
How a Shrimp Treadmill Became a Political Plaything - benbreen
http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/11/13/how-a-47-shrimp-treadmill-became-a-3-million-political-plaything/
======
sharkweek
I highly recommend folks watch Particle Fever (for a variety of reasons, and
it's on Netflix), but one section particularly stuck out, when the documentary
addresses the original LHC location in Texas being de-funded. It shows members
of congress arguing how "discovering the origins of the universe" should not
be a priority.

I think it's easy to make a very public argument against budgeting research,
as the general public doesn't necessarily understand the larger implications
of these experiments (at a cursory glance, I rarely see it myself, but I
generally give research the benefit of the doubt). Particle Fever addresses
this point blank with the discovery of Radio Waves, how nobody really knew
what this discovery meant until years/decades later when it became a massive
step forward in communication.

My dad is a bit old fashioned, and if you told him in a soundbite that
congress was spending money on shrimp treadmills, with no other context he'd
immediately make his snap judgement that the government is once again wasting
his money. Hard thing to overcome, no matter how important the research might
end up being.

~~~
wozniacki
When these topics, concerning the general disinterestedness and the
indifference of the voting populace toward science and technology come up, one
is left to wonder how it is even arithmetically possible in 2014, that there
isn't yet a financially lofty interest-group apparatus in Washington,
advancing policies that collectively foster the cause of basic research in
science & tech.

Where are the think tanks?

Where are the high powered K-street lobbyists?

( I'm discounting the nascent and newfangled lobby groups, here.[1] )

We could not even help elect a single legislator in our own backyard.[2]

Surely, it certainly isn't for the lack of war-chests.

What is it then?

Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut
the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like
clockwork.[3]

I know images of a bleak and soulless future rings more bells at the box
office than visions of a verdant tech-enabled one.

Nonetheless, tens of millions of people watch these movies to nurture their
already well-developed dislike for science & rational thought on one side and
their embrace of religious dogma and superstition on the other.

[1] Tech Firms and Lobbyists: Now Intertwined, but Not Eager to Reveal It

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-
lobb...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-lobbyists-
now-intertwined-but-not-eager-to-reveal-it.html?_r=0)

[2] Tech Industry Flexes Muscle in California Race

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-
industry-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-industry-
flexes-muscle-in-california-race.html)

[3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809/Blade-
Runner-The-Final-Cut-review.html)

~~~
jacobolus
> _Heck, there isn 't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even
> rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like
> clockwork.[3]

> [3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review_

Can you explain this one? I don’t understand why journalists should be
“rebutting” SF movies from the early 80s.

I have never heard someone use the plot of Blade Runner as any kind of policy
advice... which makes sense because we’re not living in the aftermath of a
nuclear war, and we don’t have to deal with escaped androids from off-world
colonies. Most of the Blade Runner fans (and fans of the Dick novel) I’ve met
are bullish on technology.

~~~
wozniacki
It pays to actually explore the links, provided.

    
    
      There are some people who prefer the original's gritty
      Chandleresque voice-over narration and the ambiguous happy 
      ending (both supposedly forced on Scott), but the Final
      Cut is a more disturbing tale of dehumanisation.

~~~
lmartel
I have to agree with the sibling comment here, I still have no idea what
you're getting at with the Blade Runner stuff or how it ties into the rest of
your point.

~~~
wozniacki
You have me truly puzzled over whether you are feigning incomprehension over
this or you honestly don't get what the ordinary joe six-pack or the average
hockey mom makes of a future filled with dehumanizing conditions for mankind
when coupled with the film's vivid representation of replicants [1] not to
mention the deluge of postindustrial decay in its imagery.

If you are truly clueless of how those images translate to the "Normals" [2]
whose only introduction to anything remotely scientific is a staple diet of
Ancient Aliens [3] and similar pseudoscience shows on History Channel, then
you could really use a road trip through the flyover states of America.

Strike that. Just venture into Tracy or Morgan Hill or Walnut Creek, if you
live in the Bay Area.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant)

[2] [http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/31/the-only-normal-people-
are-...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/31/the-only-normal-people-are-the-ones-
you-dont-know/)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens)

~~~
pyre
> You have me truly puzzled over whether you are feigning incomprehension over
> this or you honestly don't get what the ordinary joe six-pack or the average
> hockey mom makes of a future filled with dehumanizing conditions for mankind
> when coupled with the film's vivid representation of replicants [1] not to
> mention the deluge of postindustrial decay in its imagery.

The point that you are making will always seem clear as day to you because you
are the one that believes it. The onus is on _you_ to make sure that the rest
of the world can understand it if you want to effectively communicate with
others. If you have multiple people saying that they don't understand you,
throwing up your hands in the air and saying, "Y'all must be trollin'" isn't
very useful.

That said, we don't need to delve into fictional cyberpunk dystopias to find
examples of "science run amok," so I'm not really understanding how getting
movie critics to write editorials criticizing movies that show us bleak
futures is all that useful, or necessary.

------
8_hours_ago
Add it to the list along with the million dollar space pen[0]. Oversimplifying
things like that seems to be pretty common in politics. When you say something
like "the government spent millions of dollars on a shrimp treadmill!!", the
desired reaction is achieved well before any well-reasoned rebuttal can be
made. And by the time that the truth comes out -- if it ever does -- it's too
late to correct the audience's idea that the government is wasting money.

[0]:
[http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp](http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp)

~~~
jack-r-abbit
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its
shoes"

Very few people will see this truth.

~~~
techsupporter
I've pretty much stopped talking, with actual words through actual speech,
politics with people around me. What usually happens is "damn, did you hear
about the stupid shrimp treadmill." Right as I go to inhale[0], whomever said
the first sentence will inevitably cut me off with "yeah, yeah, I'm sure it's
not that bad and there is some reasonable explanation that I'm not gonna get,
but shit, man, shrimp treadmills, what the fuck?!"

0 - I freely admit that I can also be a little overenthusiastic about
political matters, mostly because I'm really starting to dislike the sigh-and-
keep-quiet approach.

------
HarryHirsch
It's of course that politicians are only speaking what the electorate wants to
hear. Anti-science language wouldn't fly if it didn't result in votes. The
sentiment against science in large tracts of the country is frankly scary.
When you see that the Department of Biology at Baylor University, a
respectable institution associated with the Baptist Church, feels compelled to
make a statement in favour of evolution
([http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=77368](http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=77368))
you know it's time to emigrate.

~~~
meepmorp
> It's of course that politicians are only speaking what the electorate wants
> to hear. Anti-science language wouldn't fly if it didn't result in votes

It's not anti-science language, per se. It's a "hey, look at this wasteful
stuff your tax dollars are getting spent on," which only incidentally plays on
anti-intellectual/anti-scientific sentiments in the electorate. It's hard to
explain why something like this is actually a valuable use of resources, and
doubly so when it's easy to characterize as a ridiculous thing.

------
guard-of-terra
I've heard same thing happened in Europe to a research of mechanism of flea
jumping.

Which, as you can imagine, is very important in both tackling flea-borne
infections in animals and, potentially, in jumping mechanisms.

The truth is, further a person is removed from productive activity, more
fierce they become towards "wasting on needless research" or whatever.
Politicians are a good example

------
lotsofmangos
Reminds me of the research into French fruit flies that Palin tried to make
the same political point with -
[http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2008/10/french-fruit-
fly-f...](http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2008/10/french-fruit-fly-fracas)

I wonder if they just find it icky and are then rationalizing the politics
afterwards.

~~~
jordanb
Palin shares her hatred of Fruit Fly research with Stalinist Soviet Russia[0]

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism)

~~~
ljegou
And her hatred about France (at the time) too.

------
Zikes
What about three times as much on a video game nobody's heard of?

[http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-10-million-on-a-
vide...](http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-10-million-on-a-video-game-
about-escaping-a-fat-town/)

~~~
hellgas00
Does it lead to kids changing their dietary habits? I would have to guess not.
If it did, would it be justifiable? The effectiveness of the product should be
discussed first then the cost effectiveness of the product can be considered.
There is no point of waving and screaming look at all of this money being
spent on this thing, unless you also examine the thing which the money is
being spent on.

~~~
induscreep
I saw discussion about this on reddit. The top comment noted that kids sit on
the couch (and do not need move) while playing this video game - so it's not
clear how this video game helps.

I guess it's a very bad idea that also was poorly planned and managed.

------
rebootthesystem
Before. Ask this question I must issue a disclaimer: We waste more money
giving religious groups all kinds of priviledges (tax exemptions for TV
evangelists!!!) than university researchers will ever waste. Every dollar
invested in science is a dollar well spent.

That said, scientists are not beyond wasting resources. I think it is
absolutely proper and important to hold scientific research accountable to the
degree it is possible.

I am not making a comment about the shrimp treadmill, this is more of a
general observation.

------
DanBC
> Mike Huckabee linked the National Science Foundation’s funding of shrimp-
> treadmill studies to limited military spending

How the fuck did he manage that? How many hours would $300m last the military?

~~~
nikomen
According to Wikipedia, US military spending is about $643 billion. So, $300m
would last about 4 hours.

Those shrimp really are stealing a lot from the military. </sarcasm>

------
induscreep
What I don't understand is that this sort of thing happens between other
sectors - for example, 'defense dollars could be used to provide healthcare',
or 'subsidies could be used to pay teachers more and improve schools'.

In these cases, the sectors each have their own lobby, and they are able to
fight back with publicity and ads.

But scientists are defenseless. Where is the pro-scientist lobby? Should
universities just get together and throw some dollars at hiring a lobbying
firm?

EDIT: the scientist lobby could release an ad that said this: "politicians are
spending millions on armament that was never used and rusted away...do YOU
want bacteria in your seafood? do YOU want cheap shrimp buffets? If so, say
YES to NSF!" The "say yes to nsf" actually rhymes haha.

------
serve_yay
I can't deal with politics since about five years ago, it just makes me feel
stressed-out and sad. Living in DC made me hate it, all of it. (I moved.)

------
protomyth
Look, this happens for every facet of government spending and both parties
know exactly how to phrase their soundbite to make it worse. Anyone taking
government funding for any project better be ready to deal with an out of
context soundbite in a professional and calm manner. It is the nature of the
beast. You are using someone else's money for something and the someone else
gets a bit peeved that s/he had to give up the money in the first place.

The common refrain that Republicans don't understand science or Democrats
don't understand business is not true and not your friend. JackFr's comment
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8611038](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8611038)
points out some of the good lines that contradict the tried and true
arguments.

The proper way to deal with these type of things is learn that you are taking
money, its not your right, and show how you are actually being innovative and
saving the taxpayers money or show what family members you are saving with
your activity.

I've seen enough people doing amazing work on the taxpayers dime that really
saved the taxpayers money in the long run (early childhood screenings for
example) that knew how to properly phrase their work to make both parties
their champion.

tldr: you take the taxpayer's money then be ready to do PR

------
rwallace
That's a great explanation - for an audience willing to take the time to read
it. But your arsenal of political weapons needs to include soundbites for an
audience not willing to take the time to read. Here's how I would summarize
the content more quotably:

"Actually it cost fifty dollars, and we were trying to figure out how to stop
people dying of food poisoning. Is your life worth fifty dollars?"

------
cehlen
I don't have a problem with the $3M, shrimp on a tread mill, or $3M for shrimp
on a tread mill. The problem I have is I still don't know what this guy was
trying to discover even after I read the article. If your going to ask tax
payers for $3M do us all a favor and spend a couple of hundred explaining in
layman's terms why!

------
kefka
[http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube....](http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBUe78awZMT0&start1=4&video2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZnHmskwqCCQ&start2=&authorName=Shrinpety+Shrimp)

------
enziobodoni
This reminds me a bit of when Sarah Palin derided worm research (C elegans),
ignorant of the fact that such research was the backbone of genetics and
neurobiology research.

------
trhway
War on Science in US is astounding. It is amazing how US still manages to be
ahead in most areas of science and technology.

~~~
exstudent
It's not just the US. Just today the UK press made the lead scientist of the
Rosetta mission cry by attacking his SHIRT instead of celebrating his
achievements.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-
mi...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-mission-
scientist-Dr-Matt-Taylor-cries-during-apology-over-offensive-shirt.html)

~~~
lern_too_spel
Nonsense. His achievement was celebrated as well.

His shirt is the kind of thing that keeps women away from science, so the fact
that he publicly acknowledged his error will make other scientists more
consciously think about inclusivity, helping science in the long run.

~~~
exstudent
Incorrect, women aren't as weak as you think they are. He worked with many
awesome women to make this mission happen BTW.

More likely this type of overreaction and hysteria will keep free thinking
individuals out of science.

~~~
dalke
I wouldn't want to work in a workplace which wears its objectification on its
sleeve like that. Your argument seems to be that I'm weak because of all the
opportunities available to me I would prefer to work someplace else.

Thus, while I think that lern_too_spel is incomplete, in that some men may
also stay out of science for these reasons, I strongly object to your name
calling. I am not "weak" for my decisions on the sort of work environments I
will participate in.

Nor do I think that others, women or men, who make the same decision are weak.
Yet, oddly, you want to call me and them names for making what I think are
principled decisions. That sounds like a back-handed taunt by you to those who
stay out of a given workplace for these reasons.

There's of course no clear cut line. Would a shirt using Botticelli's "The
Birth of Venus" instead be a problem? Playboy's famous "Lenna" picture for
image processing? The full original Lenna centerfolds hanging on the wall? A
background screensaver showing people having sex? Or on a related subject, a
cross hanging on the wall, along with quotes from "Sinners in the Hands of an
Angry God", and prayers to start off each workplace meeting? Mounted trophy
heads from all of the hunts from various staff outings? A mariachi band
walking through the offices every 10 minutes? Unairconditioned offices next to
a pig farm and under the approach path to Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson
airport?

Each case is personal, and one's personal decision to avoid a certain
workplace or even career must not be considered a weakness.

