[Rhodes22-list] Politics and Science a reply to Mike W

[Michael D. Weisner]

Brad,

You know, for a guy who has been deprived of proper oxygenation most of the 
time, at least that in which you are at altitude, your thought processes are 
remarkably keen.  It is a lousy way to get a bill defeated.  Maybe we need 
to rethink the real problem - all them lawyers looking to pay for their 
jumbo mortgages!

Mike
s/v Shanghai'd Summer ('81)
Nissequogue River, NY

From: "Brad Haslett" <flybrad at gmail.com> Saturday, January 12, 2008 10:16 AM
> Ed,
>
> I'll pass on oxygen debates.  My only choice is between "demand" and
> "100%".  But, since we are talking about oxygen, here's someone that needs
> to be deprived of it!
>
> Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
>
> Bush was forced to use a pocket-veto during the current Congressional 
> recess
> in an attempt to overcome a provision in the Defense spending bill that 
> was
> slipped in by Lautenberg.  The immediate downside is that Armed Forces
> recruiters cannot offer bonuses and until this is settled, re-enlistments
> can't receive bonuses either. The Lautenberg provision would have allowed
> Americans to sue in American courts for issues they "suffered" under the
> Saddam regime.  I'd say hanging the bastard would be justice enough.  What
> it would really do is allow the new Iraqi government's money in overseas
> banks to be tied up until all the litigation is settled.  The provision 
> does
> two things - cuts off funding for Iraq to re-arm itself and the resulting
> veto makes it more difficult for the US Services to man itself. In a
> nutshell, it is a poison pill designed for the anti-war crowd.
>
> Thanks Frank, you're a real patriot!
>
> Brad
>
> On Jan 12, 2008 8:55 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Mike:
>>
>> Now that you have some good experience under your belt, how about running
>> for public office?
>>
>> When you asked the question, tongue in cheek, "To save 10% across the
>> board,
>> we could reduce
>> oxygen usage by 10% when treating patients requiring O2 therapy, placing
>> patients on 90% instead of 100% oxygen."  Unfortunately you are now
>> critical
>> of a valid question.  A pulmonary doctor should be asked what is the
>> optimum
>> % for this patient.  Only a penny?  If it beyond what is necessary to
>> achieve results, why be wasting resources?
>>
>> Therefore, I disagree with your point of view, it was a valid question in
>> all instances.  Just as often the minimal maintenance level of 2L is not
>> adequate for a particular patient.  It resides in area of education,
>> experience and good judgement.
>>
>> Maybe the best dose of O2 is received in a cockpit of a sailboat in a
>> breeze?
>>
>> Ed K
>> Greenville, SC, USA
>> "Modern research ... Ah, the sound of a million monkeys typing (on their
>> PCs?) ..."  Michael D. Weisner
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> R22MikeW wrote:
>> >
>> > Ron,
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, research funding cuts continue to be made by folks who
>> > really
>> > have no idea what they are doing.  In the mid 80s I entered industry as
>> a
>> > result of a similar instability in medical research and high energy
>> > physics
>> > funding cuts (can you say Reagan and Brookhaven?)  Most of us scattered
>> > fairly quickly as the paycuts (10% at first) and layoffs began to
>> threaten
>> > the security of our growing families.  Every postdoc was approached by
>> > industry and most of us found new "homes" within months.
>> >
>> > The attitude of the bean counters seem to be that research funding is a
>> > luxury.  It can therefore be cut without great loss.  One administrator
>> > who
>> > had to cut 10% out of his budget at the last minute, thought hard and
>> long
>> > when I offered, jokingly, "To save 10% across the board, we could 
>> > reduce
>> > oxygen usage by 10% when treating patients requiring O2 therapy, 
>> > placing
>> > patients on 90% instead of 100% oxygen."  He was so intrigued with the
>> > idea
>> > that he asked for a full justification why some patients had been on
>> 100%
>> > oxygen in the first place.  Peter principle at work ...
>> >
>> > I hope your funding is restored - call Obama and ask him why IL was not
>> > represented properly.
>> >
>> > Modern research ... Ah, the sound of a million monkeys typing (on their
>> > PCs?) ...
>> >
>> > Mike
>> > s/v Shanghaid'd Summer ('81)
>> >        Nissequogue River, NY
>> >
>> >
>> > From: "Ronald Lipton" <rlipton at earthlink.net> Saturday, January 12, 
>> > 2008
>> > 12:17 AM
>> >> 2008 was supposed to be a good year for science in the US.  A study
>> >> by the National Academies had made a strong argument that basic
>> >> research is vital to the economic health of the US.  That resulted in 
>> >> a
>> >> bipartisan agreement to increase funding for the physical sciences.
>> >> Budgets were increased for the NSF and DOE Office of Science in
>> >> the appropriations bills passed by the House and Senate.  Last summer
>> >> these bills were vetoed by the president as "budget busters".  The
>> >> government
>> >> operated on a continuing resolution until the end of last year when
>> >> the Omnibus bill was passed.
>> >>
>> >> This bill reduced overall funding for Science by $1 billion below the
>> >> level agreed last summer.  The cuts in Particle Physics and at
>> >> Fermilab, where I work were particularly devastating.  All funding
>> >> for a new experiment to measure the properties of neutrinos was
>> >> cut.  R&D funds for the next generation particle accelerator, the ILC,
>> >> which was intended to regain leadership in the field in the next 
>> >> decade
>> >> from
>> >> a new machine in Europe scheduled to start up next year, were cut to
>> 1/4
>> >> the level expected.  Since the budget was passed 1/4 of the way 
>> >> through
>> >> the year all of this money has been already been spent.
>> >>
>> >> As a result all work on the projects which would have been the future
>> of
>> >> the
>> >> field in the US have to stop.  At Fermilab 170 people were working on
>> >> these projects and will be reassigned and 200 layoffs are planned.  At
>> >> Stanford Linear Accelerator Center 125 people will be laid off.  The
>> >> Fermilab
>> >> budget was $52M below the budget initially passed by Congress. Those 
>> >> of
>> >> us who survive will be asked to take 2-3 days/month of unpaid 
>> >> furlough.
>> >>
>> >> The cuts were a result of a last minute flurry of adjustments to bring
>> >> the
>> >> budget below the limit set by President Bush for veto.  Fermilab was
>> >> hit particularly hard because Dennis Hastert, former speaker of the
>> >> house,
>> >> had resigned a month earlier and none of the Illinois delegation was
>> >> watching the store.  The cuts were not the result of any plan as far 
>> >> as
>> >> I can tell, just a random cut in the final weekend of preparation of
>> the
>> >> Omnibus bill. US commitment to ITER, a demonstration fusion reactor
>> >> to be built in France was also cut to zero in spite of international
>> >> funding
>> >> agreements that took decades to negotiate.
>> >>
>> >> This is the sort of thing that can't easily be recovered from.  The
>> >> accelerator
>> >> group at Stanford, the best in the world, will be fragmented.  People
>> >> will be
>> >> laid off and leave the field.  Bright students will go elsewhere.  The
>> >> international
>> >> community will get yet more evidence that the US is not a reliable
>> >> partner.
>> >>
>> >> I had been working on detectors for the ILC.  We had a program
>> >> that led the field in the development of advanced silicon detectors 
>> >> and
>> >> electronics. Because we do R&D much of our work with US companies 
>> >> funds
>> >> beyond state-of-the art work too risky for immediate commercial
>> >> applications but which
>> >> lay the technical base for the future.  We we strongly involved in 3D
>> >> electronics,
>> >> where ~10 micron thick layers of circuit are stacked vertially,
>> >> increasing the
>> >> density of electronics without decreasing the transistor size.
>> >> We may be able to continue, but certainly at
>> >> a reduced level. Our group of IC design engineers, one of the best 
>> >> such
>> >> groups
>> >> in the world, will likely fragment, and much of the R&D will be 
>> >> delayed
>> >> or
>> >> narrowed.
>> >>
>> >> This was not due to on party or another, but our government has become
>> >> increasingly
>> >> dysfunctional.   As by far the richest country in the world we could
>> >> afford to be inefficient,
>> >> but we have real challenges now.  Killing the future of a field of
>> >> science that, aside
>> >> from enormous scientific and intellectual contributions, has generated
>> >> technologies such
>> >> as medical imaging, fast electronic logic, practical superconducting
>> >> magnets for MRI,
>> >> and the world wide web protocols, essentially by accident, is one
>> >> example of that
>> >> dysfunction that hits close to (my) home.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ron
>> >> __________________________________________________
>> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Politics-and-Science-tp14770106p14774326.html
>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>