Subject: As a layman I will ask a naive question

From: [email-masked] (Mycos)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 06:29:42 GMT

We started with Linneaus, Whe further defined the families, almost
intrinsically creating genera. Now the DNA tech has gained us more
insite into the evolutionary history of the organisms. To what point?
It is an esoterric pursuit as far as i can see. Perhaps Lepiota and
Agaricus are one and the same except for generic level variants.
I can see mycorrhizal research regarding tree farming, anti-bacterial
agents, ect. that have pure applicaple modern applications. I have
probems seeing how some of the disscussins I've seen  here and how it
is economically valid given some of the more obvious pressing
problems.For example , Why do some of you folk study to death, at
great cost, An organism that has different "ploidy"
characteristeristics. In the end do you mught find that is because
it's its most econimocal way of doing it and no other explanation need
be inferred.
I mean this sincerely and I welcome even scathing criticisms of my
probably inferred naivety.

                   Very Sincerely and perhaps looking for to a little
tutoring,

                                           Gary Williams

Ps.

---

From: Susan Jane Hogarth <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:20:41 -0400

Mycos wrote:
{snip}
>... I have
> characteristeristics.

Well, other people may offer you practical reasons why we do science; so
I'll offer you a more personal insight...

I do science for (I believe) the same reason artists paint pictures,
write music, and sculpt images. I want to try to understand the world
around me, and to communicate my vision of that world to others.
Sculptors want to understand how the shapes of the world fit together;
novelists want to understand how humans relate to each other; physicists
want to understand how invisible particles interact to create universes,
planets,and people. 

It's easy enough to justify science on economic grounds, but I don't
believe it's neccessary. Do you think scientists are holding a gun to
anyone's head for funding? The arts and sciences have produced most
things of beauty in our society - I'm just glad *enough* people realise
this.

As for wondering how science is "economically valid given some of the 
more obvious pressing problems", think of this: Disneyland, shopping
malls, art galleries, restaurants, air conditioning, *lawns*, are _all_
"uneccessary luxuries" - should we do away with those, too? Think of all
the things you own or enjoy which are "uneccessary luxuries" in the
great scheme of things. Perhaps some luxuries *are* neccessary....

Susan

---

From: [email-masked] (jm102)
Date: 20 Sep 1996 15:23:21 -0700

God forbid, if Sir Alexander Flemming didn't find the inhibition of bacteria
around a colony of Penicillium most of us would be dead now.

Then, when B.O.Dodge told Tatum (or Beatle, I forgot which was his student)
that Neurospora has an interesting life cycle and he should study it, he had
no idea that there was a "economic" aspect to the observation and the "one
gene, one enzyme concept would not have been discovered and the magnificent
subsequent discoveris of genes, DNA, molecular biology, Biotechnology, etc.,
would still be beyond us.

Lets see.....what about the discovery of mycorrhizae and the relationships
to truffles.....!

How about a mycologists observations that grape vines sprayed with a
concoction of lime and copper sulfate had a protective effect from Downy
mildws of grapes.

---

From: [email-masked] (jm102)
Date: 20 Sep 1996 15:38:05 -0700

How about a mycologists observations that grape vines sprayed with a
concoction of lime and copper sulfate had a protective effect from Downy
mildews of grapes.........!

And, certainly, we can't ignore Buchner's research on the curious property
of the medium that yeasts had been grown in could still "ferment" sugars.
This lead directly to the discovery of enzymes.   My goodness, if Buchner
had ignore this curious phenomenon we would have to eat tough meat, and live
withe grass stains on our trousers.

.....Then there is the strange characteristic of Rhizopus to make organic
acids.....and strains of Candida cause thrush.....and.......etc!

The list is much too long.   The bottom line is simply that the great
majority of "practical" discoveries have come about becuase of the penchant
of scientists to explore questions that most people think are frivolus.  And
if a particular line of "irrelevant" research doesn't yield parcatal (read
"economic), so what.  At the very least, we are enriched by the greater
understanding of this world we, and the enormouse number of non-human
organisms, share.

jm

---

From: [email-masked] (Jessie Micales)
Date: 21 Sep 1996 13:23:07 GMT

>For example , Why do some of you folk study to death, at
>characteristeristics.....[snip] I

Hi Gary.  A valid question - one, in fact, that many research administrators 
ask!  What you are getting down to is the difference between "applied" and 
"basic" research.  The reason for doing applied research is fairly obvious - 
the ultimate goal is to come up with a product (that can be sold in the 
marketplace) or solve an immediate pressing problem (that is probably costing 
someone money somewhere).  The reasons for basic research are a little bit more 
subtle.  We need a large pool of basic research to understand how things work. 
Then when a problem comes along, we can apply our fundamental knowledge to it. 
Basic research gives us the tools to unravel the problem that applied research 
can solve.  It's like having a large library available. If we don't have the 
basic information, we can miss many possible solutions to a problem or the 
thought of certain marketable products would never come to mind.

For example, all this talk about sequencing DNA, restriction fragment length 
polymorphisms, and all these other molecular procedures sounds awfully basic,  
but they can result in very applied and monetarily important results.  Using 
these techniques, plant pathologists can take a single fungal spore and 
identify it to species for some fungi - the ones that have been worked on by 
the "basic" scientists.  In the case of Tiletia indica, the karnal bunt 
organism, this can mean the difference between selling your wheat or having 
your wheat and your farm quarantined.  The detection of certain plant pathogens 
can have great impact on the national economy since some countries will ban US 
grains entirely if they suspect that a certain pathogen is in the shipment (or 
they will demand a greatly reduced price).  This is just one of many examples 
where basic research has ultimately resulted in tools that take on a very 
applied use.

Jessie Micales
Forest Products Lab
Madison, WI

---

From: [email-masked] (Mycos)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 17:32:34 GMT

[email-masked] (Jessie Micales) wrote:
snipped

>Madison, WI

Thanks.
I did not mean to infer that science itself is an uneconomical or even
useless pursuit. Far from it. I am perhaps the last person on earth
who could be convinced that we will be able to simply pray our way out
of our problems (as a frighteningly large percentage of the population
seems to). What I seem to have a problem with is how research monies
are allocated, and based on what criteria? 
As you illustrate, I obviously have a bias towards applied research.
Let me illustrate what I mean. If I were to approach a grant agency
for money to determine, using indicator plant species analysis or some
such technique, what areas of the forest, after a prescribed burn,
would likely yield a rich crop of morels, I would be turned down. When
I learned that Matsutake are mycorrhizal and that mycorrizae enhance
the growth of their partner tree, the first thing I thought was: Do
research on the ability of T. magnivelare to produce a successful
reforestation project. The beauty of this, in my mind at least, is
that for many of the years while the trees are maturing towards
harvest, it wouldn't be lying simply "fallow". The Matsutake could be
harvested during the interim. Has this been looked at? I doubt it.
However, if I were apply to map the entire genome of Coprinus
plicatilus, at huge cost, I would probably be more successful. And to
what end? 
I don't know. I guess I shall remain a naive layman. 
Thank you for your understanding and insightful reply.

                           Gary Williams

---

From: Susan Jane Hogarth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 10:48:48 -0400

Mycos wrote:

> [snip]
> What I seem to have a problem with is how research monies

Have you tried getting _either_ of these grants? You might be surprised
at what gets funded and what doesn't. I wonder if you're getting your
idea of fundability through some highly inflated "news" coverage of
science. I think it's pretty inflammatory of you to get riled up about
scientific funding priorities on the basis of a *speculation* of a
refusal for your pet project and a *speculation* of a success for a
proposal of genetic mapping. It's possible that I'm misunderstanding
what you're saying, but based on the above paragraph, you have no reason
to complain. My advice is to try writing a grant and getting refused
*before* you become bitter :-)

One last point - in your original post you say:

>  I have
> problems.

and in your latest post you're talking about research to ensure a good
crop of *morels* or *matsuke*, or whatever... not exactly one of the
world's "more obvious pressing problems".

-- 
Susan 
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/sjhogart/public/home.html

Her face hangs in portrait 
 on the post-office wall;
She's stuck in my heart now
 where my blood belongs.
		TMBG

---

From: [email-masked] (Mycos)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 16:06:07 GMT

>> What I seem to have a problem with is how research monies

Susan.
 I give. Uncle!

---

From: [email-masked] (George Riner)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 22:40:18 GMT

On 21 Sep 1996 13:23:07 GMT, [email-masked] (Jessie

>where basic research has ultimately resulted in tools that take on a very 

This is the case that I think most amateur mycologists find
frustrating.  Plant pathology was the first primay economic driver for
the study of fungi.  Growing crops has been such a fundamental
economic activity for humas for so long, that the economic benefit of
how to prevent millions of bushels of grain/crop from being sacrified
to some fungus is just too compelling.

More recently, starting with penicillin perhaps, the economic drive
>from  the medical community has loomed larger.  People will pay big
bucks to live longer.

The power of the above two econonomic factors make the efforts to farm
morels almost quaint by comparison.

The side effect is that knowledge of 'field mycology' is dwindling.
The studies are going straight to molecular biology and DNA, e.g.,
without much concern for what the macroscopic behavior of the organism
is.

<End of Soapbox>

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Robb Siegel)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 16:30:52 -0700

On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, Mycos wrote, among other things:

> would likely yield a rich crop of morels, I would be turned down.
> 

You say you "would be" turned down if you applied for such a grant.  Did 
you, in fact, apply, and were you, in fact, turned down?

If you did apply and were turned down, what were the reasons they gave?  

When you say that you're a layman, does that mean that you're an average 
joe who would like to do grad-student or postdoctoral-type research? or 
does it mean you're a Ph.D. who has an interest, but no track record, 
in the field in which you'd like to apply for a research grant? or does 
it mean None Of The Above?  What exactly do you mean by that phrase?

If the goal of your proposed research is to find a second use (Matsutake-
farming) for tree plantations, then maybe you need to apply to private 
corporations rather than government granting agencies.

While we're on the subject of research goals, I have to comment on two 
elements I see in your post.  On the one hand, you made specific comments 
that suggest to me that you may have spent some time looking into this 
area, as if you were considering a career change; but on the other hand, 
you made other comments that suggest that you have not made a *systematic* 
survey of the literature related to the area of your proposed research.  
The following is not intended to be in any way a flame.  First you wrote:

> When
> harvested during the interim. 

This, to me, sounds like a very good idea.  If it is an an area in which 
there has been no prior research, then it certainly ought to be funded, 
by, say, Weyerhauser Corporation if not the Government.  But then you 
wrote:

> Has this been looked at? I doubt it. 

You "doubt" it?  Does that mean that you haven't done the comprehensive 
review of the literature necessary to *know* the answer to the question?
To apply for a grant with any hope of success, you have to be able to 
answer the question "Has this been looked at?" with a firmly stated 
answer of "no research on this subject has ever been reported."  And the 
tentativeness of your answer, that you "doubt" that the research has been 
done, strongly suggests that you haven't looked for yourself to see what 
*has* been done in the area in which you would propose to do research.  

It seems entirely possible to me that your proposal would be turned down 
by the grant agency, not because of misguided thinking in how they 
allocate money, but because the idea was good enough to have already been 
funded when someone else proposed it.  At this point, you can't say, 
because you don't know, because you haven't yet done the necessary homework.
(If I'm wrong & you *have* done your homework, what have you found?)

Again I ask, with more urgency and poignancy:  What do you mean when you 
say that you are a layman?  And also I ask:  Are you serious about 
wanting to do research in this area?  Because if you are, you probably 
could get a research fellowship, or a grant, if you do more preparation.  
But if you're just an average joe wanting to do research in this area, 
then you probably will have to go to Grad School to do it, in which case 
you have to be as serious about your research as 19th-Century Christian 
missionaries were about converting the natives to The True Faith...but if 
you *can* get that hard-core about it, Grad School *can* be a cake-walk.

So just how interested are you in this area?

Eric