Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Science
Related: About this forumTrump's Pick for Budget Director Isn't Sure the Government Should Fund Scientific Research
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/trumps-pick-budget-director-isnt-sure-government-should-fund-scientific-researchIf confirmed by the Senate to lead the Office of Management and Budget, Mulvaney, a deficit hawk who recently spoke before a chapter of the right-wing-fringe John Birch Society, would be in charge of crafting Trump's budget and overseeing the functioning of federal agencies. One thing he seems to believe the budget and the agencies should not be funding is research into diseases like the Zika virus.
Two weeks before Congress finally passed more than $1 billion to fight the spread of Zika and its effects, Mulvaney questioned whether the government should fund any scientific research. "[D]o we need government-funded research at all," he wrote in a Facebook post on September 9 unearthed by the Democratic opposition research group American Bridge. Mulvaney appears to have deleted his Facebook page since then.
If there wasn't a trend to Trump's cabinet picks I would be less worried, but all of them believe in regressive, anarcho-capitalist "the market will solve it" principles.
And we're screwed anyway: Trump already wants to scrap climate change research.
If Mulvaney guts funding, and you're an epidemiologist whose area of expertise is vaccines, and you don't depend on funding from pharmaceutical companies to avoid conflict of interest, you're screwed.
Our Government research agencies are the bedrock for R&D, gutting agencies will see us lose ground to China and Russia, and affect researchers or all stripes directly.
#GoodGoingAmerica
#YouDidIt
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 2771 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump's Pick for Budget Director Isn't Sure the Government Should Fund Scientific Research (Original Post)
JHan
Dec 2016
OP
Turbineguy
(37,324 posts)1. A nice epidemic
would depopulate the country nicely.
Nice in the republican sense.
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)2. We could call it a Final Market Solution.
Turbineguy
(37,324 posts)3. We should really stop with the Hitler references.
It's not fair to Germans. They did not elect this guy.
OK, just this once: Eindmarktlossung.
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)5. On the other hand, there's no sense reinventing the wheel.
Give credit where credit is due, I say.
JHan
(10,173 posts)4. And Trump is going to put the money where we most need it....
Defense Funding.
Because our military industrial complex isn't YUUUUUGGGGEEE enough..
Girard442
(6,070 posts)6. Apparently Mulvaney's grand ambition...
...is to die atop a giant heap of money, of a disease that could have been prevented if only the CDC had been able to research it.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)7. Unless DARPA or the DoD
Someone ought to ask him which research programs over at DARPA he wants to defund, or those in the many labs that the DoD runs.
JHan
(10,173 posts)8. they will never touch those, trump is going to expand "research" in those areas...
even if it breaks the budget.