• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Propertius on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    William on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    Beata on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    William on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    jmac on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    Beata on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    jmac on Republicans Cannot be Allowed…
    Propertius on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
    jmac on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
    riverdaughter on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
    eurobrat on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
    Propertius on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
    Lucyk on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
    Beata on Ukraine and Obama: it ain’t…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    May 2012
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.
  • Top Posts

Friday Science Horror Stories

So, what does that make this, the third or fourth week of rainy weekdays?  I can’t remember.  The grays just blur into one another with teasers of blue sky.  Yes, we had a very nice weekend last week but it’s happened so rarely lately.  Mostly, it’s drizzling when I wake up, I have all kinds of plans to sand my deck and replant the bed out front where the creeping juniper used to be and I just have to sit on all of those things until the sun comes out.  No use in renting a sander unless I have a good four hours of no rain and I just can’t count on that these days.  The forecast is for more unpredictable precipitation until next Tuesday, although I might catch a break in the cloud cover tomorrow.  So, there’s hope that I can finish the f^(*ing deck.


Update for my pharma friends:

Chemjobber has a post about visitors to the White House and how many of them have been from the science industry. Very interesting. Jeffrey Kindler, the ketchup king and now deposed head of Pfizer, was there many, many times.  Hey, did I mention that Pfizer decided recently to stop offering employees pensions so that they could risk all of their retirement money in 401Ks?  And Chris Viehbacher, he of the “good scientists don’t want to work for big pharmas” fame, (which indicates that he’s never actually gotten down from his lofty perch and spoken to any of the good scientists in his own labs), was there on March 11, 2011, about four months after his company bought Genzyme and proceeded to lay off most of his new acquisition’s chemists.

Well, they probably didn’t want to work for a big company anyway so, you know, conscience clear, and all that.

If you’re in the pharma industry,check it out and see if a CEO has been to visit the president or his advisors and viciously lied to them or collaborated with them or whatever those guys do in the White House.


I’m almost done harping on Pharmageddon.  Yesterday, I had a conversation with a reporter from the Washington Post who says he is looking into the high number of layoffs among STEM professionals. (Many thanks to everyone who helped get the word out.  We appreciate it.)  Let’s hope there’s a crack in the cloud cover on this issue.  Either I’m paranoid that the present elected officials don’t want anyone to know how our scientific infrastructure has been decimated, or those same elected officials are dumber than a box of rocks and will believe anything the bonus class is telling them about structural unemployment, or there are too many scientific morons on the Republican side of the aisle in Congress, or they’re all being mislead by the out-of-date numbers of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. None of those possibilities give me peace of mind.  On the other hand, since there are so many of us out of work right now, we should look into replacing the clueless in Congress with our own geekier representatives.  At least there are two good years of employment and health bennies to look forward to.

Derek Lowe at In the Pipeline has a question for the ex-pharma crowd: What’s the craziest misinformation you’ve heard about the pharma industry or science in general?  He’s listed a couple that I’ve heard over and over again.  The first is that industry has found the cure for cancer and it’s sitting on it.  Friends, I know that anyone who reads this blog is smarter than the average smartass lefty blogger so I shouldn’t have to tell you this but that idea makes no f^&*ing sense.  If industry had the cures for cancer, they’d be marketing the hell out of them and charging whatever the market would bear, which would be plenty.  If you’ve ever had a family member who is terminally ill with cancer, you know that you would mortgage your house to buy him a cure and the guys in the marketing department of Trustus Pharmaceuticals know it too.  So, this is a ridiculous idea.  The truth is both good and bad.  We’re getting closer to understanding the mechanisms of cancers but we’re still a long way off from beating it.  What we need is more money and more commitment from our governments.

The second idea is that all of the science comes from government funded grants.  While it’s true that grants fund a lot of basic research, it is NOT true that industry takes that already discovered and perfect drug and markets it for a profit.  No, no, no, no, noooooooo.  At best, industry gets a clue from academia, maybe some insight, a mechanism, and occasionally a germ of a drug in its earliest form.  What industry does is accumulate all of the information about the proposed target as it can, sifts through it, determines if there is something it can work with, and then sets about doing the years and years of research it takes to develop those ideas into a therapy.  It’s a long hard slog that involves many steps of biology, chemistry, pharmacology and animal models to get to the point where *maybe* there’s a drug in there somewhere.

That doesn’t diminish the government’s role in funding research.  This research is vital to what comes after.  But it’s like Edison’s 1% inspiration followed by industry’s 99% perspiration.  And along the way, industry is able to add insights to the original problem.  We’re not just applied science monkeys.  We make our own discoveries along the way and add to the body of knowledge on a subject through our own papers and presentations.  That, in turn, helps feed science in general.  The more knowledge that’s out there, the more chances that academia and industry will find places to collaborate.  We are now seeing a lot more collaboration between academia and research.  And while that’s a good thing, academia needs to be funded more generously for new collaborations to work optimally and to boost academia’s contribution past that 1% inspiration.  Biology is undergoing a modern, “paradigm shifting” revolution right now.  We can’t afford for any government lab to be underfunded or our nation will be left behind.

What our elected officials need to do is make sure that the people who fund the collaborations benefit as well as the industries that develop the ideas.  Can we do it?  Sure we can.  We just need to think of the American people as stakeholders.

And here’s what will happen if we do not take this challenge seriously.  A recent article in the NYTimes says that American Physicists fear that we are losing our edge:

When three American astronomers won the Nobel Prize in Physics last year, for discovering that the expansion of the universe was speeding up in defiance of cosmic gravity — as if change fell out of your pockets onto the ceiling — it reaffirmed dark energy, the glibly named culprit behind this behavior, as the great cosmic surprise and mystery of our time.

And it underscored the case, long urged by American astronomers, for aNASA mission to measure dark energy— to determine, for example, whether the cosmos would expand forever or whether, perhaps, there might be something wrong with our understanding of gravity.

In 2019, a spacecraft known as Euclid will begin such a mission to study dark energy. But it is being launched by the European Space Agency, not NASA, with American astronomers serving only as very junior partners, contributing $20 million and some infrared sensors.

For some scientists, this represents an ingenious solution, allowing American astronomers access to the kind of data they will not be able to obtain on their own until NASA can mount its own, more ambitious mission in 2024.

But for others, it is a setback. It means that for at least the next decade, Americans will be relegated to a minor role in following up on their own discovery.

American scientists are facing a real dilema.  If our government is not going to invest in basic research, we will be putting ourselves decades behind.  As science accelerates in the rest of the world, we will fall back even faster.  Pretty soon, America will start to resemble one of those 2nd world countries where corruption is pervasive and where government is permanently underfunded and the number of Nobel prizes going to that country’s scientific infrastructure is vanishingly small.

We are at Robert Frost’s “two roads diverged in a yellow woods”.  The decisions we make now will affect the way our country develops.  Are we going to continue to cater to the conservatives who insist on allowing ignorance on evolution, climate science and private sector funding take us down the road to scientific obscurity or are we going to recommit to taking the lead in science and technology and demand that the wealthy step up, pay their taxes and help us refund our efforts so that American citizens, the stakeholders, benefit?  Can we afford for so many Americans to feel entitled to their ignorance?

Anyone?  Anyone?  Barack?

6 Responses

  1. Chemjobber has a post about visitors to the White House and how many of them have been from the science industry. Very interesting. Jeffrey Kindler, the ketchup king and now deposed head of Pfizer, was there many, many times. And Chris Viehbacher, he of the “good scientists don’t want to work for big pharmas” (which indicates that he’s never actually gotten down from his lofty perch and spoken to any of the good scientists in his own labs), was there on March 11, 2011, about four months after his company bought Genzyme and proceeded to lay off most of his new acquisition’s chemists.

    If you’re in the pharma industry,check it out and see if a CEO has been to visit the president or his advisors and viciously lied to them or collaborated with them or whatever those guys do in the White House.

  2. The weather here in South East Michigan has been mostly dry for these same last few weeks you referrence. Interesting the fine-grained difference in weather systems.

    There are some “legacy-Democratic” officeholders who know or at least suspect what you know. The ones who were there long enough to vote against every single Free Trade Agreement since 1990 reveal themselves to at-least have national-economic patriotic impulses even if they don’t have all the information or understanding to weaponise those impulses and become part of a movement to “crush” and “exterminate” the Class Enemy Occupation. Those legacy-Democrats who voted against Graham-Leach-Bliley and who voted against the “Bankruptcy Reform Act” and who voted against the “Telecommunications Reform Act” have further re-inforced the trustworthiness of their basic impulses.

    Yet they still remain loyal to the New and Improved DLC/Third Way
    Corporate Fascist Pig Obamacrat Party. Why is that? I theorise that it is because they are still brainslaved to decades-obsolete concepts of party unity and party discipline. They think if every Democrat (meaning themselves) remain loyal to whatever new leadership at the top calls itself “Democratic”, that the Democratic Party will remain strong enough to . . . oh, I don’t know . . . protect some small shred of the New Deal or something maybe. A friend of mine asked our beloved Representative Dingell in person why he and other legacy Democrats did not revolt and quit the Democratic Party en masse and try forming a genuine legitimate New Deal Party or something. He tells me he got an answer based on “party-loyalty” and working within the system to try and save something. It illustrates yet again what Hunter S. Thompsone said of George McGovern somewhere in that book Fear And Loathing: On the Campaign Trail 1972: “George McGovern’s main weakness is that when the Big Whistle blows, he is still a Good Party Man.” So is John Dingell. So is John Conyers. So is Marcy Kaptur. So is Tom Harkin. So was Dennis Kucinich. So are they all. So they will support whatever neoliberal neo-Republican attacks against every remaining bit of the Fair Deal/ New Deal/ Square Deal achievements starting from the Teddy Roosevelt Administration going forward. They will walk through pus and sewage out of loyalty to their memory of a Democratic Party which was infiltrated, penetrated, subverted, and pod-personed at the top starting decades ago. They will end up smelling just as bad as the DLC-Third Way Democrats who prepared the pus puddle and sewage lagoon that the “legacy Democrats” still walk through.

    And what of the DLC-Third Way Corporate Fascist Pig Obamacrats themselves? What is their goal for America? Yeltsinization and Haitianization after that. They are conspiring deliberately on purpose to exterminate every single industry they can throughout America in order to reduce America to a Natural Resources Banana Republic. Their vision for America is a political economy based on zero-value-added corn/soy/coal/rocks and minerals/etc. exports to the rising Chinas of the world. They expect to be well paid frontmen for that political economy as soon as they leave office. A vote for Obama is a vote for the upper class frontmen in general. A vote for Romney is a vote for the man that Obama fronts for in secret while lying about it in public. The only difference is which one of them would be the more effectively evil President. If Romney got elected, would the “Democratic” officeholders be less likely to legislate the extermination of Social Security and Medicare in order to privatise all that beautiful money? If so, that would make Romney the less-effectively-evil President. But these days, I don’t know whether or not the so-called “Democrats” hate Social Security and Medicare so bitterly that they would conspire with Romney just as much as with Obama to destroy them. So I don’t know whether my very first priority should be voting for Romney to try my hardest to defeat Obama, or whether I should vote Third Party to “register my discontent”. If I end up gambling that Romney would less likely to get Social Security Repeal through the Senate Democrats than Obama would, then I will gamble on voting Romney. If I decide the Senate Democrats will work with either President to destroy Social Security/Medicare, then neither evil is lesser and all I have left is to register my Third Party discontent.

    And how should we the citizens organize our lives meanwhile? By the same principals by which the Milosevich-Occupied Albanians organized their lives in Kosovo before being driven to final and ultimate armed uprising.

    • Be careful. If you buy into the labeling you may short circuit your ability to see an ally.
      For example, what does corporatist mean? I believe in the corporate model of drug discover, albeit on a medium sized scale. There are good reasons for that. What I think lefties fail at is distinguishing “shareholders” and financiers from “stakeholders”.
      Some industries work best in a corporate setting. Without it, you almost buy into the far right wing’s rugged individualism model and the loss of economy of scale. It leaves stakeholders, especially employees and some professionals, vulnerable to exploitation. What should we do, retreat to the woods and start our own self sufficient collectives? Railing at corporatists without a vision of the future is self defeating.
      Learn to discriminate between the bankers and financiers and everyone else in a corporation. It’s very important.
      Also, Third Way means nothing to me. I am a liberal and I have a liberal worldview. But that doesn’t mean that I am wedded to the past. Progress depends on evolution, observation, learning from the past and constructing improved policies over time. We have a name for people who don’t want to evolve and learn. They’re called conservatives. Be very careful of the people who are labeling. Ask yourself if they have interests that would be damaged if something changed.
      Never stop questioning.

      • That is a fair warning and I will try sharpening up my thinking where I can and think I need to.

        In the narrowest sense, Third Way is the label which DLC Democrats have tried rebranding themselves after the DLC itself has become a less desirable political brand. Some of the people who have seen their jobs and industries offshored by Free Trade Agreements supported by DLC Democrats have hardened into a posture of deep hatred towards the DLC and its personell. They know it and they themselves invented the Third Way name as a chameleon gambit. In the wider sense, “third way” can of course be abused as a mere epithet. I should watch out for that and maybe I even will.

        It is good to be reminded that there are White Hat corporations to be sure, and White Hat capitalists as well. My younest brother told me an interesting story about one of those. Many decades ago my woodworking hobbyist father had an interesting multipurpose power tool called a Yuba Shopsmith. Some decades ago Yuba went into deep bankruptcy. A couple or so decades ago a silicon valley multimillionaire decided to take his silicon winnings and become a hobby woodworker. He somehow heard about the mythical Shopsmith and discovered the factory still existed in Colorado, totally locked up and shuttered. He bought the factory and all the machine tools and all the blueprints and all the everything and brought Yuba back to a second life making Shopsmiths, including making parts for every Shopsmith ever made all the way back to the very first one. He is a White Hat capitalist and if Yuba is a corporation, it is a White Hat corporation as far as I know.

        As to Black Hat capitalists, I guess the Koch Brothers would qualify, yes? I would nominate certain corporations as well as well as entire parasite sectors like the financial manipulation rackets collectively known as “Wall Street” and “The City” if we broaden our focus to include Great Britain.

        And but yes . . . I can really run away with my own hatred at times.

  3. More about the NASA budget:


  4. RD,

    What do you think of this post by the “Lab Lemming” on the disconnect
    between scientists and conservatives:


    While what he says may well be true, I don’t think it completely explains the disconnect. Are the industrial chemists you know politically more likely to be conservative than the ones you know in academia?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: