Newsgroup sci.research 12612

Directory

slutes@bcm.tmc.edu (Steve Lutes) wrote:
>It's common knowledge that goverment research funding is tight. So
   *snip*
>interested in research as well.
>Can someone tell me where I can get info about private sector (profits
   *snip*
>This seems to me to be a general interest subject.
There is, in the US, a group called the American Venture Capital Assn,
that publishes a small book listing venture capitalists.
There are also several books listing companies that have cash and are
looking for a place to spend it, whether it is philanthropic, eg.
support of the arts, or research or simply being charitable. The books
are used principally by charities looking for funding for one purpose
of another. I don't have a reference for this but a search on
philanthropy might locate a few.
Finally, there is the alternative, getting off the buns, writing a
BUSINESS proposal, emphasize """BUSINESS"", proposal, and taking it
into any comapny that seems likely to be interested, i.e., selling it.
Since the fundamental purpose of business is to make money for fun and
profit, one might sugggest that any company would be a candidate. It
depends on how much initiative the management of that company has. In
some cases the answer is "very little". That does not make them bad,
the world needs production line workers as well as high fliers.
A word of advice. I have found that venture capitalists are often more
conservative that bankers (and that's saying something!). Well, how
would you be with people coming off the street every five minutes with
perpetual motion machines, not to mention the evil things that have
been done in various places, eg., the stock market, in the name of
technology, and the really spectacular crashes that have occurred from
time to time.
Still, having said that, the man with the shortest life expectancy was
the one who went charging out of his cave on a dark night when he
heard something new, EXCEPT for the man who stayed in his cave, was
trapped, and died there.
George Blahusiak
704/32 Dumond St.
Bentley, W.A, 6102
AUSTRALIA
TEL: +61-9-458-9484

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <32CB2885.1BD@ghgcorp.com>, jack wright  writes:
>>Patricia Schwarz wrote:
>>> 
>	... snip ...
Much snipped by others
>2)  The government is under no obligation to base its decisions on 
>scientific considerations.  There is no place in the Constitution 
>where it says "The government shall not enact a law without the 
>advice and consent of the scientific community".  The government is a 
>political body and has the right to ignore any scientific 
>recommendation and consideration if it choses so (whether it is smart, 
>that's another story).
Really?!?!?!
I always thought the purpose of govt was the benefit of the governed.
And you say you are writing from uchicago? Surely you jest.
Second, the first principle of good decision making, and I think I
should include the govt here, is to GET THE FACTS. It is a
fundamental, like life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which,
if memory serves me, appears somewhere else as well. If you have to
spell it out using words of less than 5 letters you have missed the
point.
Perhaps one might suggest a reading of Aristotle's Ethics. That goes
for any scientist, not to mention everyone else.
George

In article <5anekj$d3c@news.mel.aone.net.au>, georgeb@p085.aone.net.au (george blahusiak) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>>In article <32CB2885.1BD@ghgcorp.com>, jack wright  writes:
>>>Patricia Schwarz wrote:
>>>> 
>>	... snip ...
>
>Much snipped by others
>
>>2)  The government is under no obligation to base its decisions on 
>>scientific considerations.  There is no place in the Constitution 
>>where it says "The government shall not enact a law without the 
>>advice and consent of the scientific community".  The government is a 
>>political body and has the right to ignore any scientific 
>>recommendation and consideration if it choses so (whether it is smart, 
>>that's another story).
>
>Really?!?!?!
>
>I always thought the purpose of govt was the benefit of the governed.
>And you say you are writing from uchicago? Surely you jest.
>
There is a huge difference between theory and reality when it comes to 
the purpose of government.  Specifically, the purpose of elected 
officials is to get reelected and the purpose of the bureaocrats is to 
keep their jobs.  Does it work for the benefit of the governed?  
Sometimes, but not necesserily so.  Depends on the level of their 
vigilance.
>Second, the first principle of good decision making, and I think I
>should include the govt here, is to GET THE FACTS. It is a
>fundamental, like life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which,
>if memory serves me, appears somewhere else as well. If you have to
>spell it out using words of less than 5 letters you have missed the
>point.
Show me where does it say in the Constitution that the government is 
obliged to do it.  MInd you, I don't argue with your statement that it 
is a good idea, but it takes some vigilance on part of the citizens to 
make sure that the government does things in a reasonable way.
>
>Perhaps one might suggest a reading of Aristotle's Ethics. That goes
>for any scientist, not to mention everyone else.
Is this relevant to anything I said.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Be careful there, Particia.  Your liberal side is showing.  Once MJ clears 
the hurdle of having recognized medical benefit to a small proportion of 
the population, how long do you think it will take for many other illnesses 
(other than AIDS) to qualify as a valid medical reason to use this stuff?
In article <32C7BEAA.2BA2@vasilisa.com>,
   "Patricia M. Schwarz"  wrote:
>Path: 
news.hal-pc.org!insync!uunet!in3.uu.net!206.250.118.17!nntp.earthlink.net!u
senet
>From: "Patricia M. Schwarz" 
>Newsgroups: 
sci.skeptic,sci.med,sci.edu,sci.physics.sci.chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.misc,sci.
research
>Subject: Abuse of science by Clinton admin
>Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 05:07:54 -0800
>Organization: Vasilisa Productions
>Lines: 50
>Message-ID: <32C7BEAA.2BA2@vasilisa.com>
>Reply-To: violette@vasilisa.com
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.217.8.30
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I)
>Xref: news.hal-pc.org sci.skeptic:139734 sci.med:85466 sci.edu:8078 
sci.bio.misc:6636 sci.misc:13853 sci.research:6331
>Status: N
>
>If you care about science and decision-making based on
>research, here is another chapter in the continuing outrageous
>story of medical marijuana. 
>
>General McCaffrey said yesterday:
>
>> McCaffrey said the plan would make clear that while federal law has not 
changed, government medical
>> authorities will continue to examine the purported benefits of any drug, 
including marijuana. 
>
>The "continue to examine" part must be a hallucination by McCaffrey.
>I don't believe he would tell a lie that huge deliberately. Or
>would he?
>
>The truth is: a small eight-patient pilot study that would be
>a precursor to a full-sized controlled study on marijuana's effects
>of people with AIDS has been forbidden for years by ther Clinton
>administration. The only testing the Clinton administration has
>"continued" is research on better urinalysis and how to drug-test your
>hair without your cooperation.
>
>Their stated reason for continuing to refuse the proposed pilot study
>by UCSF AIDS research Donald Abrams has been "we already know marijuana
>is not a medicine and therefore the research is not needed."
>
>> But he said doctors who prescribe illegal drugs would be prosecuted or 
removed from the federal
>> registry that allows them to write prescriptions. He said the 
administration remains confident American
>> medicine offers better remedies to deal with pain than prescribing 
illegal drugs. 
>
>If he is so confident then why won't they allow the research?????
>
>
>
>> "In essence we see them as a violation of the scientific process that 
has brought America the safest and
>> most effective medicines in the world," McCaffrey said. "And we're 
enormously concerned because of
>> the potential for increased drug abuse in these two states." 
>
>I find it highly offensive for this administration to try
>to take the "scientific" side of this debate, after what they
>have done.
>
>They have effectively outlawed any research that could prove marijuana
>has medical effects that can compete quite well with those of
>legal medicines.
>
>They cannot claim to be champions of science if they have played
>their card in the debate by forbidding the other side to do
>the needed research.
>
>Sincerely,
>Patricia Schwarz

I was not asking whether the President is required to listen to
scientists.
I was asking why no *scientists* had spoken up in the first place.
Just purely regarding the issue of "politically forbidden research"
Those two things happen to be independent - whether scientists
should speak up and whether the President should listen.
There is nothing that says he has to listen written down anywhere.
but I believe there is every reason why the scientific community
really ought to speak up.
Maybe the problem here is that the scientific community itself
is so isolated from the visceral impact of AIDS (as opposed
to the theoretical impact)
that this problem looks somewhat abstract.
It is not abstract, people will suffer physically from Clinton's
prohibition on medical marijuana research.
We might also see some AIDS doctors go to jail. 
-patricia

charliew wrote:
> 
> Be careful there, Particia.  Your liberal side is showing.  Once MJ clears
> the hurdle of having recognized medical benefit to a small proportion of
> the population, how long do you think it will take for many other illnesses
> (other than AIDS) to qualify as a valid medical reason to use this stuff?
> 
Since when it is LIBERAL to want assertions to be testable
scientifically?
Are you imagining that liberalism has some ethical monopoly
over the scientific process?

In article <5anekj$d3c@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
george blahusiak  wrote:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>In article <32CB2885.1BD@ghgcorp.com>, jack wright  writes:
>>>Patricia Schwarz wrote:
>>	... snip ...
>Much snipped by others
>>2)  The government is under no obligation to base its decisions on 
>>scientific considerations.  There is no place in the Constitution 
>>where it says "The government shall not enact a law without the 
>>advice and consent of the scientific community".  The government is a 
>>political body and has the right to ignore any scientific 
>>recommendation and consideration if it choses so (whether it is smart, 
>>that's another story).
>Really?!?!?!
Really.  The government has no obligation to do anything intelligent.
In a pure democracy, 51% of the population could decide that to kill
off or enslave the other 49%.  Any government without external threats
can do anything it wants and can manage to do and get away with it.
>I always thought the purpose of govt was the benefit of the governed.
>And you say you are writing from uchicago? Surely you jest.
Even this was not stated in the Declaration of Independence, but it
was close.  I believe that Jefferson was out of the country when the
Constitution was drawn up.
This may be a philosophical principle, but as such it is not attatinable.
There is no way that a self-consistent means of making decisions by 
individuals and by society can exist without being dictatorial.  This
is a relatively easy mathematical result, from a weak definition of
self-consistency.
>Second, the first principle of good decision making, and I think I
>should include the govt here, is to GET THE FACTS. It is a
>fundamental, like life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which,
>if memory serves me, appears somewhere else as well. If you have to
>spell it out using words of less than 5 letters you have missed the
>point.
The other thing needed in decision making is what I consider the
definition of statistical decision theory:
	It is necessary to consider all consequences of the
	proposed action in all states of nature.
>Perhaps one might suggest a reading of Aristotle's Ethics. That goes
>for any scientist, not to mention everyone else.
And one should also read the very simple ideas I have stated.  A fair
version can be found in a book by Clemen, _Making Hard Decisions_.
One which gets to the foundational material faster is _Decision 
Analysis_ by Raiffa.  Much damage has been done by those who do not
consider the consequences, especially those who want to impose their
values on others.
Here are tow examples of the failure to realize the consequences.
It was necessary to tear down public low-income housing, as it was
having almost the opposite effect of that intended by the social
workers and those who thought like them.  Another was the S&L;
debacle; the problem was that any manager interested in maximizing
the returns to those putting money into their banks had to do 
what increased the problem.
-- 
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (317)494-6054   FAX: (317)494-0558

In article <32CFC973.7388@vasilisa.com>,
welshwytch   wrote:
>charliew wrote:
>> Be careful there, Particia.  Your liberal side is showing.  Once MJ clears
>> the hurdle of having recognized medical benefit to a small proportion of
>> the population, how long do you think it will take for many other illnesses
>> (other than AIDS) to qualify as a valid medical reason to use this stuff?
>Since when it is LIBERAL to want assertions to be testable
>scientifically?
>Are you imagining that liberalism has some ethical monopoly
>over the scientific process?
Neither the "liberals" nor the "conservatives" have any real interest
in the scientific process.  Both sides are only interested in forcing
people to live as they believe is right.
The original liberals did not believe in this.  They believed in the
government only doing what it had to do.  Even the statist Hamilton,
who believed in a strong federal government, did not believe in
anything like the government control now favored by both parties.
The problems with government funding of science were foreseen.
It was fostered only after WWII, but remember the saying about 
the camel getting its nose into the tent.
-- 
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (317)494-6054   FAX: (317)494-0558

In article <32CE071D.7FB3@vasilisa.com>, violette@vasilisa.com wrote:
>Another defense of science from a non-scientist while scientific
>organizations all over America sit quietly on their hands:
>
>From the NORML news of Jan.2, 1997, at http://www.norml.org/
>BIG SNIP
>Can a President get away with saying "You have not done enough research" 
>AND "You are not allowed to do any research" at the same time to the
>same public?
        Of course he can, he's a politician not a scientist!  What did you 
expect?  Politicians pick the studies that back up their policy and discard 
the rest.  This is nothing new.  I don't condone it, but until we see someone 
truly intelligent and courageous in public office it will continue.  
>
>I mean can he do it without getting roasted by people and organizations 
>dedicated to promoting science?
        Orginazations are by their nature political, not scientific.  It is 
not in their best interest to challenge America's drug policy, so they do 
not.  Clinton will be roasted by individuals and orginizations not on the 
goverment dole, I doubt anyone else.
>Let's see. Call it an experiment to see how submissive and jaded and
>cynical American science has become in the PostModern Era.
>         
>Will science organizations pass this test?
        I will wait and see, but probably not.  Remember, some of these 
"organizations" were all too happy to offer doctored studies to support the 
WOD. 
>Or is it really all just about money and jobs now and "science"
>has become meaningless even to scientists...?
        Oh, it's been heading that way for years.  Stockpiling nuclear weapons 
make no scientific sense, yet I see very few scientists complaining about.  Or 
quitting their jobs building them.  When it comes down to scientific ethics or 
survival, ethics loses.
>-patricia
        Coop

In article <5apaja$8ul@news-central.tiac.net> conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
 > 
 > John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
 > 
 > : The trivial case of an alpha-emitting nuclide is an alpha particle,
 > : i.e. a fully ionized helium atom.  You can certainly ionize helium and
 > : accelerate the alpha particles.  The only written source you might
 > : find is the answer to an exercise in a textbook of atomic physics.
 > 
 > John, an alpha-emitting nuclide is not an alpha particle.  It is the
 > material that on undergoing radioactive decay emits the alpha particle.
 > 
 > Helium is not one of these.
 > 
 > If you discover a mechanism for producing any radio-active substance by
 > electromagnetic means alone, your name will forever be honored by 
 > science!  (Particle acceleration, since it requires particles to be
 > accelerated by the em, naturally does not count as such a process.)
 > 
 > 
 >                                          Harry C.
 > 
I wrote "the trivial case" and meant it.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.