subpar.
The red tape alone would have choked the research to death

[Dexter]

(Looking around)

Who here has suggested we don't want technology?  You are engaging in fallacies again.  Nobody suggested doing away with it, or even slowing it.  What we object to is government creating research, then using its fudged results to try to force some Socialist crap down our throats.

If you continue to dance around and deny that point, then I'm finished here.  You went one fallacy too far, @Dexter. 

I am suggesting that because technology benefits everybody it's worth doing everything we can to advance technology as quickly as possible.

[Dexter]

@Cyber Liberty
I like @Dexter, but if he truly stops and seriously thinks about it, he would realize that these life-saving technologies were not begun by the Government.
I would submit, as you do, that if Goverment had their heavy hand in it, it probably would not exist, or at best, be subpar.
The red tape alone would have choked the research to death

I was making a point about technology in general.

[Cyber Liberty]

I prefer my technology non-socialized, thank you. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I am suggesting that because technology benefits everybody it's worth doing everything we can to advance technology as quickly as possible.

OK, one more:  The best way to ensure technology doesn't happen, or happens only for the well-connected, is to let governments get their filthy mitts on it.  I see you quoted Groucho...did you even read the post you quoted?

ETA:  I got my grammar tied up.  Fixed.  Apologies to anybody who already quoted me.

[Dexter]

OK, one more:  The best way to ensure technology doesn't happen, or happens only for the well-connected, is to let governments get their filthy mitts on it.  I see you quoted Groucho...did you even read the post you quoted?

I sincerely hope your views don't take control of these issues, because I think it would be a tragedy for humanity. I think your views would stifle our growth, and to me there isn't much that's worse than stifling the growth of humanity. We should be learning and discovering through every means possible.

[Hoodat]

Obama foolishly wasted money in the wrong places, and what's worse is he managed to turn people like you off to the possibility that the government can do useful things.

Don't blame Obama for that.  Government has been doing a spectacular job at failure for centuries now.

Finding an example of the government doing something useful may prove as difficult as finding evidence that man causes global warming.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Don't blame Obama for that.  Government has been doing a spectacular job at failure for centuries now.

Finding an example of the government doing something useful may prove as difficult as finding evidence that man causes global warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr#Duel_with_Alexander_Hamilton

[Hoodat]

If the government can use my taxes to help a bunch of dumb/unproductive people then I certainly have no issue with it using taxes to expedite the growth of technology.

That's just it.  The government doesn't expedite the growth of technology.  It inhibits it.

I want us to be putting the rest of the world to shame. That's my kind of nationalism.

The greatest success at putting the rest of the world to shame occurs when government gets the hell out of the way.

The steam locomotive, the telegraph, the telephone, the internal combustion engine, radio, flight, rocketry, industrialization, semiconductors, processors, electronics, nanotechnology - all these occurred without government prodding or oversight.  They all were birthed from the private sector, products of the invisible hand.

[Smokin Joe]

I am suggesting that because technology benefits everybody it's worth doing everything we can to advance technology as quickly as possible.

Well, we are, too. I think we have different solutions for the same problem, but I will ask you this:

What things does government do that are done more quickly, more thoroughly, more efficiently, and at lower cost than industry? I'm not including the things that industry is kept out of, but there are plenty of other things.

Nothing outside of Constitutional bounds.

[Dexter]

Well, we are, too. I think we have different solutions for the same problem, but I will ask you this:

What things does government do that are done more quickly, more thoroughly, more efficiently, and at lower cost than industry? I'm not including the things that industry is kept out of, but there are plenty of other things.

Nothing outside of Constitutional bounds.

Businesses aren't going to do things that don't lead to profit, but not everything worth doing is profitable in the near future. Sometimes it might never be profitable. The ability to be profitable or not is the only thing the private sector cares about. It can't be counted on to maximize our scientific output on its on.

[Smokin Joe]

Obama foolishly wasted money in the wrong places, and what's worse is he managed to turn people like you off to the possibility that the government can do useful things.

LOL! I have watched government eff things up since my childhood. It killed the river I grew up on, and the long list of boondoggles definitely preceded Obama, although he made even Carter's Keystone cops gig look good.
Reagan had it right when he said the words which should strike fear into the hearts of Americans were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

[Smokin Joe]

Businesses aren't going to do things that don't lead to profit, but not everything worth doing is profitable in the near future. Sometimes it might never be profitable. The ability to be profitable or not is the only thing the private sector cares about. It can't be counted on to maximize our scientific output on its on.

I think you grossly underestimate the real source of invention: ideas, individual ideas. When those individuals are allowed to pursue those ideas wonderful things can happen, like even the PC, and the software that runs it.

Now, not everything worth doing is profitable, and not everything profitable is worth doing (imho) but the beauty of it all is that sometimes things cross over into sectors where they are both. People don't develop technology in a smooth line, but by fits and starts, one gadget will make yet another possible, a semi permeable membrane will lead to a dialysis machine, etc. Just as underwear made the printing press a practical device (the rag linen was used in paper), the small inventions of today will propel technologies of tomorrow. Many of those will be the brainchild, not of a publish-or-perish think tank, but some guy who woke up with heartburn and an idea...

When was the last time the Government did anything which reaped a profit? (The IRS couldn't run a whorehouse in Nevada in the black, for pete's sake.)

[Dexter]

I think you grossly underestimate the real source of invention: ideas, individual ideas. When those individuals are allowed to pursue those ideas wonderful things can happen, like even the PC, and the software that runs it.

Now, not everything worth doing is profitable, and not everything profitable is worth doing (imho) but the beauty of it all is that sometimes things cross over into sectors where they are both. People don't develop technology in a smooth line, but by fits and starts, one gadget will make yet another possible, a semi permeable membrane will lead to a dialysis machine, etc. Just as underwear made the printing press a practical device (the rag linen was used in paper), the small inventions of today will propel technologies of tomorrow. Many of those will be the brainchild, not of a publish-or-perish think tank, but some guy who woke up with heartburn and an idea...

When was the last time the Government did anything which reaped a profit? (The IRS couldn't run a whorehouse in Nevada in the black, for pete's sake.)

Maybe it's possible for the government to not hinder private sector innovation while also contributing to science and technology development in a meaningful way. People are pretty smart. I don't believe that's unattainable.

[Hoodat]

Putting aside the profit motive for a moment, one should also consider the non-governmental non-profit agency which has also provided numerous technological advances - human stem cell research being one of them.  The non-governmental researchers have come up with over 70 cures that have been developed through adult stem cells.  And they have done so without any support or prodding from the government.

Compare that to government efforts where government has spent and spent and spent with one political objective in mind - to come up with a cure using embryonic stem cells.  And in that endeavor, they have come up empty.  Failure after failure after failure from government-driven research.  Success after success after success from the private sector. 

So this isn't always about someone having to have some profit motive before some innovation is discovered.  The computer mouse was invented in 1957 by a company that never made a dime off of it.  Yet it was discovered by the best and the brightest who are given free reign to put the human mind to work without the bondage of bureaucratic malaise.  It was discovered by those who recognize what liberty can achieve without the shackles of government.  Discovery just for the sake of discovery without concern for any greater good as defined by some mindless bureaucrat who doesn't even have the integrity to admit that there is no evidence to support man-made global warming.

[roamer_1]

Compare that to government efforts where government has spent and spent and spent with one political objective in mind - to come up with a cure using embryonic stem cells.  And in that endeavor, they have come up empty.  Failure after failure after failure from government-driven research.  Success after success after success from the private sector. 

TRUE. And nothing proves it better than Global Warming, which is entirely driven by government grants steering science into what it wants to be true. THAT is the problem.

[Cyber Liberty]

TRUE. And nothing proves it better than Global Warming, which is entirely driven by government grants steering science into what it wants to be true. THAT is the problem.

Better watch out...he may declare he's hoping you don't get to decide.  You are a "Maladroit."  I'm already in the Deplorables.  I have a baseball cap to prove it.

[Dexter]

Better watch out...he may declare he's hoping you don't get to decide.  You are a "Maladroit."  I'm already in the Deplorables.  I have a baseball cap to prove it.

I take issue with some of your views, not you personally. Once two people reach an impasse there's not a whole lot left to say other than "I hope things go my way rather than your way."

[Dexter]

Putting aside the profit motive for a moment, one should also consider the non-governmental non-profit agency which has also provided numerous technological advances - human stem cell research being one of them.  The non-governmental researchers have come up with over 70 cures that have been developed through adult stem cells.  And they have done so without any support or prodding from the government.

Compare that to government efforts where government has spent and spent and spent with one political objective in mind - to come up with a cure using embryonic stem cells.  And in that endeavor, they have come up empty.  Failure after failure after failure from government-driven research.  Success after success after success from the private sector. 

So this isn't always about someone having to have some profit motive before some innovation is discovered.  The computer mouse was invented in 1957 by a company that never made a dime off of it.  Yet it was discovered by the best and the brightest who are given free reign to put the human mind to work without the bondage of bureaucratic malaise.  It was discovered by those who recognize what liberty can achieve without the shackles of government.  Discovery just for the sake of discovery without concern for any greater good as defined by some mindless bureaucrat who doesn't even have the integrity to admit that there is no evidence to support man-made global warming.

I think the private sector is magnificent when it comes to discovery. I also think there are uses for the government when it comes to discovery.

[roamer_1]

Better watch out...he may declare he's hoping you don't get to decide.  You are a "Maladroit."  I'm already in the Deplorables.  I have a baseball cap to prove it.

I will give you another one - The Freakin Spotted Owl. On the basis of ginned up 'science' the logging industry was stripped from the West.

What would make one think that the fed doesn't do exactly the same thing throughout the sciences?