Quantcast
McCain and Bears: The Saga Continues Print E-mail
Written by Dave Loos   
Wednesday, 12 March 2008

We're guessing John McCain's staff never saw this one coming, but you can bet that every joke the GOP nominee makes on the campaign trail from now on is going to go through a thorough background check.

What started as a quip about wasteful government spending on a bear DNA project has turned into scores of miffed scientists, which turned into a 2,000-word Washington Post story, which today turned into a New York Times editorial with the headline "McCain Misfires at Grizzlies."

"If Mr. McCain wants to make serious critiques of research spending — and keep his reputation as a credible opponent of government waste — he and his staff need to be more careful and a lot more science-literate," said the Times. Sure, it wasn't the lead editorial -- that honor goes to a little New York sex scandal you may have heard of -- but it's still kind of crazy to see a throw-away line get so much attention. Of course, the criticism is well-deserved

There's only one thing McCain can do now: Schedule a press conference, and -- with a grizzly bear standing by by his side -- apologize to all bears and scientists for his poor judgment and lack of understanding. He should be contrite, humble and remorseful. If he's lucky, the animals will forgive him. As for whether McCain forgives the staffer who suggested he include the DNA study along with the Woodstock Museum and Bridge To Nowhere in his campaign rhetoric, well, that might be asking a bit much.

Speaking of congressional staffers, have you ever wondered what your old colleague, roommate or ex-significant other is making as a legislative assistant or deputy chief of staff up on the Hill? Um, neither have we. But, in case you are a little curious, we just discovered this neat site. Enjoy.

Comments
Add NewSearch
MarkR - WOW!   | 207.207.43.xxx | 2008-03-12 19:21:14
first thanks for the link to the article it sheds some good light on the study.

but you failed to summarize that the study was $5 million not $3 mil. second, 2560 DNA samples collected and each one would fit in a small zip lock bag all for the small sum of $5 million? that comes out too $1,953 per zip lock bag of hair. Are you freaking kidding almost $2K per hair sample? and some of those samples were of the same bear at different sites so its likely more than $2k per bear. Yes, that IS A HUGE, BEHEMOTH SLAB OF FATTY PORK. What the hell do they think money grows on? trees? Sure its not as bad as some other pork spending but Holy freekin' cow, $2k per zip lock bag of hair. Amazing. Wow at least we know the freaking bear has a huge population and isn't endangered now. sounds like this bear princess needs to find a new job, because no more pork for you...
MarkR   | 207.207.43.xxx | 2008-03-12 19:30:03
Ya know I really cant stand McCain almost as much as I loath Hillary. But he's looking real good to me now. Lets just see how the VP announcements shape up.
MarkR   | 207.207.43.xxx | 2008-03-14 08:47:36
George, speaking of ignorant rants. I'm sorry where in the article was Iraq mentioned? It wasn't, Iraq is not the topic so don't change the subject. besides I never said I supported the Iraq invasion. Now if you want to talk about waste look at the facts. but instead you look like you would rather ignore the fact that this is waste just because there is more waste elsewhere. Waste is waste no matter if its a bridge to nowhere or a $2k per pinch of hair bear study. I'm not questioning the dedication of the scientists. Like most Americans they will spend more than needed and go over board because they are getting free money. Most people will ask for 5 million when they know 1.5 million will do just as good. $2k per small zip lock bag of hair that you can pinch between your fingers is over board. The amount spent on these minuscule hair samples is crazy. Now if you think $2k per pinch of hair is justified thats fine please cut the scientist a check so I don't have to. but I don't think you do, I think you would rather hold onto your bias and excuse the waste because its not as bad as other waste. Waste is waste is waste, even if it is a pinch of hair that had $2K spent on it. $

Just because you are antiwar don't let your liberal elegance blind you to truth about wasteful government spending in all areas of the budget.
Charlie Lawton     | 71.237.89.xxx | 2008-03-14 12:31:16
"Are you freaking kidding almost $2K per hair sample?"

As somebody who's done some molecular biology research - microbiology, but the lab work is similar - let me weigh in on this one.

$2K is fairly unsurprising for this type of research.

First, you've got to pay to obtain the sample. That means flying a researcher out to Alaska, equipping and feeding him/her, providing a base of operations, and the equipment to tranquilize a bear to collect that hair sample. I've planned sampling trips of that nature and you're spending $1500, minimum, per researcher, plus salaries.

Then you get it back to the lab. You'd need a DNA extraction kit, which run between $200 and $300 for 20 extractions. For over 2,000 extractions, do the math on that. Also, you're paying a lab tech somewhere between $15-20 an hour to do all of that.

Then you do PCR, a chemical process to replicate the DNA. The reagents for this process are expensive, and so is the equipment to put the reaction through precisely metered thermal cycles. A thermal cycler is $10K, and the PCR reagents are around $15 per reaction. Needless to say, you'd need to do one reaction per bear at the bare minimum, and I'd do more - between 6 and 8. Also, this assumes that the PCR works right away and that you only do one, which usually doesn't happen.

Then you need to get that DNA sequenced. Depending on the length of the sequence and how many sequences you get, this runs easily to $250. Depending on if they needed to insert the sequences into bacterial cells to create sufficient quantities of

I don't know the budget for this study and exactly what they spent on what. But as a researcher who's done similar stuff, I'd say that's right on line and probably not excessive. I might suggest that those unfamiliar with how research is done not jump to conclusions on what's an appropriate or inappropriate, budget-wise. Science isn't cheap; I've gotten grants for $20k that I spent in their entirety for a summer of very simple research. Equipment, salary, supplies, and time all add up.
Charlie Lawton - re:     | 71.237.89.xxx | 2008-03-14 12:32:54
Then you do PCR, a chemical process to replicate the DNA. The reagents for this process are expensive, and so is the equipment to put the reaction through precisely metered thermal cycles. A thermal cycler is $10K, and the PCR reagents are around $15 per reaction. Needless to say, you'd need to do one reaction per bear at the bare minimum, and I'd do more - between 6 and 8. Also, this assumes that the PCR works right away and that you only do one, which usually doesn't happen.

Then you need to get that DNA sequenced. Depending on the length of the sequence and how many sequences you get, this runs easily to $250. Depending on if they needed to insert the sequences into bacterial cells to create sufficient quantities of

I don't know the budget for this study and exactly what they spent on what. But as a researcher who's done similar stuff, I'd say that's right on line and probably not excessive. I might suggest that those unfamiliar with how research is done not jump to conclusions on what's an appropriate or inappropriate, budget-wise. Science isn't cheap; I've gotten grants for $20k that I spent in their entirety for a summer of very simple research. Equipment, salary, supplies, and time all add up.
MarkR   | 207.207.43.xxx | 2008-03-14 19:18:48
Charlie,

No offense, you sound well educated in this area and thats great, you have my respect. But let me clarify, I'm not questioning that it didn't cost $2,000 per pinch of hair. when you have over 200 people collecting the stuff at hundreds of locations its gonna get expensive, and it was Montana not Alaska, but that doesn't matter.
Look you could audit the books and probably find that the money was properly spent according to the study. I'm not calling the scientist a fraud I'm sure she is a good scientist. What I disagree with is the fact that we are spending $2000 on a pinch of hair from a bear x 2560 samples. I'm sure the quality of work is good if not great. But again, $5 million is excessive. The population is growing they aren't endangered because of the protections we've placed on them so In my mind this is an excessive wasteful study. I'm not saying the information is incorrect, I'm saying it wasn't needed. boom, $5 million saved or $5 million that could have been disbursed to the rangers to protect the animals from us.
MarkR   | 207.207.43.xxx | 2008-03-14 19:19:41
or $5 million that could have been spent on rangers to protect the animals from us.
MarkR   | 207.207.43.xxx | 2008-03-14 19:26:32
OK let me clarify my last statements since if your not in my mind you would think I'm contradicting my self.

when I say 1.5 million will do I mean they didn't need to collect as many samples not they should have low balled it. to say you need exactly 2560 samples at 2k a pop and that would be 5 million is false. They should have been just as enlightened and informed with 750 samples. thats all I'm saying. or what ever number you can collect with 1.5 million or less. but yes I still think $2K per pinch of hair is to expensive. I would have preferred the study not be done.
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
 
 

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.

 
< Prev   Next >

Hi, We're EnviroWonk

Yeah, OK, we can be the change that we want to see in the world. But unless powerful people in powerful positions want to be that change as well, nothing's going to change.

So now, finally, there's a place where you can go for news and analysis of politics from an environmental perspective.

Weekly Updates

RSS

rss