Comments on: Bali: Are we there yet?

By: Ram K.

Ram K. — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:55:04 +0000

The conversation with your daughter is very chilling; it smacks more of religion rather than inculcating scientific curiosity.

By: Engineer

Engineer — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:03:03 +0000

Well, the U.S. government may be on your side, most likely licking their chops at the thought of new “carbon taxes” and increased fuel taxes, but the science is not:(Dr. Carter video) http://www.aefweb.info/

By: Ram K

Ram K — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:47:37 +0000

All this is important only if we can do something tangible without affecting our current prosperity and that of the developing world. I and others are yet to be convinced that -1) we can actually mandate Global policy change in energy consumption patterns.2) such changes will have any affect on global warming.3) the warming will continue forever and result in catastrophe.The only thing I can see happening is people regionally making changes to improve pollution and toxic waste issues. That much is enough for me.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:25:47 +0000

No, it is not a general phenomenon, but in at least one granting agency (a very large one) it was and still may be the strong recommendation for all proposals.There was an interesting informal study a few months back about the use of the word “evolution” in publications in, I believe, the medical science industry that showed a similar trend.

By: Daniel C. Smith

Daniel C. Smith — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:12:01 +0000

Greg, I don't doubt that instances of Bush appointees trying to piss on grant proposals with the word evolution in them did and do occur. I'm sure some proposers have been given the advice not to use the word in proposals for some program or another. But your statement makes it sound like you just plain couldn't use the word evolution in grant proposals to government agencies. As a generalization (and it sure sounds like a generalization the way it is written), this is demonstrably false. People can and do use the word in grant proposals and plenty of those proposals have been selected in more than one program from more than one agency.I agree with the main points of your post. I'm not trying to be an ass (my wife says I don't have to try), I just get bothered by generalizations like that. You didn't mean that grant proposals in general to government agencies in general couldn't use the word evolution. I get that. But it sure sounds that way, the way you wrote it.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:42:05 +0000

Daniel, I am not making stuff up, don’t be an ass.It depends on the agency, and once this became more generally known that this was happening, it also became less “true.”Advice has not infrequently been given to not use evolution in the title or abstract of NIH grands and in certain areas of NSF.It has been true since the days of Proxmire that grant names and abstracts have been scrutinized by grant officers to avoid , in those days, nomination for the golden fleece award, and more recently (these days) to avoid being dragged (the grant, not the scientist) onto the floors of congress for ridicule. Avoidance of the word evolution has been a major issue in this area.Make stuff up indeed! I will always tell you when I’m making stuff up.

By: Daniel C. Smith

Daniel C. Smith — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:16:40 +0000

You write:Evolutionary theory is fundemnetal to biology, but grant proposals to US government agencies could not include the word “evolution” in their text.Where did you get the idea that we can’t use the word evolution when applying for grants from government agencies? I just did a search on the NSF website to look for grants that were awarded that have the word evolution in their title. There are lots and lots of active grants with evolution in the title and text. Most of them awarded while the repubs controlled congress. What gives?There is plenty of evidence for the republican war on science without having to make stuff up. Perhaps you are referring to some short-lived policy under Regan or Bush senior, but I have never heard of it. If so, please point me to a reference.Although, I would expect that kind of craziness from the current administration, in this case, it just ain’t so.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 06:56:02 +0000

Trin: suggestions are always welcome. This blog is always in flux, at least in my mind. I’m thinking of something in the side bar.

By: Trinifar

Trinifar — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:10:34 +0000

Greg, this is a great post. I really enjoy your essays. Is there a way to flag them, perhaps in the post title, so they can be distinguished from your short posts? The short ones are fine, but these longer ones can get lost in the noise. Kinda like trying to drink from a firehose.

By: ering

ering — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:41:28 +0000

“In 1997, the Kyoto protocol was signed on to by a number of nations (the US not included because of congressional Republican opposition).”This is patently untrue. There was unanimous bipartisan opposition. 5 minutes of research cold have saved you a lot of embarrassment, but as a scientist, you knew that already, no?