Money for nothing

“and your chicks for free”.

Big money. Big science . A good example of why we need to explain ourselves:

“These scientists could trim $10 million if they would just cut out some of the purple and blue spheres,” said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), explaining that he understood the need for an abundance of reds and greens. “With all of those molecules and atoms going in every direction, the whole thing looks a bit unorganized, especially for science.”

This guy’s ignorance is shocking:

“Fifty billion dollars to buy atoms is too much,” Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) said. “Frankly, I don’t understand why they don’t just gather up all the leftover atoms in their test tubes and Bunsen burners. I think the scientists should have to use those up before getting new ones.”

(HT: Ian )

About rpg

Scientist, poet, gadfly
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Money for nothing

  1. Bob O'Hara says:

    FWIW, Bartlett is red/green colour-blind.

  2. Richard P. Grant says:

    That explains it, then.

  3. Brian Clegg says:

    Hmm, I’m not totally convinced that The Onion‘s science reporting is in quite the same class as Nature’s…

  4. Richard P. Grant says:

    Naw. It’s much better, for one.

Comments are closed.