- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Shrimp on a treadmill--the facts
Posted on 11/14/14 at 8:57 am
Posted on 11/14/14 at 8:57 am
With the cutting of public science spending and EBOLA in the news, I thought this story would interest some people:
My own view is, predictably, that public spending on science is the last thing we should be cutting. The damage is far greater than the gain you get from mitigating the deficit.
LINK /
quote:
A video clip of a shrimp running on a treadmill has somehow become the nation’s poster child for wasteful spending and grounds for the Republican-led House of Representatives science committee to recently investigate wasteful spending of NSF-funded research projects across the country.
My name is David, and I am the marine biologist who put a shrimp on a treadmill—a burden I will forever carry. To be clear, the treadmill did not cost millions of taxpayer dollars, the goal of the research was not to exercise shrimp, and the government did not pay me—or anyone else—to work out shrimp on treadmills.
quote:
Exactly how much taxpayer money did go into the now-famous shrimp treadmill? The treadmill was, in fact, made from spare parts—an old truck inner tube was used for the tread, the bearings were borrowed from a skateboard, and a used pump motor was salvaged to power the treadmill. The total price for the highly publicized icon of wasteful government research spending? Less than $50. (All of which I paid for out of my own pocket.)
My own view is, predictably, that public spending on science is the last thing we should be cutting. The damage is far greater than the gain you get from mitigating the deficit.
LINK /
12
Posted on 11/14/14 at 8:59 am to Bayou Sam
Slashing your R&D spending to balance your budget is how bad companies hold on for a few more years until the lack of innovation catches up to them.
I don't want to see our government imitating this bad business practice.
I don't want to see our government imitating this bad business practice.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:01 am to AUin02
government should not be in business period!
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:06 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
The total price for the highly publicized icon of wasteful government research spending? Less than $50. (All of which I paid for out of my own pocket.)
If it cost less than $50, what did he do with the other $2,999,950? Nobody is arguing the cost. The problem is the money allocated towards that project far exceeds the cost.
quote:
How long can a shrimp run on a treadmill? Scientist put shrimp on a tiny treadmill to determine if
sickness impaired the mobility of the crustaceans. Researchers at the Grice Marine Laboratory at the
College of Charleston, South Carolina have received at least 12 NSF grants totaling over $3 million over
the last decade for their work, including a $559,681
award “Impaired Metabolism and Performance in
Crustaceans Exposed to Bacteria.”210
Actual report of findings
It's all well and good that this guy made this for less than $50, but what happened to the rest of the money DEDICATED to this study? How do you justify that? All you proved was that the government gave him way more money than needed, and he confirmed that.
This post was edited on 11/14/14 at 9:08 am
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:10 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
My name is David, and I am the marine biologist who put a shrimp on a treadmill—a burden I will forever carry.
Do you think David, the scientist, has any idea how much money he is given towards his project? Do you think David is going to the government for funding? No. It's the department bureaucrats that are getting the money for this specific scientific study. What happened to the rest of the $3 million. This article does not mention that, only the cost. Which is the whole point of the budgetary mismanagement committee. To find waste and eliminate it.
Cost does not equal budget.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:10 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
that public spending on science is the last thing we should be cutting.
There is PLENTY of fat in there that should be trimmed. PLENTY!
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:11 am to Hooligan's Ghost
As you know, I was a State Senator for 8 years in the '80's and I can tell you the truth, because I was very involved in projects. Most of the studies done that make the news are all done by liberal Democrats who give money contributions to Democrats that make budget decisions. They give wasteful project money back as contributions every year. It's corrupt. I got so disgusted, it contributed to my quitting instead of fighting it. I thought about writing a book, but I would fear violence.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:11 am to HonoraryCoonass
quote:
There is PLENTY of fat in there that should be trimmed. PLENTY
About $2,999,950 out of $3,000,000 by my count.
I'm all for funding scientific research, but these grants aren't scrutinized at all. What is wrong with trying to curb out of control spending? Oh wait, you are a democrat. That's the problem.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:20 am to Bayou Sam
I don't understand your point.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:27 am to Bayou Sam
Had he concluded that humans like eating shrimp and the manipulation of shrimp migration patterns for the express purpose of capturing the little buggers for consumption can directly contribute to man made global warming, then he wouldn't be forced to defend his groundbreaking research.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:27 am to BugAC
quote:
It is disingenuous for the Republican-controlled House Committee on Science, Space and Technology to promote the idea that scientists are wasting millions of taxpayer dollars to run shrimp on treadmills based on a 30-second video clip. Given that every teaspoon of seawater can contain millions of bacteria, it does not take a mental giant to understand that the health of marine organisms and the safety of the seafood we eat are closely related.
This article does nothing to defend the reasonable position that NSF funding shouldn't be at risk right now. In fact, it is at least as disingenuous as anything he's complaining about, because this guy is acutely aware of the actual cost of the study, and he is trying to blur it.
quote:
Exactly how much taxpayer money did go into the now-famous shrimp treadmill?
Sure, the price of the treadmill alone was exactly what the masses were pissed about.
How about acknowledging that the relevant question is "how much did this research cost, and how much has it added to our knowledge?" followed by "and was it worth it?" if we want to actually discuss this?
It may suck and be very tough to do, but a better defense of why this kind of research is valuable shouldn't be quite so hard to make. Resorting to trying to be cute about what the actual costs are is the wrong way, and will do nothing but foster more distrust.
Not to suggest the other side is "doing it right" either, but here the researchers are dependent on favorable public opinion, to a degree. Maybe a little outreach, and/or maybe considering more closely if a convincing case can be made that certain studies are worthwhile, isn't too much to ask.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:29 am to Bayou Sam
of anything, I would look to see more spent on science and research.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:29 am to Hooligan's Ghost
quote:
government should not be in business period!
well then, we would have been taken over long ago.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:34 am to BugAC
quote:
It's all well and good that this guy made this for less than $50, but what happened to the rest of the money DEDICATED to this study? How do you justify that?
In academic science, that funding is spread over years--it pays for lab equipment, studies, graduate assistants, travel for conferences, etc.
Think about it: these grants are enormously competitive. Scientists at universities are much more responsible spenders of these precious funds than, say, the military!
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:35 am to HonoraryCoonass
quote:
There is PLENTY of fat in there that should be trimmed. PLENTY!
This is certainly false. The only real argument you can make is that, in principle, the government should not be funding science research--an argument that I find crazy!
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:35 am to Napoleon
quote:
of anything, I would look to see more spent on science and research.
Me too!
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:37 am to Napoleon
Maybe the next President will run on the idea of restoring arithmetic to its rightful place.
Maybe their plan was to train a giant coastal shrimp army to keep paddling the oceans back to sea in order to keep sea level down. If that was their actual proposal, I wouldn't bat an eye.
Maybe their plan was to train a giant coastal shrimp army to keep paddling the oceans back to sea in order to keep sea level down. If that was their actual proposal, I wouldn't bat an eye.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:40 am to BugAC
quote:
If it cost less than $50, what did he do with the other $2,999,950? Nobody is arguing the cost. The problem is the money allocated towards that project far exceeds the cost.
Are you really suggesting that the total cost of the program was $50? The truth is that you have no idea what the $3 million was allocated for. The shrimp on a treadmill that cost $50 was obviously a small part of a much larger study. You are misrepresenting the facts saying that $3 million was allocated when only $50 was needed.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:43 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
Less than $50. (All of which I paid for out of my own pocket.)
R's are morons
Posted on 11/14/14 at 9:44 am to Bayou Sam
Funding for science is a drop in the bucket. Cut it out completely and it won't make a bit of difference to the deficit.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News