Clay, I never thought you picked fights. I haven't been offended by anything you've said, not that my offense would be your responsibility anyway <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

I agree with much of what you said above. My view of your position on this issue has changed considerably. I also think that government involvement is science can be ethically questionable. However, I do think it's important to consider that problematic government involvement dependents on the type of science. I worked at a federally funded research institute for 6 years (NIEHS) and I can say that the science we did in the lab and the papers we published (still writing them) was not overseen or influenced by government agenda at all. I could have done whatever I liked and I did. But medical research will only serve to help the government and cost them less. It would be hard to make the situation worst for the government in that case. The other problem is if the government didn't spend millions and millions of dollars on medical research, who would pay for it? Yes, there are other sources of funding, but not in the same league as NIH.

Having said that, other science should be conducted independently of government. Climate research is one example of where the government could benefit greatly from censorship.

Whatever the government's motive for funding NIH is, while that money is spent for the greater good, I'm happy.

<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" />