Ever think that though it's 27th for deaths of heart disease it's the largest population? Maybe per person it's the least deaths per heart disease. :)

But obviously you are extremely biased. I don't know why you don't trust in science. Probably because you can't understand it.

I was with you for a while there, but toward the end.......

What I don't understand is where you think money for science is going to come from if not the tax payers? Venture capitalists perhaps? I don't think that's a long term solution. Venture capitalists come and go on subjects which are not always important to a society (improving the efficiency of Velcro comes to mind). And if it's not a stable job, who will bother training for 10 years to become a scientist?

In the past (a few hundred years ago) scientists only came from very wealthy families that could fund their own research. And of course, budgets in those days were petty compared to the money spent now on machines that are built to analyze everything from atoms to populations. Should we go back to that kind of system? I don't think it would be best.

Besides, scientists are quite independent about their results. They often don't agree with each other, and it can take decades or longer to sort things out. I think it's a mistake to suppose they will try to get their results to please whoever is in power during a particular (very short) time frame. To explain the same thing from a more pessimistic point of view: the currency of science is pride and credit, not money. A climatologist who conducts a solid study contradicting global warming does not have to worry about losing funding (especially if he/she is right) because there is more to studying the climate than global warming.

"Four times less" ???

Couldn't they find someone who could speak in comprehensible standard English? Did she mean "one-fourth as many"?

How about 400 percent less?!?!?!? What? - They went from X deaths to 4X lives created ex nihilo?

How illiterate does one have to be to work for the government?

U. of C. Student,

What I don't understand is where you think money for science is going to come from if not the tax payers?

As I recall, Einstein's "miracle year" occurred while he was working a day job in the Swiss Patent Office.

Would you like to suggest that had his discoveries been funded by some government that the Nobel Prize committee would have understood the brilliance of Relativity? Do you think he would have been more creative if funded by an NIS grant?

Or Ben Franklin flying his kite.....

Or Gates developing Microsoft out of a garage.....

And to think some of these kids (University of Chicago Student) might graduate and may become politicans.

Ok, so um..we should go back to waiting for the next Ben Franklin instead of funding research? You want a list of advances federal research has been responsible for?

wow...just when you think there were some things that fell under the label of common sense....

poorly worded. affects my confidence in her. perhaps she meant that the rate of decrease was 4 times that of any other state. that would make more sense in the light of the decreasing smoking rate and could make numerical sense in terms of magnitude.

did you extend the same level of criticism toward george w bush who displayed cringeworthy inarticulateness and was entrusted with the role of:

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!?

Economan,

Einstein's case was unusual in a couple of ways.

First, and probably most importantly, he was a theoretical physicist and a mathematician. His work could be done any time with a pencil and paper. Why would you think this is true for chemists, biologists, and many other types of physicists that work on experimentation to prove and expand on the math? Einstein's own predictions had to be proven experimentally by others, and their application would be meaningless without the development of large scale and expensive endeavors such as space flight where relativity is used as a correcting factor.

Second, his first miracle year was over a century ago. I think he lived in a very enviable time: in that day, one could think about the state of science, do a few calculations, and send that in to get published. Today, unless you are simply giving your opinion in a short 200 word essay, all peer reviewed journals require demanding experiments that preclude the idea of doing anything with your day job but science.

Finally, science has gotten more expensive as time has gone on. I would not suggest all of the cheap methods of gathering data are gone from the world, but as the questions that scientists ask have become more intricate and complex, so has the experiments and experimental apparatuses involved. This adds to the cost of an experiment.

I have read several of Einstein's biographies and I do not mean to say your point is invalid. Rather, I just want to explain that Einstein represents a very specific and special case in the history of doing science. Ultimately, if you would hope that all of science can advance through the use of "citizen-scientists" who simply do science in their spare time after (or in Einstein's case) during their day job, I'm afraid we wouldn't have much scientific progress to speak of. Scientists require government funding. It may not be perfect, but it allows a greater flexibility and, in my opinion, objectivity than using corporate funded science in most cases.

"Obamacare has authorized $1 trillion in MORE junk science funding for universities to "find optimal treatment outcomes," with czarina Sebelius determining the people who will determine who gets all this taxpayer largesse."

The health insurance reform bill does not fund scientific research.

Federal funds do not automatically go directly to universities for research. There is a granting process.

Sebilius does not determine who or what projects get funded. Panels of independent scientists weigh the merits of individual research proposals put forth by other scientists to determine what projects are worthy of funding. And only a small minority ever get funded. The government only provides the awards. There are many other private granting agencies as well, besides the federal government.

Perhaps a little research of your own would have straightened this out before you posted this nonsense. Yet, I see your comments as being typical of the 40 percenters.

The Surgeon General is guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least a quarter of non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers' studies are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, so they're cynically DESIGNED to blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. And those criminals commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on tobacco.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html

For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberty is automatically a violation of our right to the equal protection of the laws, no different from purposely throwing innocent people in prison. And its spreading lies about phony "smoking dangers" is an act of TERRORISM, no different from calling in a phony bomb threat. The Surgeon General is a criminal and a terrorist!

Let's look in detail at a key conclusion on page 304 [pdf p. 84] of the Surgeon General report: "7. There is consistent evidence that smoking leads to the presence of promoter methylation of key tumor suppressor genes such as P16 in lung cancer and other smoking-caused cancers."

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/tobaccosmoke/report/chapter5.pdf

In fact, methylation of P16 is solidly associated with infections by human papillomaviruses, Epstein-Barr virus, hepatitis B virus, and even Helicobacter pylori. And the anti-smokers deliberately use studies that either ignore these viruses, or use inadequate methods which fail to identify numerous cases of infection. Those studies deliberately exploit the fact that smokers are more likely to have been exposed to these infections, for socioeconomic reasons, in order to falsely blame tobacco.

find4more-2814946

Here we go again with these armchair republican scientists. You incorrectly state what the interviewee stated. She clearly stated that California has the highest rate of "decline". She never stated the lowest of all the states. Let's forget that California is the highest populace state. But a dumb-arse like you can't even noodle out 4th grade stastical data.

But here you go again, taking one tiny little piece of data, citing it incorrectly and then using it as a rendition of an entire administration.

radagast,

You got it right and exactly on point. No need to restate the obvious.

Carol, please explain to us just what is the mechanism that enables smokers to be more susceptible to these virus. You repeatedly cite socioeconomic reasons, but what are those reasons? I didn't realize that smoking had very large socioeconomic factors, especially going back a generation.

Are you suggesting that smokers have overall bad hygiene or that they have higher incidences of risky behaviors? I didn't realize that the majority of HBV infections were among smokers. You had better provide some evidence of that if you want to be taken seriously.

Sure, these virus may be able to cause cancers, but that doesn't let tobacco off the hook.

The Federal Government issuing a set of guidelines on scientific integrity. Now there's a real laugh! The Federal Government has no integrity and an agenda behind everything that it does. Take its intellectual corruption and the fact that over 90% of college professors are liberal democrats and you have the recipe for corrupted science and a "we know that answer, so go get the supporting data that proves we're right" operating mode. I cannot think of anything more corrupting to the scientific process than the involvement of the Federal Government. Grants come with a lot of strings! Every string represents a potential biasing of the scientific data analysis and decision making discipline.

Which came first, the liberal or the advanced education. Could it be that naturally intelligent people seek higher education and are just naturally liberal progressives? The conservative disdain for intellectual "elitists" smacks of simple jealousy. George W. Bush gave us an example of what happens when conservatives try to make science fit their agenda. I applaud President Obama's approach of allowing competent, recognized scientists advise him and have a voice in shaping policy. It would seem to be a more rational approach and best for the future well being of the country.

And your science is flawless? Scientists begin with "My theory is...," then ramble on until your brain is numb then conclude with, "And so, these facts..." Go ahead and make some "wittily" scathing remark; you're still stupid and wear dumb looking clothes. And who gave you that idiotic haircut. (having a Democrat moment)

Scientists still disagree on the creation and population of the earth. don't try to sound so smug and superior. At our compay there PhD's in Physics and Engineers with very advanced degrees and they find evidence of God's hand in all their advanced work.

Remember, if you can, that Einstein was an agnostic or even athiest until after relativity--then that all changed.

Gendokari--you have assumed the liberal attitude of superiority when scence is very inconclusive.

Did you now that carbon dating put a living mollusk in Puget Sound as being thousands of years old? Hmmmm! Througout the ages there have been skeptics like you who have eventually been humbled. Times are going to be tough. ARe you ready??? How are you doing spiritually?

GENDOLKAN--------- Do you suppose it vcould be, because it is Obama/Gore science?

4 out of 10 are not science orientated. I can believe that. With George Jr being elected TWICE I find it a wonder that figure isn't more like 6 in 10. This just proves how much "RELIGION" HAS BEEN THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE THOUGHTS IN HUMAN HISTORY. Religion has the opportunity to dissolve humanity in our time. From Muslims overtaking the very ignorant to Christianity demanding allegiance from the rest, and then SCIENCE. science only asks to be studied, to have discourse about the findings and then use those findings to advance our world. I guess that is why science is not understood, STUPIDITY, JUST PLAIN IGNORANCE TO WHAT WE HAVE HERE ON EARTH. Some weak individuals need other than reality to negotiate through life, they need a crutch to lean on when they cannot understand what is surrounding them, they need an imaginary "friend" to take care of them. This world is full of "addicts", it looks like 4 in 10!

juno, Einstein remained an agnostic his entire life.

4 out of 10 Americans don't reject science. However, 4 out of 10 Americans do believe in the outright delusion of creationism and that the world is only 6,000 years old. Ever hear of carbon-dating, idiots. I say we line them up against a wall and throw million-year-old fossils at them.

The whole "science integrity" issue is meant to put a stop to politicians with religious and/or philosophical agendas from screwing around with scientific results...just like the Bushies (as well other Democratic AND Republican administrations) messed with global warming, cigarettes, etc.

Let the scientists do their work and put out the physical truth. Then we can take it, judge it and act on it or not. Just don't either fudge the science or change the results to suit your own purposes and screw the rest of us.

KEEP POLITICS OUT OF SCIENCE!!!

Science? Global warming requires more faith then religion! The scientific method has been reduced to consensus rather than proof. It's worse then congress, pass around a petition, vote for your money. Scientists now have the ethics of a politician.

Gendolkari,

We all have coping mechanisms to deal with the reality of the world around us and the tendency for people to believe in creationism reaches across the globe. I think you might benefit by taking a few courses from the social sciences. Other possibly useful courses would be those that discuss effective communication.

James-375688,

And your science is flawless? Scientists begin with "My theory is...," then ramble on until your brain is numb then conclude with, "And so, these facts..

The 'rambling on part' may make your brain numb, but please to not paint the rest of us with that same brush. I guess that was my 'wittily scathing comment' for which you pre-prepared us all, but 'na na na, you started it'.

Seriously though, isn't this the point of modern specialization? If I were to talk to an expert in agriculture, he'd say 'My theory is' and then ramble on until my mind is numb and conclude with why he has the best tomatoes. If the proof is in the pudding, I may believe him. If there are other competing theories that provide equally good tomatoes, well then different people keep working on their methods.

As to the "And your science is flawless?", no and that is exactly the point. The scientific method allows for and actually depends upon being self-questioning in both method and conclusions drawn.

Though I'm having to make an assumption here based on the attitude of your short post, I suspect you fall into a group of people who thing the debate has to be science vs. something else (usually religion). This is a false premise, as scientific endeavors look to see what conclusions we can draw and use based upon our observable environment. Topics like religion fall into the category of Philosophy, and seek to answer less tangible questions like 'who are we? why are we here? what is moral?'. The two disciplines can and should try to respect each other and stay out of each other's way when possible.

Jason, no one ever said that science can answer all possible questions. Science can only answer all scientific questions. Where science is useful it is undoubtedly far more superior than any other form of truth seeking ever imagined and it should be used and trusted in these instances. But of course the application of the scientific method can take decades to provide an answer on certain questions. Before a consensus it may appear as though science is inconclusive, but that is only because you are listening to the process and not waiting for the final conclusion. Even a unanimous jury goes through a process where all do not agree before it renders a verdict.

As for the unanswerable questions in life, science is still useful at defining certain limits, even if it cannot be brought to bare on the question itself. Understanding these limitations can be informative towards an answer even if science cannot provide one directly.

GendoIkari

That news story (yeah, I read it) was done on a poll based upon a whopping 1029 people.

Seriously!? MSNBC wants me to expect that a smattering of 1029 people are somehow an accurate representative sampling of about 340 million Americans? NOT!!!!

Any reasonable person will not take seriously the results taken from such a tiny sampling as a representative of so many people. But somehow, you read it on the news website and suddenly, it becomes the standard, defacto benchmark of what Americans think.

Dumb dumb, da-dumb, dumb dumb.

FYI: Bibles burn nicely and I can get them free.

The reality is closer to 8/10 Americans being scientifically illiterate, with 4/10 believing in creation and another 4/10 believing in evolution. The remaining 2/10 that DO understand the science they talk about possess a dizzying array of beliefs, including atheism, agnosticism, humanism, new-age buddhism, new-age hinduism, old-age hinduism, christianity, judaism, islam, and a whole host of others. And, most interesting, it is now being more and more recognized that there are no fundamental contradictions between Creationism and the scientific account of the Big Bang and evolution. If you call that last part BS, just remember that Einstein showed us all how 6 days could equal 14 billion years.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

Although, given the state of education in some segments of the population one should not be surprised by the lack of understanding of the differences, here is one more digest attempt at explanation of the term "theory" for James-375688 and his kind:

Philosophical theory such as religious dogmas is based on belief and is not testable – and can not reliably predict results of any observations. It relies on a system of beliefs; where someone told something to another and the latter holds it to be true without contesting the validity and truthfulness of the information, and then spreads the word (perhaps even adding to or twisting the original story).

Empirical theory such as scientific theories is based on description of large class of observations on the basis of a model, which allows making definite predictions of future outcomes on the basis on just few arbitrary elements. Such theory can be disproved, and in the course of scientific discovery this happens often; and scientists do not hide from that possibility. Such theory can also be strengthened by the body of further observations that accumulate over time.

The difference then between religious dogmas and scientific theories is that the first are mere propositions the second are models based on verifiable observations. The religions are only about ideas while the science is about empirical data. The religions often throughout history (and in many regions of the world presently) relied on coercion rather than reason to hold a pool of believers in line, often while claiming that to be in the name of "love".

Our government is too politically invested in the containment of CO2 to expect "scientific integrity" from those who rely on government grants to be objective. We've spent trillions of dollars to turn our country away from fossil fuels and we are just the begining. If it turns out that climate change is largely independent of CO2 levels...well that would be an "inconvenient truth" wouldn't it.

Unfortunately, you are correct, Black Eagle. This "The Leader" and his party are no different than the last "The Leader" and his party with their use of "science" to perpetuate their views on Race, education and what is good for us.

What absolute nonsense Black Eagle. Who the hell do you think has been funding "authentic" scientific research? You want all of your research to come from for profit corporations those making purely economic based decisions on where to put their efforts in the years you happen to not like the political party that won? This governemtn conspiracy garbage has blinded so many to any kind of truth.

Business is only interested in research if the chances of getting a marketable product out of it is high, and the development time to get it is not too long. This works for a lot of things, but there's lots of other things that it doesn't work for, and that's where government-funded research comes in. The Internet is a good example. The early work was funded by the Dept. of Defense, that was trying to develop a communication system that would withstand a nuclear attack. Later, people realized the commercial possibilities. Please, use the Internet to tell me why you disagree.

Among your diatribe, did I hear that the HIV theory of AIDS is simply a gobernmint cover up, and that you oppose pasteurization of dairy products on the basis of individual liberties? Are you suggesting that the coal and oil funded propaganda against science is not a real conspiracy to safeguard their profits, but that it is the legions of independent scientists from around the world, working in near destitute obscurity, that have joined a secretive cabal against the free people's of the West to...get them to buy solar panels?!

Are you further suggesting that the gobernmit tells scientists what to study and what conclusions to make? Then why are there rotating panels of independent scientists who decide what projects get funded? Where is the gobernmint supposed to get involved again? Also how do you explain the international scientists from dozens of countries who do not recieve American money? Is this that pesky cabal again? The New World Order?! Is Obama the secret head of this Order who is hell bent on selling us...electric cars?!

You had me at SWAT teams.

radagast

Black Eagle-1888154is correct. There are VAST conspiracies all over the world to fake climate change. Here's the proof. The migrating birds, the oceans rising 18 inches, the polar bears, flowering plants and of course the weather all in on the vast conspiracy. They are all working secretly together to change the climate so that a particular group of elected officials will get their way.

Its a massive, planet hugging conspericy like never before in Earths history.

Black Eagle-1888154 also forgot to mention that Kennedy's death was a CIA plot, that the moon landings were faked, that more secret black helicopter people are hiding dead aliens and will make those close to finding the truth disappear.

HONEST!!!!!

LMFAO

Radagast, I think the milk/cheese bit was a comment on a new method of sterilization for milk that doesn't denature the milk proteins and produce lactic acid. The FDA has refused it and is cracking down on dairy producers (pretty much exclusively small farms) that try to use it.

I don't know anything about Wilhelm Reich and little about the idea that HIV is a conspiracy, though.

Also, the idea of cutting all government research funding is terrible. CCryder put it right. Private research will pretty much only follow the short-term profits (usually 3-5 years). If you want a space program, satellite communications, the internet, smart roads, better weather forecasts, cybernetic prostheses, or any of a whole host of the benefits of longer-range a bigger-picture research, you need government funding. There's just no substitute.

Your comment is exactly on. Scientists move at a slow pace compared to other professions, and they often can't manage to get along with each other let alone whoever is running the white house during any given cycle.

In some way this will be used to discredit the viable scientist who disaree with the Global Warming church! Wait and see. Other places where science impacts public policy will also be whitewashed to support the liberal stance to control our minds and lives.

This seems now to be gibberish, but just you wait until its implementation is fleshed out.

Juno, it's not gibberish. It's not even new. This has been happening on both sides for decades. Any time anything scientific becomes a controversial or politically profitable topic, one side or the other (or usually both) will seek to silence their scientific opposition. This happened with the o-zone layer, CO2, smoking, embryonic stem cell research, nuclear power, green power, and a number of other things.

Sadly, once this has happened, no move from the political side can disentangle the two, and no move from the scientific side will be trusted as honest.

I have the facts on that. It was all a con perpetrated by the people in Area 51 (the ones who really run the world). They filmed all that alleged carnage in the building next to where they film the Super Bowl every July.

you are such an idiot.

Then why are there Hundreds of International Scientists who say that the Official Story of 9-11 is Scientificly impossable?

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

I guess you are just another Government Shrill,......

The tobacco companies have always let the anti-smokers get away with their flagrant scientific fraud of using deliberately using studies based on lifestyle questionnaires to falsely blame tobacco for diseases that are really caused by infection. Furthermore, they settled the Minnesota lawsuit despite the fact that they were winning. That proves the tobacco companies are controlled by the anti-smokers. And, juries always acquitted the tobacco companies on the grounds that "smokers knew the risks," when unbeknownst to those juries, the supposed risks were trumped-up lies manufactured by the anti-smokers. So don't give us this baloney about the tobacco companies supposedly "using 'science for sale' to win their litigation."

http://www.smokershistory.com/definitn.htm

I have bad news for you. Albert Einstein was a socialist. From http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm :-

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor -- not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production -- that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods -- may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

If Obama cured a hangnail, it would suprise everyone. His problem?

No one believes anything the inept, lying quasi socilaist, says.

LOL if it comes out of the white house it is all politics. That is the name of the game. The only thing that ever changes is the face that lives in that particular house. Nothing has come out of that house in at least the last 100 years that hasn't been politically motivated.

I'd say nothing has ever come out of the White House that wasn't politically motivated. Thankfully, sometimes political motivations and the good of the public line up. Unfortunately, it's not always clear when that's the case.

That being said, I think the idea of 'integrity in government' is pretty well dead.

You are empowered!

It really is a shame that the ignorant illiterate learned how to use computers. The anti-science bashers are definitely out in force. As opposed to the anti-science fool who occupied the white house last, our current president has respect for the scientific method. I pity this country if the likes of a GW Bush ever again occupy that office and manipulate science for their own political agenda.

That's exactly what is happening. Anthropogenic global warming is causing global climate change. That change can easily result in cooling in certain regions and radical weather events worldwide. Please do a little research at the NOAA site before you embarrass yourself further by your lack of knowledge on the subject

John, that's completely pulled out of your ass and you know it...

TOASTY--------- Sorry sunshine, you have the same problem Obama has, no one believes anything you say.

Lol toasty the figures the government put out ONLY reflect those currently on unemployment. It does not count those who have had their unemployment run out, nor does it count those who have not filed for whatever reason but are still out of work. Nor does it count those who are on commission, self employed, etc who still technically have jobs even if they haven't really seen a paycheck to speak of in the last few years. I think John was being optimistic with 17%.

Toasty -

The actual numbers are on the Department of Labor's website. All you have to do is look.

Yes, the actual numbers are higher than the official numbers but they have nothing to do with President Obama. He inherited high unemployment from the eight years of Bush mismanagement and deregulation.

The problem is.....scientists are still human. As such they suffer from a major handicap that plagues all men....PRIDE. To say that all science is unbiased is absurd. The pride of the scientist is going to push them to find evidence that supports their hypothesis FIRST, and then possibly subconsciously dismiss anything that would or could potentially invalidate it. It is highly unlikely that anyone is going to try to disprove their own theory FIRST. I believe in science......just not absolutely. It is always in a state of flux, and always will be. What is proven today will either be improved upon tomorrow, or shown to have not been as accurate as previously thought yesterday. Anything that is touched by the hand of man has a margin of error inherently built into it......and that is the perspective that should be kept. Blind faith in anything is absurd. I don't care if it is religion, science, or anything else inbetween......we are all human and none are infallible.

'Yes I agree and I am doing something about that friend!' Our government is a soulless clueless organization of satanist killers!'

'And I will wish them all dead soon!'

Brucer; Amen !

That's why I encouraged my kids to do things that exercised their minds and am doing the same with my grandkids. Puzzles, strategy games (chess, backgammon, etc), reading, writing - I encourage all of it and they all exercise that marvellous mind that we've all been granted.