Thought on the public funding of science

Simple truth of the recentEbola hysteria and the ensuing media coverage of scientists working on hemorrhagic viruses. Approximately 85% of bioscience now wishing ill on a whole lot of people so as to draw attention to their scientific domain.

8 responses so far

  • kevin. says:

    "Our research will help us to understand how neural circuits transmit pain signals caused by antibiotic-resistant bacterial sepsis."

  • becca says:

    Kevin, if you think antibiotic-resistant bacterial sepsis is up there with Ebola for ways-to-get-the-actual-public-motivated, I have REALLY bad news for you...

  • But how would we get additional BUNNY HOPPING funding with this strategy?

    Killer bunnies?

  • drugmonkey says:

    Indeed. Bunnicula. Were-Rabbits. That sort of thing.

  • kevin. says:

    becca, talk to me again in 20 years when vancomycin doesn't work anymore.

  • Alex says:

    It's no ordinary rabbit. It's got sharp pointy teeth!

  • @kevin
    It's not that antibiotic resistance isn't *important* -- I'd agree that it has the potential to kill orders of magnitude more people than Ebola, MERS, and so on. But viral epidemics are just so dramatic and capture the public's interest. How many movies have been made about epidemics of killer viruses? Has there even been one about antibiotic resistance?

  • Joe says:

    Similar to the ALS challenge, wishing people were pouring buckets of water over their heads and giving to my research area.
    The recent interest in Ebola would not be enough incentive to work on it. The regulations, paperwork, and site visits involved in BSL-3 work would be bad enough. If you worked on a BSL-4 agent, the regulatory burden would be crushing.

Leave a Reply