Is this the goal? To transfer responsibilities from government to private groups?

[question everything]

A major blow of the sequestering will be a halt in biomedical research, perhaps also physics and math. One cannot put such a research on hold. Changes are measured and analyzed through time. Thus we hear that some young scientists may not be hired by universities to start new projects.

Thus, I was wondering whether the new group: Breakthrough Prize in Life Science -

http://www.breakthroughprizeinlifesciences.org/ that recently announced the award of $3 million each, to 12 scientists - will be able to come to the rescue. And then I thought: no, government does have a responsibility to sponsor basic research in academia and research institutes.

Earlier today, there was a story about how funds for the Washington D.C. Zoo may be affected, of studying a tiger who may, or may not, be pregnant. And, again, I thought, will the zoo be able to start a fund drive to help?

And then I wonder whether this is the goal. Continuing on Romeny's Big Bird idea. Stop any government funding for worthy causes and replace the support with ones from private individuals and organization.

Many years ago I heard about an Indian activist who was not happy with the work of Mother Teresa. Her work, the activist claimed, absolved the Indian government from responsibility for the poor and the sick.

A responsive government does carry responsibility to support scientific research, the art, national parks including zoos, the poor, the sick and the elderly and, of course, safe roads and bridges, food and water supply.

But, of course, this is not what they want.

I hope that the first airport to experience flight delays will be the one in D.C. Many members of Congress fly to their homes. Let them be the first the experience the effect. And, of course, before letting any federal employee go on furlough, let cut the salaries and benefits of members of Congress. Many of them are millionaires, anyway.

[drm604]

1. Of course it is. This is the ultimate goal of everything they do.

They say so themselves. They've signed a pledge to a man who wants to "drown it in a bathtub".

[silverweb]

2. Yes.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]And to make a profit off said private groups.

[greymattermom]

3. NIH is critical for new discoveries

Private donors will want cures for the conditions they have. Drug companies will want you to do research to extend the market for currently approved drugs. Neither are interested in new discoveries. Those will be left to other countries, and their companies will market the new knowledge. This takes time, but it will happen. Look at what's happening with stem cell research.
http://goldsea.com/Text/index.php?id=12640

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. That is of course the goal...the problem, as Hoover found out, is that private groups can't do it

Only government can support modern societies. The opposition to that support is ideological in the worst sense - a belief that refuses to grapple with evidence and reality. The notion that private charities can pick up the entirety of the need in modern societies is childish nonsense. They can't even pick up 1/1000th of the need. It's pure idiocy.

[question everything]

5. This is what I think. But people do not think beyond their immediate

surrounding.

People always think that it is not their problem, or that it will "work out." And we cannot tell the damage to biomedical research until decades down the road.

In general, Congress has had a history of disdaining research. Democrats, mainly. "The Golden Fleece" award, and hauling a Nobel laureate in front of a committee to explain how he runs his lab.

Now, of course, with so many ignoramuses among the Republicans, they will take the lead trashing science.