From owner-drosophila@net.bio.net Wed Jul 12 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!eff!news.umbc.edu!not-for-mail From: sandoz@umbc.edu (James W. Sandoz) Newsgroups: bionet.drosophila,sci.bio.entomology.misc Subject: Re: Dave Barry's Column of 7/8/95 (Corrected attributions) Date: 13 Jul 1995 01:10:50 -0400 Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Lines: 80 Message-ID: <3u29sq$15e@umbc7.umbc.edu> References: <3tumo2$sn2@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <3tvnal$aqc@news.ccit.arizona.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: f-umbc7.umbc.edu Xref: biosci bionet.drosophila:1217 sci.bio.entomology.misc:488 In article <3tvnal$aqc@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, Stephen Matheson wrote: >> In article <1995Jul11.173721.15818@alw.nih.gov>, >That's an unjustified attack on someone (Mr. Cabot) who is, at worst, >overreacting. You're right. I've corresponded with Mr. Cabot and we actually agree on more than I would've thought. I hereby apologize to him in public. >Your sarcasm suggests that you are unaware of the way in which humor >is routinely used to trivialize other people and their ideas. Not at all. Barry didn't trivialize, he carried the idea to an extreme. Something like: Why do we need flies with 4 or 5 eyes? They're already hard enough to swat. (The premise being that the purpose of the research was to improve the fly; believe me, I haven't done justice to Barry). I thought it was pretty funny. About as funny as his (I think, it was years ago) column about preventing the maturation of cockroaches so they won't reproduce. He imagined foot- long immature cockroaches raiding his pantry. >..But the subtle impact of a >joke about scientific experiments is simply not the same as a >joke about incinerating a toaster. That, I think, should be >obvious to people who are not -- your word -- idiots. But the absurdity of Barry is evident in both. He lampooned the research. He didn't lambast it. >Your obnoxious attitude is not appropriate in this forum. I invite >you to get lost. Ouch! >BTW, how exactly did Mr. Cabot "waste your time"? >How exactly was he able to force you to read his post? Some kind >of special software? I initially found Mr. Cabot's post as obnoxious as you found mine. If he has special software he didn't use it. My filters are unable to distinguish types of articles. I have to read them to find out what they are about. >That's YOUR idea, and NOT his. He made NO allusion to censorship >of this kind, and your "suggestion" is idiotic, utterly crass, and >totally inappropriate. You're correct. I read more into the post than was there. I do, however, take issue with "utterly crass". >You sound like a fool who should think more and type less. I've sounded more foolish than that. You should hear me when I'm really steamed. Now to wax philosophical: How many of you remember Proxmire's "Golden Fleece" awards? Now they were lambasting. But even those served a purpose. Sometimes we get a bit arrogant about our work. Should the general public approve of basic research which is sometimes so esoteric that other scientists don't understand it? After all, it _is_ public money paying for it. There are some that will always dis- approve of it, some who will want to spend more, and most who are content to leave such decisions to the experts at NIH and NSF. Trouble is that the experts are keenly aware of political pressures. Had Dave Barry's absurd extrapolations been expressed by a politician or a political columnist, I too would have been alarmed. The subtle impact of widely-read jokes about scientific research is impossible to determine. That doesn't mean that scientists can't, or shouldn't, laugh along with the crowd; or at least see the humor. It is your job and mine to explain the merits of basic research. When Kornberg was visiting, he pointed out that _all_ the research on DNA was basic, with little foreseen application. The fruit of that research has been enormous (I don't have to list here the applications of DNA technology). Other projects that have appear "dead-end" may yet prove useful to taxpayers. We have to convey that message. Dave Barry can't be expected to. If I've bored any of you with my ramblings, feel free to flame Steve Matheson (sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu). He made me do it. -- Mr. James W. Sandoz, UMBC Dept of Biol Sciences, Catonsville, MD 21228-5398 voice: (410) 455-3497; fax 455-3875; net sandoz@umbc.edu .