Advertisement

krishtalka (Kris Krishtalka)

Follow

Comment history

Letter: Wasted money

Dear Mr. Penny.
Thank you for your letter in response the May 1 op-ed. Following are links to all the Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry, Physics and Economic Sciences and the discoveries that won them the prize, from DNA and protein synthesis, to subatomic particles and artificial intelligence, to computers, graphene and nanotechnologies, to macroeconomics and market forces, and hundreds more.

Virtually all of these discoveries make possible some aspect of your day-to-day life and health, were made by these winners in academic science laboratories and environments, and were funded by what you term as "wasteful" dollars. The Nobel Prize in Medicine adds many more discoveries to the list. So would a Nobel Prize in Engineering or Biology, if they were given.

Then there are the hundreds of thousands of science discoveries at universities that don't win a Novel Prize, but are critical to our existence, ways of life, and understanding the universe we live in and the Earth we live on. As important are the arts and humanities that help us make sense of this knowledge and apply it wisely.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prize...

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prize...

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prize...

May 19, 2014 at 11:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Historic horse inspires Mexican artist's installation-in-progress at Spencer Museum

Ms. Shepherd, Comanche is NOT "the sole survivor of the Battle of Little Big Horn," merely the sole survivor on the U.S. Cavalry side, which lost the battle. Many Sioux, who won the battle, survived. Please print a correction. The KU Natural History Museum is pleased to be collaborating with the Spencer Museum of Art and Diego Teo on this project and we invite audiences to see it unfold in both venues. Leonard Krishtalka, Director, Biodiversity Institute and Natural History Museum.

October 6, 2013 at 5:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Nature loves a female breadwinner

Tanzer: No one knows what science or nature Erickson is referring to, apparently not even Erickson himself! And no one on the Lou Dobbs show seemed to care---apparently they don't have fact-checking.

June 17, 2013 at 7:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What kind of pope should we hope for?

Thanks for the dialogue. The op-ed is pointedly future-oriented: 1. learn from the mistakes of the past not to repeat them and to lead the church into the future, i.e., exercise the moral authority to clean the future Church of its criminal cover-ups and deniers of the truth; (2) let the Church be an outspoken, moral force in sustaining the planetary environments into the future---the animals, plants, microbes, oceans, lakes, rivers, and landscapes that the Church reveres as God's creation.

March 16, 2013 at 11:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Science should be part of presidential debate

Rep. Johnson was joking, using the humor as a metaphor for how the stationing of the all the marines and their families on Guam would threaten the delicate environmental sustainability of the island---which he explained the post session interviews.

September 11, 2012 at 6:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Knowledge punched by pundits in 2011

Thanks Doug. I could not have said it better. I hope that the electorate will expect their presidential candidates, and their representatives at the federal, state and local levels to demand and rely on the best science to solve the complex challenges of our current and future times.

January 3, 2012 at 7:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Knowledge punched by pundits in 2011

Thanks George for the comment, but, just to clarify the dialogue, the op-ed was not about increasing spending on higher education. It was about
(a) not taking the shortsighted view of restricting higher ed investment to alleged "jobs disciplines" (Gov. Scott);
(b) not dissing or dismissing responsible, established science and science education on the basis of a pundit's or politician's personal beliefs or election posturing or discomfort with the facts (Bachmann, Santorum, Perry); and
(c) not making deliberately irresponsible social science conclusions about the causes of reprehensible human behavior by avoiding a much larger history of that reprehensible behavior, which instantly disproves the conclusions (Cal Thomas).

January 3, 2012 at 2:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Let U.S. students tackle all the tough issues

To Devobrun, Fossick and George

1. Science, as an activity, discovers knowledge by observation and experiment and by testing the results of both, continuously, so that previous results are either tossed, emended or enlarged. As such, the body of knowledge is always in flux, never fixed, and constantly growing in volume and depth and resolution. All people do science all the time and apply the results.
2. Anyone who reads a newspaper, or checks Google News, and does a bit of facts/figures research could have written the op-ed piece and raised the five examples I did, or many other examples of issues we face that are informed by complex analyses involving many sciences and other fields of human endeavor.
3. That was the point---a candidate for the presidency should not be dissing science just because he (e.g., Perry)/she (e.g., Bachmann) finds some of its findings to be unpopular or uncomfortable, while readily accepting those findings that are popular and comfortable. It's not the way they would treat a medical diagnosis---if the news is bad, I don't believe it; if the checkup is good, I believe it. Knowledge is not determined by referendum
4. The fact that some of the issues the op-ed raised remain undecided after many years reflects either competing scientific evidence, or competing social values, or competing political, economic and community interests, or all five. Science tries to provide the best information available at the moment on which to base a smart decision. After that, it's a free-for-all of competing interests.

September 4, 2011 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Let U.S. students tackle all the tough issues

Fossick

Two points to keep in mind: (1) science is rarely absolute (except for true laws, such as the speed of light), so there is not 100% certainty about the scientific solution to a problem; more evidence increases the odds understanding the complexities and of making the right decision.
(2) Ultimately, the decisions I wrote about and you refer to are political/social; We hope that science informs the best political/social solution.

September 4, 2011 at 7:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Let U.S. students tackle all the tough issues

In response to Dowser, I agree completely that all our students should be discussing and analyzing these science issues in class---it might be the best way to learn science. My point was that Gov. Perry, in cloning Michele Bachmann's anti-science rhetoric to appeal to the tea party/Republican right, came out against teaching science in the science classroom when it came to evolution or global climate change or other science they'd like to dismiss out of hand. So my piece was a parody of his attitude about dismissing science in other critical challenges facing the nation. It is not reassuring that the Republican candidates --- except for Huntsman!---think that dissing science is the litmus test for winning the primaries. Those are not the values I want in a president.

September 3, 2011 at 11:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous