Perle's Intellectuals- "Jewish people are smarter than everyone else, which is why there is anti-Semitism"

http://www.actionlyme.org/PERLES_INTELLECTUALS.htm

I don't think they're smart, so I must not be anti-Semitic.

I don't think crime is smart, so I don't think Jews are smart.

Are you going to deny that the NeoCons did not ruin this country and
"Lyme Disease?"

Shall we parse the races here in this crime?

Phil Molloy
Edward McSweegan
John J. Connolly
Dave Persing? unknown

I think the rest of the criminals are all Jewish:
Robert Schoen, Allen Steere, Lenny Sigal (perjurer), Eugene Shapiro
(perjurer), John Nowakowski (?), Barbour, Klempner, Henry Feder, Larry
Zemel, Arthur Weinstein, Gary Wormser, ...

It was a very stupid crime.

Therefore I am not anti-Semitic.

In fact, such stupidity and arrogance has my sympathy, since CT and NY
got no grants and their researchers are leaving the country for
European research positions. In fact, James Watson believes such
stupidity as we have seen here in the Lyme crimes should be treated (I
agree. Treated with life imprisonment):

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-usnih195421341oct19,0,6591440.story


Federal grants leave LI research labs wanting

BY MARTIN C. EVANS.martin.evans@xxxxxxxxxxx
October 19, 2007


Her work coaxing full-grown mice from stem cells at Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory held such promise to unlock secrets of childhood brain
tumors that the prestigious science journal Cell published her results
in February.

But when Alea Mills applied for a grant from the National Institutes
of Health to continue her research, the agency turned her down because
the growing number of grant requests had outpaced its ability to pay.

Saying a virtual four-year freeze on federal grants threatens to choke
off research that Mills and others are doing at Long Island's major
research facilities, leaders there are calling on Congress to boost
the NIH budget for next year.

"It is probably the worst period of science funding in recent
history," said Bruce Stillman, president of Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory.

The Senate is expected to approve a bill today calling for a 3.5
percent increase in NIH spending.

But the Senate's proposed $1-billion increase, as well as a House
measure passed earlier this year authorizing a smaller $750-million
boost, are opposed by President George W. Bush. He has proposed a
nearly 1 percent cut to the agency's $28.9-billion budget.

"We made great strides with NIH funding in the '90s and now we're
plodding along," said Rep. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton), a former
Southampton College provost. "I'm concerned about our ability to
continue to do the work we need to do at that level of increase."

Scientists at Long Island's three principal research facilities -
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Stony Brook University and Cold Spring
Harbor - say the halt in spending growth is forcing researchers to
scale back ambitious projects in an era when science is poised to make
critical breakthroughs.

"We're probably going to lose a large proportion of young researchers,
and that is really serious for the country," said Fritz Henn,
associate director of life sciences at Brookhaven. "In health research
we can't afford it because the research is moving so fast."

After its support for science research doubled to $27.1 billion
between 1998 and 2003 - spawning a boom in lab expansions and drawing
new scientists into research - NIH spending hit a wall and has grown
to only $28.9 billion since then.

With inflation chipping away the value of its grants, NIH's budget
would have had to have been nearly $2 billion bigger just to keep up
with its 2003 purchasing power.

Less money means fewer NIH grants, which have long been the lifeblood
of biological research in America's universities, an NIH official
said.

"You put those together, the flat budget and the increased demand for
dollars, and the success rate has really decreased," said Dr. Norka
Ruiz Bravo, the NIH administrator of research grants.

In 2003, Cold Spring Harbor won 77 NIH grants totaling $29.1 million,
according to NIH data. Last year, it won 68 grants totaling $29.6
million - a net loss after inflation.

The funding shortfall has also made NIH grant administrators more
cautious about sending money to younger scientists - when their
creativity is greatest and their career choices are being made.

The relative funding freeze means some scientists are thinking of
leaving the country - or leaving research altogether - just as their
years of graduate study begin to pay off.

Ingrid Bureau, a 30-something biologist who studied nerve signaling in
mice at Cold Spring Harbor, relocated this year to Marseilles after
winning a French grant to set up a lab there.

"The fact that the number of NIH grants dropped helped me make my
decision," Bureau said in an e-mail interview. "It's particularly
difficult for young PIs [principal investigators] to get one."

One of her former colleagues is contemplating a career in finance.
Another close friend left in July for a business position in
Switzerland.

Nationwide, the number of NIH grants fell by 1,282 between 2003 and
2006, a 12 percent drop.

Brookhaven, which saw its NIH funding fall from $13.5 million in 2003
to $7.7 million last year, has had to scramble to retain scientists.

Brookhaven's Henn said a researcher there is working on a half-time
appointment because an NIH grant covering his work was denied. The
scientist, Avraham Dilmanian, published research on an X-ray scalpel
last year in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

To be sure, the federal government spends enormous amounts on area
biological research.

NIH grants pumped more than $127 million into Long Island institutions
large and small last year, including $18.7million for biomedical
research at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, and $423,449 to
Biopeptides, a Stony Brook spinoff developing a baited vaccine to keep
mice from spreading Lyme disease.

Private donors provide billions more for research nationwide.

But researchers say private donors are no substitute for NIH money
because donors often insist on shaping the studies their contributions
pay for, rather than allowing scientists to think creatively.

"I think people more and more are not able to do risky science," Mills
said, adding that she will re-apply to NIH.

"This was the first grant I was absolutely sure I would get," said
Mills. "We had such beautiful data."

More articles

Copyright © 2007, Newsday Inc.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... How can you hold him accountable for the science he hasn't ... how scientists work, how they apply for funding, how they organise ... While running the NIH will be ... to a request for grant money in researching the virgin birth as a real ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... He has never practiced in science in that area. ... how scientists work, how they apply for funding, how they organise ... While running the NIH will be ... He may well have lots of unscientific, even unreasonable beliefs ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Global Warming Irony
    ... in the more general sense the method of funding science is badly ... in terms of NIH grants a panel of scientists usually decides how to ... Don't get me started on the NIH. ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... thousands of scientific fields in which he has not practiced science. ... how scientists work, how they apply for funding, how they organise ... While running the NIH will be ... Has he declared these will influence the way he will administer NIH? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Did they miss the memo?
    ... The NIH budget doubling inspired ... there are now so many new researchers applying for NIH grants (to pay ... However, with the bulk of NIH and NSF money basically earmarked for US soil, the question really becomes for $ X billions in grant money, what number, Y, of projects can be supported when grant success rates are running around 10%. ... then the lower cost nations will surpass US ...
    (sci.research.careers)