#37586: Jason Bock — 08/26  at  09:34 AM
How does Microsoft "officially suck"?

And then you call for "an objective summary of Cascadia's accomplishments"?

:S

It's easy to bash Microsoft, but you're saying it's a "fact" that they suck. OK, prove it.

#37587: — 08/26  at  09:48 AM
It might be worth noting that Bill Gates is an atheist (sometimes he describes himself as an agnostic, or merely as someone with no use for religion), and that he has contributed to several liberal causes. I know his wife is a practicing Catholic (and his kids are being raised in that faith), and that recent skirmishes with the government might have motivated him to get into bed with some more conservative politicians to promote the "free market" rapine that have so enriched his coffers, but in general, on average, Gates has probably been more of a force for good than ill. Do I adore Microsoft? No, I do not. But I still admire some things about Gates. I don't get the impression he's a guy who would purposely support ID nonsense.

#37588: notheory — 08/26  at  09:50 AM
??

Microsoft officially sucks because their monopolistic anti-competative theiving bullies. All of which is accurate according to journalistic and legal standards, since they've been convicted in court.

Next Cascadia is not funded by microsoft they were funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which nominally i suppose is affiliated w/ MS in so far as their funding was derived largely from microsoft stock (i don't know that for a fact). Even if one loathes the people involved in an enterprise doesn't mean that one can't do an objective assessment of their results, based on metrics that everyone (or most people at the very least) can agree on.

#37589: notheory — 08/26  at  09:52 AM
blah. "Microsoft officially sucks beacuse they're* monopolistic, anti-competative theiving bullies" not "their"

::sighs::

#37591: Evil Monkey — 08/26  at  10:01 AM
Let's be honest; if Dembski is behind the math, the project is screwed!

#37593: — 08/26  at  10:07 AM
I'm just trying to grasp why DI is involved in this at all. Am I missing something here? Was DI not founded to promote ID? How the heck are they, then, someone you turn to for transportation issues? I don't get it.

If this is an effort to give the DI respectability, or to indirectly fund their ID efforts...count me out. But if for some reason I'm missing they just happen to be in a position to be able to help with transportation planning, well...cool...I guess...

#37594: — 08/26  at  10:12 AM
From the August 21st NY Times article "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive"

A closer look shows a multidimensional organization, financed by missionary and mainstream groups - the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides $1 million a year, including $50,000 of Mr. Chapman's $141,000 annual salary - and asserting itself on questions on issues as varied as local transportation and foreign affairs.

It seems even if the Gate's money is targeted toward transportation, it is also providing funding to support the DI's leadership (Chapman is the President of DI).

#37600: — 08/26  at  10:47 AM
I suspect this is more about politics than religion. You may recall that during a previous administration, Microsoft was being charged with evil monopolistic practices, and was in fact convicted. Then an extremist right wing pro- businesses with lots o money administration took over, and the case against Microsoft was made to mostly go away.

Do you think that comes without a little quid pro quo?

#37602: coturnix — 08/26  at  10:56 AM
The Gates Foundation also fund tons of research on malaria. Haven't you noticed so many cool papers on malaria popping up everywhere these days after years of neglect? Check recent PLoS, The Loom, etc....

#37616: notheory — 08/26  at  12:18 PM
Is coturnix being sarcastic? (I can't tell)

I had the impression that the Gates Foundation were funding treatement in places like Southeast Asia and Africa, not research (though maybe they are).

I find the Gates Foundation's involvement w/ the DI very very strange, but i certainly don't blame them for the non-sense that comes out of the DI, nor can i really fault them for trying to do worthwhile things like stop malaria.

#37619: Tlazolteotl — 08/26  at  12:38 PM
PZ, are you from Renton?

Kirkland/Juanita is in the house!

#37620: — 08/26  at  12:38 PM
I think that the Gates Foundation has generally done some great work in addressing major public health problems that have far too often been ignored. I have spoken with several infectious disease researchers who have spent considerable time working in Africa, and they have spokening favorably of the Gates Foundation. I would be very surprised if the Gates Foundation supported the crazy-assed ideas of the DI regarding biology science (mis)education. However, I do think that it would be worthwhile to shine a spotlight on how the DI is using money from Gates, because I think that it could lead to a decrease in future founding for DI.

#37628: PZ Myers — 08/26  at  01:09 PM
I grew up in Kent, and attended Kent-Meridian High School. My family now lives mostly in Auburn.

#37633: Kagehi — 08/26  at  01:20 PM
PZ.. My reaction is that DI is bad, even when doing good. Why? Think back a few hundred years. The church is feeding hundreds of hungry vagrants with grule and building a well in one village, while fifty miles away they are taking donations to build a five story cathedral, complete with real gold crosses. Some rich guy comes along and says, "Well, I don't agree with them wasting all that money on a useless building, but I heard they are helping build a well in the next village." My reaction would be the same then as it is now, "Who cares, someone else could build that well and possibly do better. The only reason the church is doing it at all, or feeding anyone anything, is to convince idiots like you to donate enough money for them to build the damn cathedral."

In other words, donating to someone who occationally does good things, in order to lend substance and support to the bad things they commit otherwise is 'never' acceptable. It hardly matters if its a religious organization playing at being the good guys to support their claim of being good Christians or a mass muderer that everyone positively loved, because he always invited the neighbors over for a BBQ every weekend, gave out candy to the kids and was kind to animals. If you hand them money, if they are aware or even suspect that their wonderful neighbor is also killing people in their spare time, you are complicit in 'everything' they do, not just if you gave them a few extra bucks to buy a swing set for the local park.

At least part of the purpose of the Gates Foundation appears to be the same as DI's own humanitarian endevours. To make Gates not look so bad. There have been several cases where Gates has done something that pissed people off and turned around to say, "Well, sorry, but I am not going to refund you or fix the problem, but I *will* donate the money I would have given you to some charitible cause." Its almost like the old Alchemical concept of like attracting like...

#37640: — 08/26  at  02:04 PM
Look at the Cascadia Web site: http://www.cascadiaproject.org/

It's about smart regional planning, improving public transportation, adding parkland (by replacing the ugly Alaskan Way viaduct with an underground roadway).

Bruce Chapman, the guy who started Discovery, was one of the key people who saved Pike Place Market from being razed when he was a Seattle councilman in the 1970's. Most people probably prefer the market today to the box office buildings that would have been built.

I don't think any of Cascadia's ideas are close to being built, which is not surprising since most of them are multi-decade type projects. The viaduct replacement, however, appears to have gotten somewhere:
http://www.seattle.gov/news/detail.asp?ID=5379&Dept=40

#37644: Dave Carlson — 08/26  at  02:18 PM
To answer RRT's question, the Discovery Institute, when it was formed, had nothing to do with Intelligent Design. It wasn't until 1996 that they brought in The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in 1996 that ID became a part of the DI. At least, that's what I recall reading from an article by Chris Mooney a couple weeks back.

Dave

#37647: — 08/26  at  02:45 PM
Really weird, because Billg Gates is "secretly famous" for being a vehemnt ateuist. I.e. it's an opensecret but not well known.

#37648: — 08/26  at  02:47 PM
Really weird, because Bill Gates is "secretly famous" for being a vehement atheist. I.e. it's an open secret but not well known.

#37651: Dave Carlson — 08/26  at  02:57 PM
Doh! Okay, let's try that again. Here is what I meant to say above, only without the typos:

To answer RRT's question, the Discovery Institute, when it was formed, had nothing to do with Intelligent Design. It wasn't until 1996 when Chapman brought in The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture that ID became a part of the DI. At least that's what I recall from an article by Chris Mooney that I read a couple of weeks ago.

Dave

#37665: Gordon Watts — 08/26  at  07:53 PM
I live in Seattle, and I'd not heard of this (or the DI) until all this news broke. On the other hand there are so many groups up here trying to fix Seattle's transportation system that we have... a swamp. I've given up trying to follow all the ups and downs other than when they try to dig a noisey subway tunnel under the Physics Department at UW that would destroy about half our department's experimental program.

#37688: — 08/27  at  12:06 AM
Kenneth Chang, it's good to see you here. Stick around, it's a pretty good blog. Could always use more smart people commenting. PZ writes a lot about biology. Despite the criticism, there's no paper which compares to the NYT. I look forward to Science Times on tuesdays, almost as much as Dining Out on Wednesdays.

#37690: — 08/27  at  01:27 AM
Ha! Before I had even finished the first NYT's article, i pounded off a letter to the Gates Foundation expressing my exasperation. Here is my letter and their response:

-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Crane
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 11:13 AM
To: Info <info@ gatesfoundation.org>
Subject: Discovery Institute funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
I was just reading a recent article in the New York Times ("Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive" by Jodi Wilgoren) in which it was stated that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides funding to the Discovery Institute for it's transportation projects. The article claims that $50,000 of the salary of the Institutes president is provided directly from the Gates Foundation.

My concern is that, at a time when Bill Gates is so heavily campaigning for increasing high school graduation rates and school performance, the Foundation is simultaneously funding a think tank that is attempting to undermine the quality of science education in America's classrooms.

There is, in my opinion, a distinct conflict of interest here. It would appear on the face of it that Bill Gates would have a vested interest in the quality of science education--as computers are a vital component of scientific inquiry. I myself am a bioinformatician, and computer science is half of my job as a scientist. It looks bad to me that the Gates Foundation is providing funding to the Discovery Institute. It does not matter that the money is earmarked for their transportation initiatives; by their own admission, their signature issue is the promotion of intelligent design. The Discovery Institute is also the national leader in the push to get non-scientific topics introduced into the nation's science classrooms.

By giving the institute millions of dollars and paying nearly half the the president's salary, the Bill and Melinda Foundation is, in my mind, helping to erode the quality of science education in America's classrooms.

I am a firm supporter of the Foundation and it's goals. I am extremely disheartened to learn of your support for the Discovery Institute. Should the issue arise of providing any additional funds to the Discovery Institute beyond what has already been pledged, I would hope that you reconsider and deny them any additional support.

Thank you.

Samuel Crane



-----Reply Message-----
From: "Info" <info@ gatesfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:36:23 -0700
To: "Samuel Crane"
Subject: RE: Discovery Institute funding

Dear Mr. Crane,

Thank you for your email regarding the Discovery Institute and the Cascadia Project. We are very interested in your feedback.

As you may know, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has provided two grants to the Discovery Institute, both of which were dedicated to the organization's Cascadia Project. The Cascadia Project aims to create a transportation plan that will serve the needs of Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia. The steady disappearance of transportation options is among the top threats to the region's economic and social health. You can find more information on the project at
http://www.discovery.org/cascadia/about.php

We made these two grants specifically to support Cascadia's transportation work. They were not intended to support any other work done by the Discovery Institute.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Jones
Grants Inquiry Administrator

#37694: — 08/27  at  03:05 AM
It's worth noting that the Gates Foundation money -- over $1.1 million per year -- makes up over one quarter of the Discovery institute's annual operating budget ($4.1 million). This is the reason Jodi Wilgoren said the Gates Foundation was paying such a significant percentage of the Discovery Institute's president's salary -- the Gates foundation is paying a big chunk of everyone's salary.

Now, I don't believe for a second the Discovery Institute's Cascadia project is benign, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is. And let's say that the Gates Foundation money isn't going to any of the Discovery Institute's other projects (which it clearly is, since it's going to DI staff salaries, but let's pretend this wasn't the case). It's still a horrible, horrible idea for the Gates foundation to give them any money whatsoever, and I'm completely mystified as to how PZ can just brush it off like it's no big deal.

Imagine, if you will, that Lex Luthor founded a think tank, called the Lex Luthor Institute for a Better Tomorrow. The central mission of this think tank is to undertake research on how to kill Superman, and to fund a massive propaganda campaign designed to convince everyone that the world would be better off without Superman. They also fund homeless shelters and public housing and ponies for orphans -- you know, purely as goodwill gestures, to increase the esteem in which the Institute is held.

Does anyone seriously think it would be a good idea for Bill Gates to donate money to the Lex Luthor Institute for a Better Tomorrow? Even if he had strict assurances that all of his money was going to their non-Superman-killing activities?

#37697: Alon Levy — 08/27  at  04:18 AM
Does anyone seriously think it would be a good idea for Bill Gates to donate money to the Lex Luthor Institute for a Better Tomorrow?

Yes, but that's because vigilantes only make things worse, so killing Superman is in my opinion a worthy cause. Aside from that nitpick, however I think your point is right on, although Kagehi presented it better.

#37714: — 08/27  at  09:43 AM
I just wrote the following letter to the Gates Foundation (info@gatesfoundation.org), and I hope that others will follow Samuel Crane's example. Judging from the response he received it sounds like the Gates Foundation possibly didn't forsee the trouble their donation might cause, and therefore with a little encoragement might reconsider future dollars to the DI. This might all be wishful thinking on my part, but I can imagine how a $1 million grant might slip through the system within an organization that is giving out billions.

Dear Gates Foundation:

First off, I would like to thank you deeply for the billions of dollars you have invested in great charitable organizations, particularly related to major public health problems that have been largely ignored by the West. As an Epidemiologist I have spoken with numerous researchers who have come back from Africa and said that the Gates Foundation is providing vital resources and truly has made life better from millions of people.

I understand that with any organization as large as the Gates Foundation some of the money is bound to trickle into the hands of people who are doing much more damage than good. This is inevitable and I do not expect the Gates Foundation to live up to an impossible standard. With that said, I believe that the Gates Foundation would benefit from hearing from a pubic health researcher(s) that some funds may be going to the wrong organization. In particular, the Discovery Institute (DI) is said to be receiving nearly one quarter of all of their funds from the Gates Foundation. The DI definitely qualifies as a group that is doing much more harm than good. While I understand that the money from the Gates Foundation is meant to go toward a Cascadia project which is looking for transportation solutions for the Northwest, but the fact that the grant is so large means that it is also providing much of the infrastructure for an organization whose primary mission is to reinvent science and culture in a way that will essentially create a very conservative evangelical Protestant theocracy in the U.S. One look at Africa will speak volumes about the danger of replacing scientific evidence with religious traditions and customs (methods for dealing with AIDS jump to my mind). The DI is already causing school districts across the country to abandon quality teaching in the sciences, particularly in the biological sciences. This observation has been made by nearly every major science organization. The Gates Foundation has a reputation of providing positive influences on education programs throughout the nation, so the work of the DI should be especially troubling. As you are also most likely well aware, the Biological Theory of Evolution is a cornerstone of nearly all pubic health research programs, and this is especially true for infectious disease research. I would beg you to ask the health science researchers on your advisory committees whether the money going to the DI is providing more harm than good for their research programs. I would bet that they will say that the $1 million per year investment in DI is actually costing millions of dollars a year in damage to public health institution each year. Isn’t it possible to find another organization to fund for transit solutions in the Northwest? If not, couldn’t the Gates Foundation make a stipulation that the Cascadia project completely separate their finances from the rest of the DI (including the elimination of any shared staff members and resources)?

Thank you for listening to my concerns. Please, know that I am very grateful for the amazing work of the Gates Foundation.

ps. My submit word is "darwin". You have to love this biology-based random word generator.