To cite research involving fruit flies as frivolous is ludicrious considering fruit fly research (including, but not limited to the autism findings) has been crucial for scientists over the years. Studies using the flies have uncovered a wealth of knowledge put to work in treating human cancers. Don’t believe little ol’ me? How about the Journal of the National Cancer Institute? http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/95/23/1742
We learned about fruit flies in science class in high school folks, and yet a vice presidential candidate shouldn’t be expected to know that fruit fly research isn’t frivolous? What should she be expected to know then?
I agree with Mamallama. If she is going to run around calling herself “Our special needs advocate” than she needs to have her facts straight and her research fully vetted! The fact remains, if she is doesn’t know about something, she needs to turn off the bullshit (’cause she’s not good at it) and keep her mouth shut about it!
And research is exactly what Palin should have done before she decided to make comments. No, she is not a scientist…but if she wants to discuss scientific experiments, why not research the reasons behind it and then make a decision.
Most likely she was just trying to find something inflammatory to get people going and assumes that the majority of people who are going to vote for her won’t do any research either (otherwise they probably wouldn’t vote for her!).
Reading over her comment, it sure looks to me as though she is specifically mocking research that uses fruit flies to learn about autism. But why would we expect any less of this awful woman? She doesn’t believe in the principles of the scientific method, but who needs investigation when their wacko extremist church obviously has all the answers? I can’t wait til next wednesday when she takes her fancy wardrobe and leaves the spotlight for good.
I didn’t hear the speech, but I think the headline is misleading based on the excerpt in the post. And in your defense, you say, “If she didn’t know about the autism research…that’s just embarrassing for her.” But I think you’re holding her to an impossibly high standard here. Yes, she’s an advocate for special needs kids because she has one, but I think it’s really unrealistic to expect her to know everything about every bit of research that is out there (note that gpgirl above is a scientist, and wasn’t aware of it either). I hardly think it’s “embarrassing” to not know about one specific kind of research, especially when “special needs kids research” must encompass a huge variety of projects.
Plus, based on your excerpt, she was making a point about funding for frivolous research, and while it obviously wasn’t a great example to use fruit flies because of the autism research, she pretty clearly wasn’t referring specifically to that. I’m pretty sure she would agree that autism research isn’t frivolous, but that doesn’t rule out the idea that there ARE frivolous studies out there, and better ones that end up going unfunded.
But hey, any opportunity to make her look bad, right?
In defense of the headline, Palin was giving a speech on special needs kids, a group of people on whom she claims to be an expert. She specifically mentioned the need for better care for autistic children. Then she poked fun at a type of research that is very important to advances in autism treatment. If she didn’t know about the autism research involving fruit flies, that’s just embarrassing for her and it calls the legitimacy of her whole speech into question. And if she did know about the fruit fly study and poked fun anyway, that’s just wrong. Either way, knowingly or not, she mocked autism research.
oh please…yes, sarah palin obviously doesn’t know much about science, but the specific project she was referring to had to do with olive trees, not autism…your headline is intentionally misleading (or you didn’t take time out to get the facts straight)
I agree…very misleading, and not fair. Just like the “N” word blog, we still don’t even know if the word was said and if she heard it and she gets crapped on. Layoff and stick to the important facts.
ohslowburn beat me to it. I really, really do not like Sarah Palin, but your headline was so misleading. I always think of these kinds of tactics to be coming from the Republicans. There are enough significant reasons to dislike her, why manipulate the issue. I didn’t even know fruit flies were being used for autism research, and I am a scientist. How would someone like Sarah Palin know this?
I can’t believe I’m taking up for the woman – who I find scary – but your headline is utterly misleading.
She was making fun of science in general. Not autism specifically. And frankly, nuts as I find her, I don’t think she’d make fun of autism research. Not with her Downs kid. That just doesn’t wash.
“To sneer at such research displays either extreme stupidity or a dangerous lack of concern for the opinions of the vast majority of her would-be constituents.”
I think both have been well documented since she was selected to run with McCain. She is aggressively stupid, in a way that simply boggles my mind. When I think of all the people I’ve met at work, in school, or in social settings, I’m hard pressed to think of one of them that seemed less intelligent than Sarah Palin. Oh, and none of them are running for VP.
Am I allowed to ask everyone to vote for Obama? Pretty please? I don’t think my stomach can take much more of this woman and I’d like her to go away now.
No one should be too surprised at this point to hear that
To cite research involving fruit flies as frivolous is ludicrious considering fruit fly research (including, but not limited to the autism findings) has been crucial for scientists over the years. Studies using the flies have uncovered a wealth of knowledge put to work in treating human cancers. Don’t believe little ol’ me? How about the Journal of the National Cancer Institute? http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/95/23/1742
We learned about fruit flies in science class in high school folks, and yet a vice presidential candidate shouldn’t be expected to know that fruit fly research isn’t frivolous? What should she be expected to know then?
I agree with Mamallama. If she is going to run around calling herself “Our special needs advocate” than she needs to have her facts straight and her research fully vetted! The fact remains, if she is doesn’t know about something, she needs to turn off the bullshit (’cause she’s not good at it) and keep her mouth shut about it!
And research is exactly what Palin should have done before she decided to make comments. No, she is not a scientist…but if she wants to discuss scientific experiments, why not research the reasons behind it and then make a decision.
Most likely she was just trying to find something inflammatory to get people going and assumes that the majority of people who are going to vote for her won’t do any research either (otherwise they probably wouldn’t vote for her!).
In response to moviegirl:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp
Please do some research before you spew rubbish all over the place.
Reading over her comment, it sure looks to me as though she is specifically mocking research that uses fruit flies to learn about autism. But why would we expect any less of this awful woman? She doesn’t believe in the principles of the scientific method, but who needs investigation when their wacko extremist church obviously has all the answers? I can’t wait til next wednesday when she takes her fancy wardrobe and leaves the spotlight for good.
I didn’t hear the speech, but I think the headline is misleading based on the excerpt in the post. And in your defense, you say, “If she didn’t know about the autism research…that’s just embarrassing for her.” But I think you’re holding her to an impossibly high standard here. Yes, she’s an advocate for special needs kids because she has one, but I think it’s really unrealistic to expect her to know everything about every bit of research that is out there (note that gpgirl above is a scientist, and wasn’t aware of it either). I hardly think it’s “embarrassing” to not know about one specific kind of research, especially when “special needs kids research” must encompass a huge variety of projects.
Plus, based on your excerpt, she was making a point about funding for frivolous research, and while it obviously wasn’t a great example to use fruit flies because of the autism research, she pretty clearly wasn’t referring specifically to that. I’m pretty sure she would agree that autism research isn’t frivolous, but that doesn’t rule out the idea that there ARE frivolous studies out there, and better ones that end up going unfunded.
But hey, any opportunity to make her look bad, right?
In defense of the headline, Palin was giving a speech on special needs kids, a group of people on whom she claims to be an expert. She specifically mentioned the need for better care for autistic children. Then she poked fun at a type of research that is very important to advances in autism treatment. If she didn’t know about the autism research involving fruit flies, that’s just embarrassing for her and it calls the legitimacy of her whole speech into question. And if she did know about the fruit fly study and poked fun anyway, that’s just wrong. Either way, knowingly or not, she mocked autism research.
oh please…yes, sarah palin obviously doesn’t know much about science, but the specific project she was referring to had to do with olive trees, not autism…your headline is intentionally misleading (or you didn’t take time out to get the facts straight)
please read this for the sake of all American’s;
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1099313/barrack_obama_where_did_the_money_come.html?page=1&cat=9
I agree…very misleading, and not fair. Just like the “N” word blog, we still don’t even know if the word was said and if she heard it and she gets crapped on. Layoff and stick to the important facts.
ohslowburn beat me to it. I really, really do not like Sarah Palin, but your headline was so misleading. I always think of these kinds of tactics to be coming from the Republicans. There are enough significant reasons to dislike her, why manipulate the issue. I didn’t even know fruit flies were being used for autism research, and I am a scientist. How would someone like Sarah Palin know this?
I can’t believe I’m taking up for the woman – who I find scary – but your headline is utterly misleading.
She was making fun of science in general. Not autism specifically. And frankly, nuts as I find her, I don’t think she’d make fun of autism research. Not with her Downs kid. That just doesn’t wash.
“To sneer at such research displays either extreme stupidity or a dangerous lack of concern for the opinions of the vast majority of her would-be constituents.”
I think both have been well documented since she was selected to run with McCain. She is aggressively stupid, in a way that simply boggles my mind. When I think of all the people I’ve met at work, in school, or in social settings, I’m hard pressed to think of one of them that seemed less intelligent than Sarah Palin. Oh, and none of them are running for VP.
Am I allowed to ask everyone to vote for Obama? Pretty please? I don’t think my stomach can take much more of this woman and I’d like her to go away now.
Good thing she’s going to be McCain’s autism expert: http://tinyurl.com/4xockp