Re: NANFA-L-- What Happens When Fish Suck?

Thomas H. Martin (thom_martin-in-verizon.net)
Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:31:34 -0400

Let's talk about how government grants are allotted: There is not a
giant buffoon tossing money willy-nilly to researchers (thats the
military spending model apparently). Basic research is usually funded
at the national level by NSF or NIH. I'm not very familiar with NIH,
but with NSF your proposal is sent to at least two persons deemed
professionally qualified in the field for their recommendations
regarding the scientific and technical merit of the proposal. After
receiving the recommendations of the reviewers, the proposal along with
reviews is further reviewed by a panel of again persons deemed
professionally qualified in the larger field (e.g. population ecology,
taxonomy, etc.). This panel then recommends which proposals merit
funding. USDA uses a similar proposal review procedure but typically
sticks to more "applied" research grants. Sea Grant often uses a
slightly different model by asking folks who are interested in obtaining
a grant to submit a letter of interest. If the topic is of interest to
the Sea Grant office for that state, then the interested party is asked
to submit a proposal which is reviewed by a scientific panel for their
recommendations. Other government agencies that I'm familiar with (e.g.
Nation Forest Service, EPA, and state agencies) usually publish a "call
for proposals" regarding a general or even very specific topic or
problem and either review the proposals internally or solicit reviews by
experts in the field in question. For fisheries research, many state
agencies have a standing relationship with the Fish and Wildlife COOP
unit at a state university. The COOP unit is federally funded, with
federally employed scientists, but often work on specific applied
problems the state agencies want researched.

The process is sometimes flawed, but I'm not sure how you would fix it.
There are very few private citizens who like Warren Buffet and Bill
Gates could afford to fund significant research. But, as a society, we can.

Now, given the various funding models, the only one that approaches the
"do what you want with this money" is research funded through "pork
barrel" politics. My university is apparently going to get an electron
microscope even though not one researcher here has a need for one, nor
wants to be saddled with the maintenance costs. Why? The university
Chancellor has convinced our congressman that we need one; apparently it
will make us look more high tech.

On another note, publications such as the biophysics paper initially
referenced, often represent work done as part of the process to get to
look at a larger picture. Viewing that single publication, or any
single scientific peer-reviewed publication by itself is akin to taking
one sentence from a paragraph. Why do we publish piecemeal? There are
many reasons, some noble, some ignoble -- but the empirical truth is
that that is the way scientists work.

For Irate: Sometimes what we think the answer to the "Why" question is,
greatly influences our attempts to view the more empirical "How." Thus,
whether we like it or not, theory is at the heart of even the most
empirical study in modern science.

Tom Martin

Irate Mormon wrote:

>If you want to fund fish studies but don't want your money spent on
>bombs, then that should be your choice. Doesn't it chap your -in-ss to
>have some politician gleefully signing your taxes away to Lockheed? Of
>course, if that's what you want, then great! I'm not gonna tell you how
>to spend it, or complain about it. Now, you can always exercise your
>rights in the political process and get them to stop making bombs, yes?
><chirp, chirp - crickets>
>
>Anyway, I don't believe I said all pure research is useless, merely that
>some sort of discrimination should be used. It's very easy to get
>excited about some project that interests you, but tunnel vision
>prevents you from focusing on something more likely to be relevant to
>something that's actually significant. We've all been there.
>
>It's very easy to make arguments in the abstract, or to justify projects
>to grant committees, but I will bet a MS-63 Panama-Pacific half dollar
>that this fish sucking study will have no real-world significance in my
>lifetime (after that it won't matter - my kid gets the coins!) It's
>purely an intellectual exercise.
>
>-Irate
>
>"He says there's no doubt about it, it was the myth of fingerprints.
>I've seen them all and man, they're all the same." - Paul Simon
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-nanfa-l-in-nanfa.org [owner-nanfa-l-in-nanfa.org] On
>>
>>
>Behalf Of
>
>
>>dlmcneely-in-lunet.edu
>>Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:45 AM
>>To: nanfa-l-in-nanfa.org
>>Subject: Re: RE: NANFA-L-- What Happens When Fish Suck?
>>
>>[Irate]:
>>
>><No argument there - I don't like my money being distributed to others
>>in
>><any manner I don't approve. Let those who want to fund fish sucking
>><projects and political mailers do so with their own money - you'll
>>never
>><hear me complain once. For instance, I fully approve of how NANFA
>><spends the money I voluntarily send them.
>>
>>I am one who wants fish sucking projects funded with my money, and I
>>pay taxes. Get your own country, ala Fidel (maybe now Raul?) if you
>>want to tell everyone exactly how their money will be spent to suit
>>yourself. I put up with the mailers and other waste in order to get
>>the worthwhile stuff like fish sucking projects, studies of phylogeny
>>and ............... .
>>
>>Now, ask me how many bombs I want to buy, and how much I want Tom Delay
>>to fly off to Scottland to go golfing?
>>
>>David L. McNeely, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
>>Langston University; P.O. Box 1500
>>Langston, OK 73050; email: dlmcneely-in-lunet.edu
>>telephone: (405) 466-6025; fax: 405) 466-3307
>>home page http://www.lunet.edu/mcneely/index.htm
>>
>>"Where are we going?" "I don't know, are we there yet?"
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Irate Mormon <archimedes-in-bayspringstel.net>
>>Date: Saturday, August 19, 2006 9:36 pm
>>Subject: RE: NANFA-L-- What Happens When Fish Suck?
>>
>>
>>>>First -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with "knowledge for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>the sake
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>of knowledge." I imagine that we would not be having this
>>>>
>>>>
>discussion
>
>
>>>>via the internet if many, many folks didn't do the basic research
>>>>
>>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>>led to the practical development of electric power, computers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>silicon
>>>
>>>
>>>>chips, and the internet. Granted, a lot of basic research does not
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>prove to generate "practical" appliances for the benefit of the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>general
>>>
>>>
>>>>public; but, until the "Psychic Friends Hotline" is perfected, we
>>>>
>>>>
>>>can't
>>>
>>>
>>>>predict which will and which will not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>[Irate]
>>>
>>>Fair enough, but some avenues of inquiry are intrinsically more
>>>
>>>
>likely
>
>
>>>to have real-world applications than others.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Second -- I'm a fisheries researcher, in fact one that studies food
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>habits and food-web interactions, and I can tell you that we can
>>>>
>>>>
>>>predict
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>what bass will eat, but only with very fuzzy, probabilistic
>>>>
>>>>
>accuracy.
>
>
>>>>And when they're stocked into waters where they didn't evolve,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>something
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>that's happening all over the world, even our fuzzy, probabilistic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>answers aren't worth a hill of beans. Further, our knowledge of WHY
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>they eat what they do is really bad -- the big hurdle in predicting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>what
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>they'll eat in a new environment. If you want to hear some good
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>argument, get academic ecologists going about optimal foraging
>>>>
>>>>
>theory
>
>
>>>--
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>but brush up on your calculus and dynamic programming first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>[Irate]
>>>
>>>Why would one need to predict what bass eat? It can be determined
>>>empirically. Optimal foraging theory? Strike out the first and last
>>>words, and you may have something worth pursuing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Third -- As for "And I helped pay for this . . .": For what this
>>>>
>>>>
>>>study
>>>
>>>
>>>>cost you might be able to purchase the toilet paper used by the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>military
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>in Iraq for one day, or maybe not. You certainly couldn't afford
>>>>
>>>>
>the
>
>
>>>>various political mailers sent by our senators and congressmen at
>>>>
>>>>
>our
>
>
>>>>expense through their franking privileges. I'm not Mormon, but that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>can
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>make me an Irate Atheist!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>[Irate]
>>>
>>>No argument there - I don't like my money being distributed to
>>>others in
>>>any manner I don't approve. Let those who want to fund fish sucking
>>>projects and political mailers do so with their own money - you'll
>>>neverhear me complain once. For instance, I fully approve of how
>>>NANFAspends the money I voluntarily send them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[Irate] Not Mormon here either!
>>>/------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>-----
>>>/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
>>>/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
>>>/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information
>>>about NANFA,
>>>/ visit http://www.nanfa.org Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l
>>>
>>>
>are
>
>
>>>/ consistent with the guidelines as per
>>>/ http://www.nanfa.org/guidelines.shtml To subscribe, unsubscribe,
>>>or get
>>>/ help, visit the NANFA email list home page and archive at
>>>/ http://www.nanfa.org/email.shtml
>>>
>>>
>>/----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>-
>
>
>>/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
>>/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
>>/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about
>>
>>
>NANFA,
>
>
>>/ visit http://www.nanfa.org Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
>>/ consistent with the guidelines as per
>>/ http://www.nanfa.org/guidelines.shtml To subscribe, unsubscribe, or
>>
>>
>get
>
>
>>/ help, visit the NANFA email list home page and archive at
>>/ http://www.nanfa.org/email.shtml
>>
>>
>/-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
>/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
>/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about NANFA,
>/ visit http://www.nanfa.org Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
>/ consistent with the guidelines as per
>/ http://www.nanfa.org/guidelines.shtml To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get
>/ help, visit the NANFA email list home page and archive at
>/ http://www.nanfa.org/email.shtml
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about NANFA,
/ visit http://www.nanfa.org Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
/ consistent with the guidelines as per
/ http://www.nanfa.org/guidelines.shtml To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get
/ help, visit the NANFA email list home page and archive at
/ http://www.nanfa.org/email.shtml