dogon dory":3pdx1pcz said:
Everyone seems to overlook the fact that the only reason the fish farms are in business is due to the overfishing of the wild stock.
I'm always skeptical of scientific studies that make absolute assertions about something that we know as little about as we do about fish. Science nowadays, like most everything else, is overly influenced by political agendas, desires to make headlines, and the need to secure funding.
Does scientific research actually produce anything useful any more? Other than that which is done by industry I mean.
Wow - that's harsh! How much science do you read? As someone who performs biological research for a living, I can cite a huge number of medical advancements that stem from DNA sequence analysis and the increased understanding of genetics that resulted from the human genome project. I can point to diagnostic tests for a wide variety of diseases, specific drugs, vaccines etc. all of which are currently delivered by companies but all of which depended on or were derived from work done in the public sector. I can also say that in my experience, the vast majority of science is NOT " overly influenced by political agendas, [and] desires to make headlines" but I will agree that all scientists need to secure funding. However, for the vast majority of science, funding is dependent upon proposing work that is judged to be of value (by other scientists - people who actually do read scientific journals). I will also state that the U.S. has one of the most advanced and technologically based economies because of our investment in research and that there's a long litany of things created in the U.S. that are the direct result of science that would have seemed unimportant at the time.
I'll point out just a few:
Radar/microwave ovens- both of these are the direct result of work that started out as very basic research in physics labs (at MIT and other locations) by scientists who wanted radiation sources to study the rotational spectra of molecules. As an aside, the first coherent radiation sources "masers" were developed in the same labs and led to the development of lasers. Lasers are ubiquitous in our lives now (laser pointers, levels, range finding devices etc).
PCR/medical diagnostics/forensics and paternity testing - PCR is the technique used to amplify specific regions of DNA and it is used for both basic research and for medical diagnostics/forensics and paternity testing. While PCR was invented by Kerry Mullis in the 1980's, the basic research necessary to invent PCR depended on the understanding obtained by researchers studying how DNA was replicated in bacteria. Studies of bacteria also lead to the identification of many enzymes that are necessary for basic research, cloning etc. I should also point out that anyone who takes insulin today takes human insulin that is cloned and produced in bacteria. In the old days (pre 1980's), insulin was extracted from animals (bovine or porcine insulin were common). For some people, this non-human insulin resulted in allergic reactions. We also have cloned blood clotting factors that are given to hemophiliacs. Prior to cloning, clotting factors were isolated from human blood and it took 1000's of pints of blood to produce enough clotting factor to treat one person for a year. Not only did this impact our blood supply, it resulted in many hemophiliacs getting AIDS.
Speaking of AIDS, nearly all drug treatments for HIV incorporate a drug called a protease inhibitor. Proteases are enzymes the cut other proteins. HIV makes a protease that is a necessary component of it's life cycle. The creation of the protease inhibitor depended on DNA sequencing of the virus, identification of the protease, cloning of the protease so that it could be produced in large quantities and purified, X-ray crystallography (a technique to obtain the structure) and computer aided design of the drug to fit into and block the active area of the protease. Each of the steps I just mentioned has it's foundation in previous science but I'll pick one as an example - identification of the protease. Today, we identify proteins and their likely function by comparison of the sequence to proteins that have been studied as characterized in other organisms. In many cases, the basic research done to study a particular protein's function in a particular organism may seem relatively "unimportant" to the paying public ("why are these darn scientists studying worms?"...) However, because of evolution, the sequences and functions of many proteins are conserved across many species and our studies in seemingly unimportant organisms provide knowledge that can be transfered to other species. The identification of the protease in HIV depended upon a long history of people doing research on other proteases in other species.
I could go on an on about items in our daily lives that depend upon science - plastics, nylon, fuel, batteries, computers, the internet etc. My primary point is that behind each and every one of these things there is basic research that was initially funded in the public domain that ultimately was synthesized (sometimes taking advances in many different domains) to produce the items we use today. For almost everyone of these things, you can trace it back to somebody doing science that the "average Joe" would have thought was unimportant at the time.
As a country, we invest in science only a small fraction of our total budget each year. I would claim that the benefits of the investment are on the whole quite positive.
I'll probably done with this thread as I don't want to be involved in a protracted argument in which many people state strongly held opinions but few have facts or knowledge in the area under discussion.
