The underlying issue is not whether the government should fund fruit fly
research, but whether the public recognises cheap shots at meaningless
targets. McCain's current attempts to paint Obama as a socialist is a more
serious example.
My view is that the real value of a scientific education is not learning
that fruit flies or wasps or polychaetes are important, but developing an
ability to evaluate ideas critically. Put more succinctly, seeing the world
as it is rather than as we would like it to be, and even more succinctly as
shit-detection. The concern about Palin's statement is whether the people
who heard the speech and didn't already know about genetics research are
prepared to wonder whether there might be value to studying fruit flies in
Paris, France, or whether they just thought it sounded ridiculous.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Crants" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Acceptance of basic research, even with fruit flies
If talking about fruit fly research is hurting McCain's poll numbers, it's
mostly because he's talking about FRUIT FLY RESEARCH. As Samuel Johnson
said, "the sight of the gallows doth wonderfully concentrate the mind."
We
have a lot of very big problems that only good governance can solve,
and voters aren't getting as distracted as usual by trivia like a few
millionths of the federal budget going to studies on fruit flies and
bears.
