Science Project or PorkForest?

I think this editorial in today's PC is a tad more subtle in it's support of the fake rainforest in Iowa, in that it doesn't mention the project at all. Instead it equates questioning the fiscal viability of pork projects with a desire to return to medieval biological theory:

Public enthusiasm for university professors conducting research in addition to teaching undergraduates seems to have hit a new low. Articles appear every week assailing "pork" projects, spendthrift boondoggles that are generally defined as such because a writer thinks the research topic sounds ridiculous. The implication is that if university faculty members stopped doing research, and particularly if we stopped asking for tax-supported funding for it, we could focus on what really counts: the education of America's children. . . .

But let's go back to my question of what to teach if research is halted. No re-search means no new discoveries. That in turn means we can just keep teaching the same facts again and again. I could rely on the re-search of the past few centuries, at least. I wouldn't have to teach that everything in the universe is made of earth, air, water and fire, or that a wandering uterus makes women mentally unstable, or that gastric ulcers are caused by stress rather than bacterial infections -- all ideas that new research eventually overturned.

It's an interesting extrapolation, but doesn't bear up under close scrutiny. The "implication" is not that we should sacrifice research to education. To take the specific case of the fake rainforest in Coralville, we simply wish serious scientists would conduct your research at already-existing fake rainforests, like the one in England, in Omaha, or elsewhere. Or perhaps make use of the few remaining real rainforests in South America. I think their economy could use a small boost and it would help save the planet far more than building yet another monstrosity along I-80. You might argue that these facilities are not qualified for the research you want to perform. Fine. Then build the fake rainforest onto an existing tourist draw, such as the San Diego Zoo, that might conceivably pull enough income to support it.



Your implication is that if we question the fiscal viability of specific construction projects such as an 18-story caterpillar building near a relatively small rural community, which billed as a major tourist attraction that incidentally does research, we are advocating the cessation of all scientific progress. Talk about a leap in logic.