{"id":548,"date":"2007-05-01T09:18:09","date_gmt":"2007-05-01T14:18:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/UnhinderedByTalent.com\/Phi\/?p=548"},"modified":"2007-05-01T09:18:24","modified_gmt":"2007-05-01T14:18:24","slug":"jocp-im-in-wired","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/UnhinderedByTalent.com\/Phi\/archives\/2007\/05\/01\/jocp-im-in-wired\/","title":{"rendered":"JOCP – I’m in Wired!"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Science<\/a>
\nOK – total ego post here; feel free to look the other way. But this photo got used in a blog post on Wired’s web site! Not quite as cool as having it in the magazine, but still pretty darn spiffy :-).<\/p>\n

The piece in question<\/a> briefly discusses two bills currently making their way (fairly easily) through Congress that would beef up support for both scientific research, and science and math education in the U.S.<\/p>\n

The bit I really loved (in the worst sort of way), was this quote from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget’s response<\/a> (pdf):<\/p>\n

\nEspecially problematic are the dramatic increases in authorization levels, particularly for programs too new to have been rigorously evaluated for success in meeting their stated goals. The Administration also strongly objects to the provision of the bill that creates a pilot program that would fund construction and maintenance of high school science laboratories, an activity that is not an appropriate role of the Federal government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wow. The idea that this administration could have any<\/em> credibility in “rigorous evaluation” just boggles the mind. Like WMDs were a sure thing, and climate change wasn’t happening, and evolution is “just a theory”. Not that I object to careful analysis of the value of programs, I’m just not convinced that this administration has the first clue what those words mean.<\/p>\n

I’m also pretty amazed that the Federal government isn’t supposed to be helping schools build science labs. Federal funds support all sorts of infrastructure initiatives, from highways to Head Start (and Halliburton, but that’s another story), so what’s the problem here? I can imagine having concerns about the administration of such a program (just as one needs to be concerned about the administration of any such program), but the basic idea of supporting learning facilities in areas vital to the intellectual (and, ultimately, economic) health of the country hardly seems like rocket science.<\/p>\nNo tag for this post.\n\t

Related posts<\/h4>\n\t