The quoted language above is part of the headline of this story in today’s The Scientist:
Citing the rising tide of Americans with Alzheimer’s—projections suggest 10 million people will be afflicted by 2050—the Obama administration and top National Institutes of Health officials are taking action. On February 7, they announced that they will add an additional $80 million to the 2013 NIH budget for the Alzheimer’s research program.
The problem is that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch:
However, Richard Hodes, director of the NIH’s National Institute on Aging, told Nature that the 2013 dollars still have to be approved by Congress in the next budget and, if not, existing programs may need to be cut. And this year’s $50 million is likely to bump other projects, perhaps at NIH’s National Human Genome Research Institute. “If there’s a finite budget anywhere, once there’s more of something, there is less of something else,” he said.
Often such budget compromises are difficult, because there is no ready way to choose between two or more competing recipients of taxpayers’ money, each of which might be comparably worthy. Thus it is with a great sense of relief that in this case, we in the biomedical community can assure President Obama that no such dilemma exists. This is one of those occasional decisions that requires no hair-pulling whatsoever. The obvious solution is to defund the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), which, at about $130 million/yr, would solve the problem of funding Alzheimer’s research and take the heat off other worthy programs such as those mentioned by Richard Hodes.
There are sources of information I inclined to accept with minimal questioning. I do not have time to examine everything in excruciating detail, and like most people, use intellectual short cuts to get through the day. If it comes from Clinical Infectious Diseases or the NEJM, I am inclined to accept the conclusions without a great deal of analysis, especially for non-infectious disease articles. Infectious disease publications I have to read more closely; its part of passing as an expert.
Outside of medicine, I am predisposed to accepting at face value many of the articles in Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer. They are trusted sources. Some topics, like haunted house or Big Foot investigations, I barely skim. After all these years, I doubt there will be any new insights into the subject. Other topics, depending on my interest, I may read more carefully.
I often read longer articles many times. First a quick skim to see if it offers anything of interest. If it does, then I may read it carefully.
This months Skeptical Inquirer had an article called Seven Deadly Medical Hypotheses by Reynold Spector. Just seeing the title and knowing the magazine, I was primed to accept the content at face value. I enjoy a well reasoned, thoughtful rant. I relish a clever diatribe, even if I do not agree with the topic. So I gave it a quick skim. I was discomfited. My first gut check was ick. But I was uncertain why. So I read it slowly and carefully, and still ick. But why? (more…)
A new book, Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience addresses many of the issues near and dear to the hearts of SBM bloggers and readers. A compilation of some of the best writing from the last few years of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, it’s not only good reading but can serve as a useful reference.
Skeptical Inquirer is the official magazine of what was formerly called The Committee for the Skeptical Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). It was formed in 1976 and in its early days it concentrated on things like Bigfoot, UFOs and psychics. It has morphed into the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the magazine is now described on its cover as “The Magazine for Science and Reason.” It has gone way beyond paranormal claims to address everything from intelligent design to AIDS denial. In the 3 decades of its existence it has performed an invaluable service by investigating alleged phenomena and testing claims scientifically, providing natural explanations for weird observations, refuting pseudoscientific arguments, and teaching people how science works and how to think critically.
We now have many skeptical magazines, including Michael Shermer’s Skeptic in the US and similarly named publications in the UK, Australia and elsewhere. But Skeptical Inquirer was the first. It was the trailblazer and set the standard.
The word “skeptic” has negative connotations for some. But it is really a positive, inquisitive, reality-based approach to all aspects of life. A skeptic is a person who asks for evidence before accepting a belief and who asks if there could be another explanation other than the first one that is offered. Scientists are skeptics. Skeptics think scientifically. (more…)