Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By T. Ryan Gregory | October 25th 2008 02:05 PM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Genomicron articles

All

About T. Ryan Gregory

I am an evolutionary biologist specializing in genome size evolution at the University of Guelph in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Be sure to visit Evolver Zone


... Full Bio

I have complained recently about the state of basic research support in Canada, as the current government is pushing for more short-sighted, applied, industry-oriented work. This is as nothing compared to the attitude of some politicians south of the 49th.

Here is how a recent paper of mine began*:

Through all the major transitions in genetics over the past 100 years – from early mutation and mapping studies involving countless crosses and phenotypic analyses, to karyotyping and polytene chromosome banding, to the application of allozymes in population-level surveys, to the advent of complete genome sequencing and the rise of “evo-devo” – the fly Drosophila melanogaster has maintained its uncontested status as a preeminent model organism (Brookes, 2001; Beller&Oliver, 2006). Several entire volumes have been devoted to its use in experimental genetics (e.g., Demerec & Kaufmann, 1996; Powell, 1997; Sulivan et al.,2000; Henderson 2003; Ashburner et al., 2005), and it is estimated that there are well over 1,000 research groups worldwide who use Drosophila as a key model (Clark et al., 2003). As Demerec & Kaufmann (1996, p.1) put it, “it would not be an exaggeration to say that we have learned more about the basic laws of heredity from the study of this fly than from work on all other organisms combined.”

Here is what Sarah Palin has to say about wasting money on fruit fly work. I kid you not.


________

* Yes, I know Drosophila technically is not a fruit fly, but it is often referred to this way.

Update:

It is even worse... apparently this actually referred to applied studies on the olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae) which is a major agricultural pest (one can only imagine what she says about basic research).

Here is what the Congressman who earmarked it stated:

“The Olive Fruit Fly has infested thousands of California olive groves and is the single largest threat to the U.S. olive and olive oil industries,” he said. “I secured $748,000 for olive fruit fly research and irradiation in the (fiscal year 2008) appropriations bill for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA will use some of that funding for their research facility in France. This USDA research facility is located in France because Mediterranean countries like France have dealt with the Olive Fruit Fly for decades, while California has only been exposed since the late 1990s. This is not uncommon; the USDA has several international research facilities throughout the world, including Australia, China and Argentina."

Hat tips: Pharyngula, Chance and Necessity, Mike the Mad Biologist


Comments

adaptivecomplexity's picture
Wow - I just assumed that when Palin said that this fruit fly research has "nothing to do with the public good", she could not have been talking about something as obviously useful as research on an agricultural pest. As you say it's even worse - her statement is more illogical and inexcusable than it initially seemed.

I think bloggers are probably giving her too much credit - I doubt that she knew any of the details.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
D. melanogaster is technically not a fruit fly? Which species (singular or plural) does meet the technical criteria for being a fruit fly?

T Ryan Gregory's picture

 Technically, family Drosophilidae are pomace flies or vinegar flies.  Family Tephritidae are fruit flies (including B. oleae).  However, Drosophila species are usually called fruit flies, so it might as well be the common name now.

Green, M.M. 2002. It really is not a fruit fly.  Genetics 162: 1-3.  

http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2008/04/phylogeny_friday_11_april_2008.php




Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.