Interesting cannabis case in the UK

[dteowner]

Non sequitur much? You are perfectly free to research any utterly assinine topic you so desire. That doesn't mean it automatically merits public funding in any way.

Of course, we need to target specific holes too -- I'm not saying that ALL research should be publicly funded and academically free. Hell, I'm not even saying that MOST research should be that.

I guess I don't really see much difference between these two statements, so I think I'll chalk this one up to slight misunderstanding and perhaps a touch of you reflexively defending your ivory towers.

 

[Surlent]

I would suspect research fields that generate more results and have more growth potential receive more government grants than ones that do not yield much results. Don't the grants come from a limited budget anyway?

 

[dteowner]

I would suspect research fields that generate more results and have more growth potential receive more government grants than ones that do not yield much results. Don't the grants come from a limited budget anyway?

You would assume so, which is exactly why I objected to using public funding to determine that we've got cocaine on our currency in the first place.

 

[Prime Junta]

You would assume so, which is exactly why I objected to using public funding to determine that we've got cocaine on our currency in the first place.

Event after I suggested a potential use for the research?

 

[dteowner]

Well, you've got some promise as a grant request writer...

I'll freely admit I'm biased against "social research" (versus "technical research"), which means that your "reach" for an application upgraded the project from "criminal waste of time and money" to "complete waste of time and money". In fairness, though, I understand and accept that not everybody shares my values, even though it's intuitively obvious to the casual observer that they should.

 

[txa1265]

Does your retirement plan involve lottery tickets, by any chance? You're throwing a bunch of money down a hole on long hopes that some day you'll hit the jackpot. Wouldn't it make more sense to at least pick some holes that look vaguely promising (in this case, as defined by applicability or interest to the private sector) rather than blindly spreading your limited seeds across the entire field of holes, cuz a lot of those holes are filled with pigeons that eat your seed and give you nothing but pretty noises and poop.

Holy crap ... you have absolutely no clue about the actual workings or 'pure research' and 'applied R&D' facilities, do you?

 

[dteowner]

Do tell, if I'm missing the boat.

 

[Prime Junta]

As an aside, I have family who works in academe (my father's a professor and my wife's a researcher). Both are in fields that yield a quite a lot of applied research (ICT and new media, respectively). Both have participated in projects that have led to commercial activity.

You might be interested to hear that one major area of interest in both fields right now is what you call "social research." For example, the software engineering field has benefited greatly from bringing on-board sociologists and social psychologists, since about 90% of the challenges in software engineering aren't engineering problems at all -- they're social problems. Projects rarely fail because of insuperable technical obstacles; they fail because teams don't cohere, and sociologists and social psychologists have been able to greatly increase our understanding of why this happens, or doesn't happen, and what could be done about it.

I've participated in a couple of research projects as well, with our company as an industry partner, and we've in fact just agreed to participate in another one next year. It's about distributed software development, and the emphasis is very much on "social research."

And how did the sociologists and social psychologists get to the point where they're able to make this kind of contribution to software engineering? By doing lots and lots of obscure research that often looks quite pointless from the outside.

 

[txa1265]

Do tell, if I'm missing the boat.

You seem to think that all research should be productive, or have a 'greater good' goal in mind ... at least if there is direct public money involved - but private funding can do whatever.

Two issues: first, that is rarely how research works, and second, I don't believe there is really such a thing as truly private funding - too many subsidies and tax breaks and stuff like that to cloud the water. I mean, if a research project costs 1 million, does it really matter if the money comes from a grant or from a tax concession given to build the plant there?

 

[dteowner]

Seriously, guys, is the world a better place because we know there's trace cocaine on currency? No. The information gained there is pointless. Even by the absolute best light, the information gained cannot possibly justify the expense. Beyond that, it doesn't take much to look at such a project and realize that the expectation for useful information is nil. As such, it's a waste of money and we know it from day 1. If it's a waste of private money, that's their problem. If it's a waste of public money, that's my wallet. Very simple. Is it really that hard to grasp?

 

[Prime Junta]

It's entirely easy to grasp. You, however, seem to have some trouble grasping what academic freedom is, and why we need it.

 

[dteowner]

I grasp those concepts just fine, thank you very much. I DO have trouble grasping why I have to pay for this instance, particularly when it's patently obvious that this specific instance is completely wasteful.

Bottom line, the grant board should have given this one a good laugh and moved on to the next application, which might have had some glimmer of value--too bad we blew the budget to see if the bankers are getting high.

You're misrepresenting my stance as wanting 0% public funding. I'm advocating being more choosy with the public funding and forcing stupid projects like this one to be the unfunded "after hours extracurricular use of equipment" (we actually call projects-on-the-sly like that "government jobs") this professor does when he's not researching something useful, or something he's got to get privately funded.

 

[Prime Junta]

I grasp those concepts just fine, thank you very much. I DO have trouble grasping why I have to pay for this instance, particularly when it's patently obvious that this specific instance is completely wasteful.

From where I'm at, that makes you like the accountant who wanted to cut transaction costs at a derivatives trading company, by requiring that the traders stop making unnecessary trades -- i.e., the ones that don't make a profit.

 

[dteowner]

Mr. Trader, you're buying all the Liquidation Motors (the old GM) stock you can get your hands on, and using my money to do it. I think it's fair to question your technique. Can we at least put that money in junk bonds instead? I'm not asking for every investment to be a T-bill here...

 

[V7]

Looks like Mexico (where they they have an actual shooting war on drugs) has just decriminialised for small scale posession

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP1GlMCOzYSi8kbAUY1lLDdqc4vAD9A70MDO0

 

[Benedict]

I see they're looking at banning a few more herbal highs in the UK link

 

[dteowner]

I don't always agree with their politics, but that raw scathing sarcasm does feel ever so good.

 

[SveNitoR]

Good one Benedict

To me it feels quite obvious: the prohibition-and-extreme-punishment-road has been tried for a long, long time. Is it really so hard try something different? See if something else works better perhaps? Maybe, just maybe, base the decisions on facts for once?

 

[kess]

Alcohol doesn't deserve to be tagged with drugs. People enjoy it in the form of low and mild drinks during meals. It is well connected to our customs, traditions and celebrations.

Alcohol deserves the tag of a drug moreso than Marijuana, which:

1. Has never been proven to kill you in any way, shape, or form
2. You can't overdose on it
3. All it does is make the majority of the people peaceful and happy
4. People don't steal and kill people over it
5. It has tons of medical benefits (including ones the pharmaceutical industry DOES NOT want you to know about...including depression and bipolar disorder).

Alcohol can kill you, you can overdose on it, does not make everyone peaceful and happy, and does not have many medical benefits. Alcohol and Tobacco kill more people than all illegal drugs...why are they illegal? The pharaceuticals.

 

[skavenhorde]

1. Have you tried driving stoned? I'm sure there have been some deaths from that.
2. True. I would of never made it out of my teens if that wasn't true
3. It makes some people paranoid and nervous, but mostly true. You forgot to add sleepy.
4. Not addictive so I would guess that is true, but I'm sure some people have stolen for it, not sure about killing though.
5. LOL. I voted for that prop in California that legalized medical Marijuana (when I lived there), but even I don't think it has that many medical benifits. Though I think it is better to have the option for a different treatment than going with the usual pills. If I ever get back to the states one of my first stops will be to the doctor to get a prescription for my "anxiety"

Don't get me wrong, I think they should legalize it and stop making it out to be the scourage on our nation, but still the points you just made are the ones expressed by every stoner friend I know. We need to get some of these stoners to put down the bong and do actual real studies with numbers behind those statements. It's a little more difficult for hard liners to dispute numbers and facts.