Scientists stage mock funeral to protest cuts to research

[Tonington]

And yes, I worked with the NRC

So which project was evaluating the effects of sun on water? That's a gross mischaracterization of the types of studies funded through NSERC grants, or undertaken at NRC labs.

What did you actually do at NRC?

Could you even list a patent owned by the NRC, and thus a revenue source for tax payers?

Maybe you think micro-arrays that can detect cancer and detection methods for recombinant viruses are lefty wastes of our tax dollars, but that would be strange...

 

[Fletch]

Projects were in 3D steroscopics... In medical imaging. I wasted Millions... But was forced to by my management team. Where i could have purchased a digitizing sytem for 350K dollars, we paid 1.7Million. Simply sickening.

Oh please... Yes, list me those pattents that are paying of dividends....

Lets leave medical research and science to the professionals, Not these leftist hacks protesting in the streets.

So which project was evaluating the effects of sun on water? That's a gross mischaracterization of the types of studies funded through NSERC grants, or undertaken at NRC labs.

What did you actually do at NRC?

Could you even list a patent owned by the NRC, and thus a revenue source for tax payers?

Maybe you think micro-arrays that can detect cancer and detection methods for recombinant viruses are lefty wastes of our tax dollars, but that would be strange...

Studies funded by Taxpayer dollars:
Accounts of "duh" research abound. There are studies showing that driving ability worsens in people with early Alzheimer's disease, that women who get epidurals experience less pain during childbirth than women who don't, that young men who are obese have lower odds of getting married than thinner peers, that making exercise more fun might improve fitness among teens. Dr. Charles Czeisler, who has spent about $3 million over the years demonstrating over and over that doctors who don't get enough sleep make mistakes on the job. Way to go Science!!!!!

 

[Tonington]

Projects were in 3D steroscopics... In medical imaging. I wasted Millions... But was forced to by my management team. Where i could have purchased a digitizing sytem for 350K dollars, we paid 1.7Million. Simply sickening.

Yeah, we make decisions like that at work all the time too. The figures are useless without comparing the specs for the equipment and what they are needed for. We have multi-million dollar machines that can screen thousands of compounds a day for pharmacokinetic activity. We could have spent much less, but then we wouldn't be able to explore as many possible compounds in our POC studies.

Oh please... Yes, list me those pattents that are paying of dividends....

Or anyone who wants can read about them here, instead of taking some internet poster at their word:
Performance Indicators - NRC-CNRC
Some highlights:

In 2007-08, the total new companies created since 1995 remains at 68, accounting for approximately 552 full-time jobs and an estimated $470 million in cumulative investment, an 8% increase from last year. In 2007, investment from all sources into NRC new companies was $87 million.
...
In 2007-08, NRC researchers participated in 118 research networks, held 217 positions on editorial boards of scientific journals and were appointed to 473 adjunct professorships in Canadian universities. In 2007-08, NRC researchers and their university partners received 207 grants from Canadian granting agencies (such as NSERC and Genome Canada). The total of these grants, over the lifetime of the projects, equalled $29.3 million.
​

207 grants for under $30 million. Hardly the $3 million figure you listed to study the effects of sunlight on water.

In addition to working with university partners, NRC signed 407 new collaborative research agreements with Canadian partners worth a total of $159 million in 2007-08. The total value over the lifetime of these agreements grew to $493 million. The number and value of collaborative agreements signed during a year are indicators that foretell increased research activity. NRC's Canadian partners invest $3.10 for every dollar NRC invests.​

That's a pretty significant investment. Anyone who works with this stuff would know that the investments are matched and exceeded by partners in academia and industry. There are payoffs to industry. How do you conduct new applied science in a pharmaceutical, or engineering capacity without furthering basic fundamental science?

Lets leave medical research and science to the professionals, Not these leftist hacks protesting in the streets.

Yes, exactly. Let's not have politicians who know zilch about it making decisions that impact Canadian industry and productivity.

 

[Fletch]

Theres alot about investments in your linky-poo... But nothing about profits coming from Patents? Can you share? By the Bye-Bye.... Grants are NOT profits... Thats just a heads up.. IF the Feds gave the NRC 2 TRILLION dollars in grandts.. Is that the same a revenue from Patents?

Yeah, we make decisions like that at work all the time too. The figures are useless without comparing the specs for the equipment and what they are needed for. We have multi-million dollar machines that can screen thousands of compounds a day for pharmacokinetic activity. We could have spent much less, but then we wouldn't be able to explore as many possible compounds in our POC studies.
Or anyone who wants can read about them here, instead of taking some internet poster at their word:
Performance Indicators - NRC-CNRC
Some highlights:

In 2007-08, the total new companies created since 1995 remains at 68, accounting for approximately 552 full-time jobs and an estimated $470 million in cumulative investment, an 8% increase from last year. In 2007, investment from all sources into NRC new companies was $87 million.
...
In 2007-08, NRC researchers participated in 118 research networks, held 217 positions on editorial boards of scientific journals and were appointed to 473 adjunct professorships in Canadian universities. In 2007-08, NRC researchers and their university partners received 207 grants from Canadian granting agencies (such as NSERC and Genome Canada). The total of these grants, over the lifetime of the projects, equalled $29.3 million.
​

207 grants for under $30 million. Hardly the $3 million figure you listed to study the effects of sunlight on water.

In addition to working with university partners, NRC signed 407 new collaborative research agreements with Canadian partners worth a total of $159 million in 2007-08. The total value over the lifetime of these agreements grew to $493 million. The number and value of collaborative agreements signed during a year are indicators that foretell increased research activity. NRC's Canadian partners invest $3.10 for every dollar NRC invests.
​

That's a pretty significant investment. Anyone who works with this stuff would know that the investments are matched and exceeded by partners in academia and industry. There are payoffs to industry. How do you conduct new applied science in a pharmaceutical, or engineering capacity without furthering basic fundamental science?

Yes, exactly. Let's not have politicians who know zilch about it making decisions that impact Canadian industry and productivity.

 

[mentalfloss]

You don't like evidence or science. We get it.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Science should not be funded by taxpayer dollars.. Simple as that. Might as well fund religeons as well.

We do fund religions, they're tax exempt and donations to them are tax deductible. Science should be funded by taxpayer dollars because if it isn't the basic research won't be done, there's no immediate profit in it so private interests will not do it, for the most part can't afford to do it, and what they DO do will be held confidential. Every now and then we'll get a wealthy philanthropist who'll fund something like the Perimeter Institute, but we can't depend on that happening often enough to sustain a healthy scientific enterprise. The profit motive does not generate good science. What does is curious and creative scientists free to investigate whatever strikes their fancy and freely share their findings, history has proven that repeatedly. You might profitably investigate what happened in Baghdad between the 9th and 12th centuries and why it stopped, or why the great library of Alexandria was destroyed. It was attitudes like yours, motivated by ignorance, that did it. Your examples of wasted money are beside the point, the principle is still true. The miniaturization of electronic components that makes it possible to build a powerful computer that'll fit on your desk or your lap, for instance, got its initial impetus from the U.S. space program. Would you consider that a waste of taxpayer dollars?

 

[Fletch]

Ummm really now... And the Cell-phone? The US space program too? DO you think the study in MEM's is moving anywhere through public funding? LEaders (for Profit) companies such as Silicon-Labs, Analog Devices, etc etc are driving these "Life Saving" technologies... But , lets not talk about money.. Its a baaad wurd....

I like how you brushed over the 3 Million dollar study.... Aoh again, Its just money... Free from the taxpayer...

We do fund religions, they're tax exempt and donations to them are tax deductible. Science should be funded by taxpayer dollars because if it isn't the basic research won't be done, there's no immediate profit in it so private interests will not do it, for the most part can't afford to do it, and what they DO do will be held confidential. Every now and then we'll get a wealthy philanthropist who'll fund something like the Perimeter Institute, but we can't depend on that happening often enough to sustain a healthy scientific enterprise. The profit motive does not generate good science. What does is curious and creative scientists free to investigate whatever strikes their fancy and freely share their findings, history has proven that repeatedly. You might profitably investigate what happened in Baghdad between the 9th and 12th centuries and why it stopped, or why the great library of Alexandria was destroyed. It was attitudes like yours, motivated by ignorance, that did it. Your examples of wasted money are beside the point, the principle is still true. The miniaturization of electronic components that makes it possible to build a powerful computer that'll fit on your desk or your lap, for instance, got its initial impetus from the U.S. space program. Would you consider that a waste of taxpayer dollars?

 

[Tonington]

Theres alot about investments in your linky-poo...

Yes there is. That's what happens when you fund science. New information drives investment. That investment was new companies in the marketplace, and the value is significantly higher than the value of the grants in the same year. That's a net gain for the Canadian economy.

The revenue created by the IP for that year was almost $10 million. The value of the grants approved in that year were about $30 million over the lifetime of the projects. The investment in the marketplace to form new companies based on the research was $87 million. The value of new partnerships with Canadian companies was $159 million, with partners putting in $3.10 for every $1 from NRC.

Do you have an aversion to facts? The costs clearly are outweighed by the benefits to the Canadian economy. All that investment means revenue for other companies, and job creation. All of which generate tax revenue.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Ummm really now... And the Cell-phone? .

The cell phone is technology, not science, and the firms that make them and provide the service did not do the basic research that makes them possible. Maybe you should look up what a red herring is, your arguments are full of them.

 

[Fletch]

Im gonna tell my boss that a deeper investment in me,, would mean greater revenues for him...

Look what you posted: The investment in the marketplace to form new companies based on the research was $87 million. The value of new partnerships with Canadian companies was $159 million, with partners putting in $3.10 for every $1 from NRC.

Where is the "Profit"?????? ITs a money pit!

Yes there is. That's what happens when you fund science. New information drives investment. That investment was new companies in the marketplace, and the value is significantly higher than the value of the grants in the same year. That's a net gain for the Canadian economy.

The revenue created by the IP for that year was almost $10 million. The value of the grants approved in that year were about $30 million over the lifetime of the projects. The investment in the marketplace to form new companies based on the research was $87 million. The value of new partnerships with Canadian companies was $159 million, with partners putting in $3.10 for every $1 from NRC.

Do you have an aversion to facts? The costs clearly are outweighed by the benefits to the Canadian economy. All that investment means revenue for other companies, and job creation. All of which generate tax revenue.

 

[Tonington]

Look what you posted: The investment in the marketplace to form new companies based on the research was $87 million. The value of new partnerships with Canadian companies was $159 million, with partners putting in $3.10 for every $1 from NRC.

So, if a dollar spent by the government means 3 dollars spent by industry, you call that a money pit? Are you for real?

Can you link to any actual cost benefits analysis that supports your erroneous conclusions?

 

[mentalfloss]

So, if a dollar spent by the government means 3 dollars spent by industry, you call that a money pit? Are you for real?

Can you link to any actual cost benefits analysis that supports your erroneous conclusions?

Leave the guy alone.

He's just tired of his hard-earned tax dollars going toward the haedron collider. :lol:

 

[Tonington]

Studies funded by Taxpayer dollars:
Accounts of "duh" research abound. There are studies showing that driving ability worsens in people with early Alzheimer's disease, that women who get epidurals experience less pain during childbirth than women who don't, that young men who are obese have lower odds of getting married than thinner peers, that making exercise more fun might improve fitness among teens. Dr. Charles Czeisler, who has spent about $3 million over the years demonstrating over and over that doctors who don't get enough sleep make mistakes on the job. Way to go Science!!!!!

How about you link to the actual publications? With few exceptions I don't take the word of posters on the internet, and I would be money that there is more subtlety involved in the actual investigations. Sometimes an investigation doesn't confirm the hypothesis of interest, but does agree with previous literature.

That is not a bad thing. Replicating results is evidence of a good study design. And negative results can be just as useful as positive results.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

And NOR SHOULD THEY!!! These leftist radicals should not be taking my tax dollars to study the effects of the sun on water.. simly to burn through their budgets. Some of these "Science Projects" that are fully funded through the Federal Gov are simply laughable. I amd VERY happy that the Feds are trimming the wings of these wing-nuts. This policy change is great for Canadians, we dont need a 3Million dollar study to prove that.... Or lets make it a 2 year study at 10 million dollars. Good for Harper for cleaning this mess up.

And yes, I worked with the NRC and I can tell you how many millions of dollars we wasted simply to ensure the money was coming in the next year,

Publically funded research has provided the bulk of new technologies, foodstuffs, medicines, medical procedures, transportation infrastrucure and more.

It's in co-operation that our civilization has made some of the greatest breakthroughs, this is bottom line thinking taken to extreme levels.

 

[L Gilbert]

How bout doing a little reading?
Like this, for instance:
http://in3.dem.ist.utl.pt/master/stpolicy03/temas/tema6_1a.pdf

 

[Fletch]

Nice paper.. Sure looks to me like a professor looking to ensure that professors get more money!

Like the CAW's stance on Electric vehicles in the early 90's.. Where polution wasnt sooo bad either.. and the American cars were cleaner than Electric..

How bout doing a little reading?
Like this, for instance:

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

And yet private companies and individuals are expert at sucking up much of the benefits of publically funded research as can be seen from these books.

Unjust Rewards: Exposing Greed and Inequality in Britain Today - Polly Toynbee, David Walker - Google Books

Unjust Deserts: How the Rich Are Taking Our Common Inheritance and Why We ... - Gar Alperovitz, Lew Daly - Google Books

So the people claiming we need to cut public funding of research and give everything to the private sector have it backwards, we need to provide more public fundng and cut the disproportionate distribution of wealth that comes from the results.

 

[lone wolf]

Where is the "Profit"?????? ITs a money pit!

People can't eat profit. Profit doesn't cure cancer. Profit won't install a non-oil engine in the cars of tomorrow. Henry Ford didn't meet profit until he got to Model T

 

[Fletch]

Ahhh yes, the nast 1%. We know how they are evil-doers... We should just give 100% of our money away to taxes.. That will fit it!

And yet private companies and individuals are expert at sucking up much of the benefits of publically funded research as can be seen from these books.

Unjust Rewards: Exposing Greed and Inequality in Britain Today - Polly Toynbee, David Walker - Google Books

Unjust Deserts: How the Rich Are Taking Our Common Inheritance and Why We ... - Gar Alperovitz, Lew Daly - Google Books

So the people claiming we need to cut public funding of research and give everything to the private sector have it backwards, we need to provide more public fundng and cut the disproportionate distribution of wealth that comes from the results.

 

[L Gilbert]

Like I said, do a little reading for a change:

http://in3.dem.ist.utl.pt/master/stpolicy03/temas/tema6_1a.pdf