For Sic'Em: Scientist guts Rand Paul on fish study

[Fraggle145]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/scientist-guts-rand-paul-on-fish-study-87964.html


By KEVIN CIRILLI | 2/22/13 5:23 PM EST
A scientist nibbled away at Sen. Rand Paul on Friday after the Kentucky Republican blasted his research on schools of fish as wasteful federal spending.

“He got the funding wrong and the species wrong, and he misrepresents the work we’ve done,” Princeton science professor Iain Couzin told POLITICO. “He’s done some serious cherry-picking here. That’s one study, we’ve had a series of studies that have taken many years.”

On Fox News on Thursday night, Paul said the military has spent $5.2 million studying goldfish and advocated yanking funding for such programs to cut the budget.
“In the military they have $5.2 million they spent on goldfish — studying goldfish to see how democratic they were and if we could learn about democracy from goldfish,” Paul said (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/rand-pauls-fishin-for-5m-in-waste-87932.html#ixzz2Lf4vWJKq) on Fox. “I would give the president the authority to go ahead and cut all $5 million in goldfish studies.”

But Couzin charged Paul “misrepresented” the research that scientists have been doing for about four years. First of all, Couzin said, they studied golden shiner fish — not goldfish.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YHubNjdqtIE/SGQxHwoDAlI/AAAAAAAACaQ/PhgAOoROxCA/s400/goldfish.jpg

http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/files/79630display.jpg

He also said the research, among other things, can help lead to advances in technology for robots that work on deep sea oil spills and radioactive leaks. He said the research has “direct applications to human security and collective control of robots.”

“Our work aims to understand the principles of collective control in animal groups and what this can inform us about collective robotics. It has nothing at all to do with human politics,” Couzin said.

Couzin was not able to provide an immediate financial estimates but said it was a mixture of funding a variety of sources, including federal grants. They’ve published multiple research beyond the 2011 study (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/37/23Q43/index.xml?section=topstories) that Paul seemed to be referring to.

“If you think about it, schools of fish have been on the planet for much longer than we have and they’ve evolved to find solutions to problems. They can sense the environments in ways that we simply didn’t know how to do that,” Couzin said. “From ant colonies to schooling fish, it’s not that complicated but the feats they can achieve are extraordinary. The collective of a whole can solve problems in ways individuals cannot.”

He added: “Perhaps Sen. Paul should read our papers before he comments on them and perhaps he should consider more broadly how science can help society.”


Robots good. Simple minded mischaracterizations bad.

[KantoSooner]

'Flock' of coordinated drones making a mass attack on Taliban-run Madrassa = good (and especially good if we have live video feed from a global hawk. Make sure it's with the optional infrared enhanced full color video.)

$2,800 CAT Scan = Bad

Rand needs to refocus on where to cut.

[BermudaSooner]

Scientist sounds like a Borg...he's talking about the collective being better than the individual. Go live on a cube ship then you pinko commie!

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Why are schools of fish teaching our kids robotics in class? Hell our kids can't even learn that 2+2=4, much less robotics. This is clearly a waste of taxpayer money!

[SicEmBaylor]

It doesn't really matter what Rand said in respect to the content of the study -- the study itself should still never have been Federally funded. He may have been wrong on the content, but he was right on the point.

[KantoSooner]

So, let's say you had a nationnal interest in, say, drones operating as a team without individual control. Let's say you might want to create a thousand robots that can operate without human intervention as a coordinated team on a battlefield.

Now, you might want to give that job to Microphuqueup and pay them eleventy billion dollars to do the thing from scratch.

Or you might want to target some basic research on biological systems that act like exactly what you want to do. For a penny on the dollar.

The devil is always in the details and I'm not sure this program has merit. I am sure, however, that Rand could have gone looking for many multiples of $5 million that are sitting out there, stinking in the sun, if he was truly that damned concerned with government waste. Here's one: government mineral mining leasing policies.

[yermom]

or congressional pay ;)

[StoopTroup]

:D

[SoonerProphet]

So, let's say you had a nationnal interest in, say, drones operating as a team without individual control. Let's say you might want to create a thousand robots that can operate without human intervention as a coordinated team on a battlefield.

Now, you might want to give that job to Microphuqueup and pay them eleventy billion dollars to do the thing from scratch.

Or you might want to target some basic research on biological systems that act like exactly what you want to do. For a penny on the dollar.

The devil is always in the details and I'm not sure this program has merit. I am sure, however, that Rand could have gone looking for many multiples of $5 million that are sitting out there, stinking in the sun, if he was truly that damned concerned with government waste. Here's one: government mineral mining leasing policies.

Yeah, starting to get that feel with Rand as of late. Seen a lot of hat without much of a herd from the guy. Expected a bit more principle from the man.

[FaninAma]

Yeah, lets stone Senator Paul to death because he didn't get the details entirely correct on an obscure government funded study. Personally, i'd like to see the group's research and see what the results are and if they really do have any applicability to any real life problems.

The fact is that we are broke and Sic'em is correct. The days of the federal government funding all types of nebulous research that has questionable applicability is over.

And just between me and you Kanto, I would actually feel better about not researching ways to make drones more efficient. Hell, if you want to know the cheapest way to upgrade your military technology just do it the way the Chinese and Israelis do.......steal it.

[kevpks]

Personally, I don't think it's too much to ask for politicians to get the details right. That's their job and they have a whole staff to help with that. It might be an "obscure fish study," but he is the one who brought it up.

It seems more like an intentional mischaracterization of the study to help prove a potentially valid point about government waste.

[FaninAma]

Kev, can you tell me what the study is about? If not how do you know the research was as valid as the subject of the article claims? Of course he is going to try and deflect any criticism......he's making money on the project. It may very well be fabulous,important work but pardon me if I don't take what the guy says at face value especially considering he has a huge vested interest in seeing continued.

I'll make you a wager. I bet if you interviewed all the thousands of recipients of federal grants for research they would all say their research is important, should be continued and that any criticism of it is unjustified.

i think it is a sad commentary that the slightest attempt to reign in the bloated federal budget under control is met with howls of protest and anguish. When an organization is broke cuts have to be made including in R&D. If you think research is a priority then suggest other areas that should be cut. BTW, I agree that research funding should have priority over other areas of funding.

[kevpks]

"It seems more like an intentional mischaracterization of the study to help prove a potentially valid point [as in Rand's point] about government waste."

I was saying that Rand's point about government waste was potentially valid, not the study. I'm in no position to comment on that. However, I doubt it was about fish teaching us about human politics. Rand mischaracterized that aspect on purpose IMO. That was my point.

[kevpks]

As far as what should be cut, I'd rather cut government handouts that perpetuate poverty than programs that create high tech jobs and opportunities for bright graduate students in science--the people we'll need to solve problems facing us in the next century. I think there is one aspect of this story that definitely accurate--Rand was cherry picking. A program studying the politics of goldfish does sound ridiculous.

[FaninAma]

I agree but you know that the budget cuts are going to be implemented in a fashion that protects the bloated most wasteful parts of the entitlement system.

Dependency on the government funding is a sucker's bet at best. I have personally known several docs whose practices went down the tubes because their dependency on government payment plans exceeded recommended levels and the reimbursment to provideds was the first thing reduced when they encountered budget problems.

bottom line: if your livlihood is dependent on government funding you need to look for other sources.

[Fraggle145]

It doesn't really matter what Rand said in respect to the content of the study -- the study itself should still never have been Federally funded. He may have been wrong on the content, but he was right on the point.

No.

[kevpks]

I agree but you know that the budget cuts are going to be implemented in a fashion that protects the bloated most wasteful parts of the entitlement system.

Dependency on the government funding is a sucker's bet at best. I have personally known several docs whose practices went down the tubes because their dependency on government payment plans exceeded recommended levels and the reimbursment to provideds was the first thing reduced when they encountered budget problems.

bottom line: if your livlihood is dependent on government funding you need to look for other sources.

I completely agree with that. I was on a project that was funded by an NEH grant and the process was labyrinthine and their criteria were inconsistent. Private foundations were much easier to work with and less bloated with bureaucracy.

[StoopTroup]

Hannity is on Fox eating these huge iced Donuts and more pop that would be a felony in NY and one of the guys lit up a ciggie in the studio and then put it out in one of the donuts.

I think they are close to fixing Merica....

[Fraggle145]

Kev, can you tell me what the study is about?

I linked the study in the first post!!!

The problem is that basically all of the fields in science and health within our universities and outside of them are directly linked to federal funding and that is by design. The budget for NIH and NSF are a drop in the bucket compared to the military and social welfare programs .

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd041410s.gif (I know this is from 2010, but it still illustrates the point well)

But sure lets get rid of the stuff that makes us live longer, be better able to understand our world and how to live in it... Its frustrating.

This is 5.2 million dollars in terms of government waste and spending that is nothing. It is what like 0.0001% of the budget roughly? Its like talking about pennies in todays money. Lets talk about real waste.

[soonercruiser]

The whole story sounds "fishy" to me.
Sounds like a good area for military budget cuts.

And, I can verify first hand the connection of University research and gobment dollars.
Some are good ideas.
But then, we can easily live happy lives without such research....including dental research.
Kinda like throwing out chum when you're "fishing" for sharks.

[StoopTroup]

I drove by Methodist Manor Nursing and Assisted Care Community at 31st and around Urbana I think the other day. So many of the older guys and gals out taking nice walks between their Viagra Breaks and the 3 squares and the nightly movie, Bingo or Bridge nights. I know so many of us are living longer now and that euthanasia might really save us a bunch of money. You know...once you hit retirement or your significant other passes and you become a PITA you or a certain number of Family Members can call to have you terminated.

Then we wouldn't have all these 70-80 year old Senators using tax money to have every organ replaced while some poor family needs some therapy for their kid who has a 90-100% chance of a full recovery for a life saving surgery but to do so....they will need to bankrupt their family and unless all of their kids are prodigies they will all have to be fine with a GED or HS Diploma and working at Target until an opening in management at the Dollar Store opens up.

[FaninAma]

ST, I'll sign up if you will.

I think we can all agree that our resources can be spent in a way that benefits all of society better. 35+% of medical costs are incurred in the last 6 months of life of people aged 65 or older. That's a huge chunk of change.

[KantoSooner]

For all the talk of 'rationing' and 'death panels' and the like, we all not only know the same thing is being done every day, on an informal basis, but we all also support it.
You don't give a 100 year old man a heart transplant. If for no other reason than it would be cruel to him to have the last few years of his life spent in surgery and recovery from surgery.
I have a buddy in Australia whose lower right leg was pulped when he took a fall down into a little canyon and a boulder rolled down after him and crushed the leg.
The decision was made to amputate. Was it motivated by the cost of the multiple rounds of surgery repair would have taken? (which, by the way, would have been fully covered under their national healthcare insurance). Was it motivated out of interest in said buddy's quality of life? I prefer to think of it as a decision that was made in the interest of generalized reason.
I see no reason we can't govern our healthcare in a common sense manner as well. And, yes, that means restricting heroic care for the extremely old.

[FaninAma]

For all the talk of 'rationing' and 'death panels' and the like, we all not only know the same thing is being done every day, on an informal basis, but we all also support it.
You don't give a 100 year old man a heart transplant. If for no other reason than it would be cruel to him to have the last few years of his life spent in surgery and recovery from surgery.
I have a buddy in Australia whose lower right leg was pulped when he took a fall down into a little canyon and a boulder rolled down after him and crushed the leg.
The decision was made to amputate. Was it motivated by the cost of the multiple rounds of surgery repair would have taken? (which, by the way, would have been fully covered under their national healthcare insurance). Was it motivated out of interest in said buddy's quality of life? I prefer to think of it as a decision that was made in the interest of generalized reason.
I see no reason we can't govern our healthcare in a common sense manner as well. And, yes, that means restricting heroic care for the extremely old.

Kanto, as we have discussed before i think a lot of the blame for misusing medical resources can be laid at the doorstep of the medical community itself although they have had a lot of help in avoiding their duty to honestly discuss the cost-benefit-outcome facts with families and even when they do families will still often choose to pursue the costliest route even if hope for a good outcome is abysmal.