The economy, the war, energy, lots of things were discussed at the first presidential debate last night. But the single line that sent a chill down my spine, and that convinced me that John McCain presidency would be a disaster, was the only line in the whole evening that had any bearing on science. While discussing how to save money, Senator McCain was talking about cutting spending, and avoiding waste. He used as his only example of wasteful government spending the use of $3 million to study bear DNA.
I found this so disturbing, because it reminded me of democratic senator many years ago (his name escapes me) who used to regularly repeat the titles of NIH grants, which he didn't understand, and then ask why the taxpayers were paying.
Is McCain now playing this same stupid and dangerous game? I don't know anything about the study he was talking about, but I can guess. Some species of bears, like polar bears, have been placed on the endangered species list. Others, like Grizzlies, have been shifting their ranges. When a species is in trouble, studying their DNA can prove very useful. Such studies can tell whether there is sufficient genetic diversity to allow healthy growth, or if there has been a dangerous genetic bottleneck (as is the case with cheetahs) that make special interventions necessary to save the species from extinction. We know that humans were once endangered about 60,000 years ago, because of genetic data like this.
There are other possible reasons to study bear DNA, almost all of them valid, useful and for the cost, (like most scientific research projects) incredibly cost efficient. Remember that the total cost (this is probably a 5 year project) of $3 million dollars is 100 time less that the DAILY cost of the Iraq war, and a tiny fraction of the cost of bailing out a single bank.
McCain is not a stupid man. But after the last eight years of stupidity and ignorance in the White House, the last thing we need now is another administration that has no clue about the meaning of scientific research, and the value that it has and can bring to our country. I used to think (and have said it here often) that both candidates were good. I no longer believe that.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 128
(I've read bears have a secret about how their kidneys can shut down when they hibernate that might help humans - who knows)
I'm sick of anti-science Republicans !!!
Earmarks have become a dirty word when there are essential scientific tasks with big benefits for the country that need to be done. So, how do those clueless about science tell the difference?
We need a president with some smarts folks. And we need it bad.
I just can't get past either of the two liars. This government has failed us, the best thingf we could do is vote everyone out of office, instead of expecting something different from the same delivery men . . .
Great Article as usual.
You posed the question in too limited a way, and in doing so you have put your finger on everything that is wrong with the federal government.
The question should not be whether to study bear DNA, rather whether to fund bear DNA study from federal resources.
Let's put it this way, "Is it important enough to borrow money from the Chinese to do it?"
Or "Is it more important than funding healthcare for kids who do not have insurance coverage?"
This is the problem with federal spending - everything is considered "important" and so we borrow money we do not have or deny funding to programs not lucky enough to have vocal organized sponsors.
Let's start looking for other ways to fund science research, ways that are not teetering on the brink of collapse.
The best government is NO government...right? that's the republican mantra for 30 years and you are on the eve of achieving your mission.......but what is it they say about unintended consequences?
Why is it so hard for McCain and his buddies to understand that, in the next few decades, science and technology stand to make the difference between a habitable and an uninhabitable earth?
I think that Bush is not interested in saving our planet because he believes that The Apocalypse is at hand.
However, I hope the two Presidential candidates not only want to save our home, but understand that saving our planet includes saving ecosystems, and ecosytems include bears. (As a matter of fact, as top predators, bears probably play a very important part in their ecosystems, much as grey wolves do in the American West).
You have touched on an issue I know something about. Funding science. In fact I know too much about it. The reason America has been such a leader in the world of scientific research, (which is directly related to our (so far) leadership position in the world in general, is because of the federal investment. This started after WWII in a big way, first with weapons and military related and then with health related research.
There are alternative sources. Private industry, charitable foundations, gifts etc. These all amount to a few percent of the total US research budget, and they are unstable, often come with strings attached, and are highly problematical. If we elect McCain Palin, we are probably saying that we dont really need science in this country, and you view that the governtment should stop paying for research might prevail. Fine. But I think that would be the end of this country. Thats my opinion, others might diagree, but thats because they are not aware that a large number of their loved ones would probably be dead right now, if it werent for scientific research. Course, that would help the population problem I suppose.
I would hope that we could expect logic and reason in a thread about science, rather than emotionalism - and hate.
Anyone looking at our society from an objective point of view would notice the unfettered growth of government at all levels despite the incumbency of either party.
Obama had made the same point. He said he would rather spend the money fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afgahnistan than spend it in Iraq. I agree with that also. You might not. Thats why we vote.
I agree. I don't know the exact figures, but a huge sector of our economy is composed of science and technology-based industries-- computer science, biotechnology, and medicine, for example.
We're a world leader in science, and without these industries our economy will collapse.
I know this is off the topic, but what do you think of the bailout plan. Talk about expanding government. From a neo socialist Republican administration.
Sy,
Let's be reasonable rather than partisan.
I would suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would not measurable effect on over-all scientific research. Funding in some areas may increase, in others it would drop.
This is the same with all administrations.
There is a difference between campaign rhetoric and practice.
But there is also a larger question - the federal government is broke and entitlements are squeezing every other priority. In the long term, there is not a lot we can, politically, do about that.
Thanks for your comments. I of course agree. I see much more danger in McCain Palin than I did before. And we still dont know what Palin really thinks about science, evolution etc. Cant wait to find out.
In a way you are right. If we cant or wont fix the financial mess, and the doom sayers are right (and they may be, I have no idea) funding bear research becomes a laughable idea. If the crisis gets worse, research and many other frills, like education, health care, etc will become secondary to survival. I am assuming a more long term view, once the crisis passes, (assuming it does) and we are back on track (as we were in the 90s. Yes I have become a partisan after last night, sorry). In the long term view, any drastic drop in govt funding of research would be a national disaster.
I am not sure; I simply do not have the information to have a sound opinion about the details of the economic plan.
But let's speak about governance.
I notice Obama is backing Bush and McCain is opposing Bush. I say good to both. Political rhetoric is fine; it points which direction a candidate is promising to move.
The trouble comes when people expect guiding principles to become a partisan straight jacket.
Life and politics are never so simple.
I have an idea! Why not have Biological Scientists raise their OWN Funds for this important task; and, since it IS so important, I'm certain that they could create some sort of niche in the Marketplace, where they might even MAKE a bit of cash, if it is, indeed, so important. Then, as in ANY enterprise, they would be able to continue with further research by investing some of their PROFITS back into the "Company." Imagine how much MORE research they would be able to do! Free Enterprise!
Now, before you react in anger, just think about it...
The government is only one source of funds. The fact that it is THE major source of funds for all too many projects is a problem that needs to be addressed.
For sake of argument let's say the federal government under Obama dramatically increased federal research funding BUT skewed it heavily toward energy and any field related to global warming.
What happens to bear DNA then?
I suppose someone could spin the global warming angle, but then how about the guy studying molecular lattices?
Would Obama then be a travesty for science?
Maybe we should be working on building science trusts rather than relying on the whims of federal finance.
I also think Greg's point is well taken to not have science funding rely "on the whims of federal finance." There is an argument that certain scientific lines of thought get reinforced because that's where the funding is and if you want grant money you better be connected to Issue X and believe in Theory Y.
I want mucho government dollars to once and for all determine why Peter's jacket is red.
React in anger? More and more, large research universities are beginning to function according to the business model you describe.
The quality of a professor's teaching may be of little importance in these universities. Much of their value is tied to how much research money they procure from outside sources, both public and private.
The "company" (university) does profit, as it typically appropriates a percentage of grant money for its own use.
The individual (the professor/researcher) may also profit by receiving "summer salary" from the grant money. (Technically speaking, professors are paid by the university only while classes are in session).
The only caveat is that, in the sciences, much of this external income comes in the form of government grants. Researchers compete for these grants. The field is crowded and the competition is stiff.
If you remove the government granting agencies and money in the sciences, the whole system will collapse, eventually taking with it a large part of the US economy.
Folks, what is the number one rule of evolutionary survival? Could it be AVOID MONOCULTURE?
Isn't relying on the federal government as a source of research funds, the evolutionary equivalent of Koala bears living only off eucalyptus leaves?
Great strategy until something whacks eucalyptus. How many species depended solely on the American chestnut tree?
I guess we will never know the answer to that question, will we?
In the final analysis, the scare of a McCain/Palin Administration may be the best thing that ever happened to science research.
I was at a debate recently where my local congressman in effect said that the only way to get money to the local area for important things like rivers, etc was through earmarks. This is insane! The only way to get money is to sneak it in the budget? No reviews? No establishments of priority? This is absolutely wrong.
To save our Earth and our Oceans, MORE money needs to be spent on the way we live and how our planet functions.
But this is only ONE example that McClueless could come up with. What's next?
I hope we never know.
I feel sorry for McCain in a way but he chose his position and supports everything Bush has caused without question.
I was interested in his comment about putting a freeze on all government spending except military buildup.
So, funding from the Federal government reduces these problems? Sy, you are such an optimist.
Thanks, William Proxmire, a good Senator in many ways, but he drove me crazy with those awards. Pandering to the ignorant.
John and Greg. The problem is that what you say makes sense. It is logical. It sounds great to be able to spread around the research funding sources, and yes there are serious problems with having most health related research funding from the government.
So here's the problem. Private industry funds research. For their own purposes. The problem is that science doesnt work that way. When a scientist gets a grant to study a problem, he/she is free to pursue new and exciting leads that come up, even if they have noting to do with the original idea. This is how most great discoveries are made. Private funders would not indulge this trend. So what we really have from industry and corporate funded research is really technology, and applied research, not basic research.
The irony is that the basic research conducted in universities, with US government money is very often used as the basic infromation by industries such as the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. Should they pay for it then? They cant. Its too expensive. Because it is very hard to guarantee a return for every research dollar spent.
Are there problems with government funding of science? Yes, including those that John and Greg point out. But like democracy, it is the worst system, except for all the others. For now it is needed.
Mark John, Im sorry, I really cant comment on your comment, because either you are not being serious, or your knowledge about science, research and the economics of academic science is so lacking that I wouldnt know where to start.
Jack, in a thread on science, it is always best to check your facts.
There is nothing inconsistant about drilling for oil and taking a position on decreasing carbon emmissions. Drilling simply substitutes American oil for foreign oil. It is another position all together from carbon emission.
Here is a little reading for you.
Political positions of John McCain
The total amount of money spent on research would decline by about 85%. Many universities would be in deep trouble, some would close. Thousands of scientiists would be unemployed, and the US would no longer be a place for people to learn biology, chemistry, physics. Medical schools would be reduced to small strictly teaching institutions. Major research projects in biomedicine, physics etc would no longer be done in the US, and the leadership of such work would move (like manufacturing, informatics, and many other areas) overseas to China, Europe, India and Japan. The US would then be dependent not only on foreign oil, but on foreign information, since very little would be generated here.
I know some folks are fine with that scenario. Who needs Godless biology. Who needs all those complicated formulas. Why do we need to figure out new ways to make computers faster, and energy production more efficient. Why do we care about how cells work, long as they work. We don’t need that stuff. We’ll just grow our crops (wait a minute, there could be a problem there, but not for a while), drive our cars (um, better not go there), live our lives (which will be much shorter, and include a lot more disease and misery.
But think of the bright side. We will have saved about 3 billion dollars a year. Yes that’s right, one third of the monthly cost of the Iraq war. Sounds worth it to me.
Private funding for scientific research is almost entirely for applied research, the kind of research that has a predefined goal that leads to a device or process that can be sold. I think government ought to take a role in funding pure research. The universe is complex and filled with surprises. It would be a shame if we restricted scientific research to the known. Serendipity and science go hand in hand.
That is the problem with elitists, Sy; when it comes to common sense, they don't know where to begin.
I believe that I've already pointed that out. It hasn't helped, to repeat it.
Again, my question: If it is SO important, there must be millions of private funding dollars available somewhere, NO?
Are you claiming that the fed funds more research than Microsoft, Exxon, GE, IBM, Google, Ford, Monsanto, Eli Lilly, Johnson and Johnson, and all the rest? I don't believe it.
If the only kind of scientific research that's worth funding is research that leads to profit in the short run, we'll never make the big breakthroughs that lead to totally new technology.
Of course these are philosophical differences, and neither of us will change the mind of the other. The good thing about this country (unlike others where I have lived) is that it is possible to have such divergent views.
As far as science is concerned, I believe Nippy and Ron have made the relevant points. I personally have become very tired of the situation regarding the tremendous difficulty of getting scientific research funded. Perhaps it is in fact time to just forget about it, let those companies that Ken cites do their own research for their own profit, and to hell with general knowledge. We dont need it, we cant afford it. Who cares?
This country has been on an intellectual slide for a long time. If we really do end up electing a Vice PResident who is a fervent creationist, then we might as well pack it in. Let the Chinese do it. And maybe we can pay them, or beg them to share with us.
Private enterprise would never fund it.
The sad thing is that the pursuit of short term profit ignores the basic probability concept of expected value. Sometimes things that have a very low probability of leading to immediate profit are well worth funding because the reward might be so great.
It's a simple calculation. Multiply the return by the possibility of success. If that number is greater than the cost of the effort it's a worthwhile endeavor. E. g. a lottery ticket costs a dollar. The jackpot is a billion dollars. The odds of winning are 1 in a hundred million. It's worth it to buy a lottery ticket.
Let me be clear:
1) I don't believe dollars going into research should be curtailed. If anything, they should be enlarged.
2) Corporate funding has some downsides. They have a profit motive that, I assume, steers money where they want, doesn't fund much basic research, and often coerces conclusions on the scientists.
3) Government funding deals with similar problems. There is a real danger that what gets funded are the paradigms a) government believes in and b) wants to be true.
Both corporate and government tend to focus on what's "in" versus what's "interesting."
4) I believe there is a better way to get the funding levels needed without most of the strings. Maybe it is a national research budget amount, that goes to universities on some formula and they decide what to fund ( they're biased too, so we need to tweak that.)
Maybe we haven't invented it yet.
5) My business is helping people bust paradigms so I'm partial to research that leads to "surprises."
6) I don't know anything about what I'm talking about. Never been granted any money, would probably spend it on beer research if I was.
7) That doesn't stop me from sharing my common sense opinions based on a little information I've gleaned having worked with the heads of probably 20% of the corporate R&D lab in the Fortune 500.
8) I know nothing about universities but am extrapolating from the considerable amount I know about how bureaucratic institutions work.
I'm going off to do some of that beer research now. The world's largest sailing yacht is coming under the Golden Gate Bridge at this very moment and will moor near the yacht club.
9) I love weekend research projects.
I think if the taxpayers were paid back by all these rich thieves in the form of taxes we would not have a national debt, the debt rides on the back of the workers to keep them down and controlled.
You simply cannot exist as a great power doing that, Russian proved that, this is not between socialism and capitalism - the big lie, this is about rich and poor just like it always has been.
61 Nobel Laureates in Science Endorse Obama
Class warfare that has been waged from the first days of the Bush administration. It's time for change.
And the bailout is NOT the answer, but that's another discussion for another time.
I don't believe the Federal Government should be in the business of doing research except for it's own internal national defense stuff. It's unconstitutional, for starters, but then, there are a LOT of things the government spends money on that are unconstitutional. If there's a need for a given kind of research, some private enterprise will do it.
And yes, for the record, I'm against the Iraq War and all the waste that went along with that as well.
The banking deregulation bill was passed by a republican congress in 1999 by a veto proof margin. That is the single thing that allowed loans to be bundled and sold as a financial instrument. Then Bush told federal banks they need not submit to state banking watchdog agency regulation. From 1999 to 2006 no
democrat had a say in what this government did, and by the time they made gains in 2006,this crap was a done deal. You can say democrats might have done the same if they were in power, but it's hardly a convincing argument as deregulation is a conservative mantra. Even then, what democrats might have done is a moot point, as they never had a chance to do anything. This is entirely a Grease Our Palm Party party, and you haven't got a leg to stand on blaming dems.
Freddie and Fannie shouldn't exist in the first place. They're unconstitutional and skew the housing market. So did the Federal Reserve when they lowered rates so much. They created the bubble. Speculation, poor lending practice, predatory lending, downright stupidity, and what Greenspan would call "irrational exuberance" about the neverending upward trend of the housing market and real estate values certainly helped as well. But those would never have happened without those artificially low rates.
If you fail to recognize this then advances will not occur, at least here. There are plenty of countries out there happy to spend research dollars on science and their societies are on the rise. India has a tremendous push in research dollars. The government is critical in funding as the big research or R&D labs have dwindled away.
The banks and brokerages you mention weren't brought down by their own bad lending policies, but by the lending policies of others. Those Freddie and Fannie mortgage bundles they held were pretty highly rated by Moody's and S&P, they thought they were buying low risk securities. What they didn't know was what a lot of these mortgages were. The whole "subprime" thing you keep hearing about is a nice way to say "crap loan" - these were loans that should never have been made, and the blame for that goes both to these "fly by night" mortgage refi companies, and the customers who were dumb enough to get duped by them. Why on earth would people, in a time of all time historic low interest rates, get ARM loans with balloon payments? And these things have to be disclosed. There's no lack of regulation there - it's just people too stupid to know better...or thinking irrationally that 5 years from now they'd suddenly have enough money to make those inflated payments. I have 0 sympathy for those people.
The companies were willing to make those loans, often without doing even basic due diligence on the customers. Things like not pulling credit reports, verifying income, verifying employment. The basics from "lending 101" were not being done on the most important loans people make, the loans on their houses. Why? Everybody was under the (asinine and illogical) assumption that housing prices would keep going up, so if the customers went belly up on their $200,000 mortgage, the company would repo a $400,000 house.
Well, logic and common sense say there has to be a ceiling. When the price of something goes too high for enough people to afford, the market falls apart. If the average family income in an area is $60,000 a year, and the average home is selling for $750,000, that's not something that's sustainable, especially when interest rates come back up, which they did, and basic cost of living goes up, which it did, as most clearly noted with fuel prices.
It doesn't take an economist to do the math here. The market caused the problem, and it would have happened with or without more regulation. You can't legislate against stupidity.
Your college students will not be taught science, at least not to the same degree, because the best will be elsewhere, making a living. Those that manage to be bright and have potential in this wasteland will take jobs elsewhere, where their minds are appreciated.
America will work in circles with no breakthroughs and no progress, wondering why no one buys any of their products any more, wondering how that could be since they're the best.
It will stagnate and die, which has long been the fate of societies that threw away their thinkers. You might as well enjoy the bonfire as Rome burns.
America has been the world leader in research and development for over half a century now. It must have been doing something right. Recently, China, Japan, India, and of course the European Union (which, if anyone hasn't figured it out, was specifically created to be able to pool resources and compete with the U.S. and the emerging economies of Asia) have been investing more in R&D. Everyone wants to take over the lead. So far, they haven't quite succeeded, but they are gaining and America's lead is slowly eroding. They've done this by lots of government investment.
Is this picture "macro" enough?
If they succeed, it's going to be what Sy describes in his comment at 1:42pm EDT.
No big deal, really--instead of scientists coming here from all over the world, American scientist will have to go to Asia or Europe if they want to do serious work, and the center of high-end economic activity and the prosperity that comes with it will shift even more. But hey, America's been hogging the good stuff for so long, perhaps it's time to give someone else a chance? :-)
Most scientific research is done in universities and by private corporations, and by all means that should continue. But they should be paid for out of the budgets of the university or corporation in question, not the taxpayer.
Now obviously, in the case of a public university, that's not a major distinction, but it's one that deserves to be made nonetheless.
The system is outdated and broken, and blaming it on a party and then going on to find the same failings in the other party is not going to work. The reason this country got so bad is that the world grew too complex for the average person to keep up, so politics got removed from their sight, and conducted in private with no oversight.
No one said anything. You have disparate voices like Ron Paul carrying really weird messages and ones that do not resonate with lots of people, but there is no agreement, and we should be entitled to here at least one honest man in Congress. They mostly have been black, and they mostly have not been listened to, but they are all responsible, and they should all take responsiblity.
Let's change our thinking. Let's change the way we approach fundamental problems by looking for other - time-tested models.
The consensus above seems to be that there only two sources of funding for basic research: government and corporations. Unfortunately, the federal government is squeezed by entitlements and corporations are reluctant to directly fund research that will not profit them. However there is a third and better source of funding for long-term (boring) basic research - endowments.
For those of you who have read my comments in threads like this over the years - forgive me for I am about to repeat an old theme.
The majority of the nation and world's assets is not held by rich people. Most of the world’s wealth is held by funds and trusts. We are talking about a sum that exceeds $17 Trillion. That is trillion with a "T". Most of that money is held by pension and mutual funds, but much of it, several trillion, is held by charitable trusts and endowments.
For instance the Harvard Endowment is worth $40 Billion. Yes, that is Billion with a "B". Last year, that fund earned $2.4 Billion in interest. That is a lot of research.
So why not a Basic Research Endowment?
How would we fund such a thing?
I would think the simplest way would be to amend our patent law to grant a 50 year patent to the fruits of basic research. The earning from the patents would go into the endowment.
Think about it.
Sure, most research would not earn a dime. Bear DNA is great stuff, but a real clinker as an earner, but what about the laser? Or genetic engineering? Or material science? Or drug research?
There are similar models for this common in society today. Look at ASCAP for the music industry for example.
The beauty of this idea is that under patent law, the Japanese, Brazilians, Chinese, Arabs and EU would fund a great deal of American research.
Thank you Stephanie and Aniko.
I am not allowed to reproduce material from my book, but suffice it to say that the amount of life saving, money saving and quality of life improvements that have come from basic government funded research is staggering. If none of that had been done we wouldnt be having this conversation, for many reasons. Many of us would be dead, and, oh yeah, there wouldnt be an internet. And so on.
It is worth noting that Palin is even more ignorant of science than McCain is, an has even less interest in actually learning anything about science or in using science advice in crafting public policy.
It is worth noting that McCain is quick to criticize 3 million spent to save the Grizzly bear, but has no interst in discussing the hole in the fedeal budget created by spending 10 billion a month in Iraq. compare 3 million to 10 billion and you realize that McCain overstates the importance of earmarks, and has a blind spot of his own.
When one is paid by a corporation, one is often working toward a goal and for the good of the corporation, which can leave the rest of the world high and dry.
Clearly, you don't get it.
OK, I guess I didn't get that. That's true even of private universities? To me, this drives the kind of unprofitable research people complain about. Like you hear a news story reporting a study saying they've discovered that more men than women watch sports, to which every single person watching the news says... "DUH! Like we didn't know that!" Why'd we need a multi-million dollar government grant to study that? I feel cheated that I had to help pay for that study (and countless others like it)
Stephanie said: "When one is paid by a corporation, one is often working toward a goal and for the good of the corporation, which can leave the rest of the world high and dry."
Well what is the good of the corporation? Profits. How are those profits acheived? By selling stuff people want to buy. In other words, they're adding value. How's that leaving "the rest of the world high and dry?".
And isn't it quite obvious why McCain chose to pick on a science project's funding as opposed to, say, all the grants given to farmers? It's blatantly obvious to me. For the record, supporting farmers is fine, I'm just saying if he was looking for something "wasteful" to hit upon, he'd have never chosen that particular type of wasteful govt. spending (unless he wanted to shoot himself in the foot). I don't think he has much support in the science community as it is. Might as well take a shot at them.
Greg understands this, and his endowment idea makes sense. It's something that should be tried--however, while we don't know to what extent it will work, we have to keep doing what we know works.
(And while the Department of Defense was involved in the creation of the very first network, the internet as we the public know it today had its origin in university networks.)
McCain voted "no" on the farm bill, whereas (in keeping with the irrational spirit of partisanship in this thread) Obama voted to borrow money from Chinese peasents to fund subsidies to millionaire American farmers.
:)
So I am inclined to believe that this is not a political issue so much as an educational one. I, along with Stephanie Aniko, and Chris and Jamie, have tried to explain what the reality of scientific research is, and how it gets paid for.. Some conservatives like Greg understand this, and make points looking for alternatives to government, which btw, has lots of problems that I havent even addressed.
But it really is hard to try to explain the whole system, and what basic research is, why it is important, and why it needs to be funded by the whole country.
The tragedy is that if we cut off basic research, we will never know what we could have learned, and what that knowledge could have led to. All we will know is that we saved a small fraction of one percent of the domestic budget.
I know Article I gives Congress authority: "Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
That to me seems specifically to be talking about patent and copyright law. I don't know that there is anywhere in the Federal Constitution that gives the government the authority to use taxpayer dollars to fund the actual research itself. And remember that the 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if it's not in there, we're not supposed to be able to do it.
Now, as I said, i know nobody else cares about that, and yes, I know that gets trampled on every day in all three branches. But that doesn't make it right. What's the point of pretending to follow it if we're not going to?
Have a look and tell me if I've missed it somewhere:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/constitution/
ARPANET was linked between universities, research foundations and military installations. There are multitude of innovations that resulted from collaborations between the military and academia.
http://www.nic.funet.fi/index/FUNET/history/internet/en/arpanet.html
http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/~acc/docs/arpa.html
http://texascomputerguru.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=98&Itemid=9
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/jcthomsonjr/web/j561/netstand-3.html
If we licensed or really drove a hard bargain with what the American taxpayers create, in terms of wealth, ideas, patents, technology, we could probably pay for the entire government. Turning the government into a competitive financial institution owned, controlled and answerable to the people and the President as the CEO might be just the kind of thing that could prevent the kind of feudal uprising we are now having with global corporations dominating nation states and using or buying American firepower to back them up.