Originally posted by zeeblebotActually, young career researchers compete for a different pool of money than established researchers. We tend to have higher success rates, actually. Recently, for example, I successfully attracted a grant of NZ$125,000 to look at the genetic basis of protein turnover in ryegrass leaves (since this is known to be important in sustaining plant growth (I rather think it's actually a cause of leaf biogenesis)).
that's if you're a struggling young biology PhD (and not just because your submission is more likely to be crap then). not if you "may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert".
Originally posted by scottishinnzCongrats, in the US grants are very hard to get if they are not in the interest of the military.
Actually, young career researchers compete for a different pool of money than established researchers. We tend to have higher success rates, actually. Recently, for example, I successfully attracted a grant of NZ$125,000 to look at the genetic basis of protein turnover in ryegrass leaves (since this is known to be important in sustaining plant growth (I rather think it's actually a cause of leaf biogenesis)).
Originally posted by VapataThanks. That's precisely the point I was trying to get across to Zeeb. Grants are considered on their merit, especially nowadays. There used to be a time when individual researchers got funded (and therefore, whatever they asked for) but not now. Next time, I'm going for a biggy, a quarter millon $ government grant.
Congrats, in the US grants are very hard to get if they are not in the interest of the military.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat, apart from what you've told us, do you expect to find from the research?
Thanks. That's precisely the point I was trying to get across to Zeeb. Grants are considered on their merit, especially nowadays. There used to be a time when individual researchers got funded (and therefore, whatever they asked for) but not now. Next time, I'm going for a biggy, a quarter millon $ government grant.
Originally posted by VapataOh, personally, I just want to know the answer to a simple little question "why does grass grow?". That's all. When you get right down to it, how do they know when to produce new leaves, to flower, how much grain to produce (in cereals, which are a major part of my work), how many tillers to make?
What, apart from what you've told us, do you expect to find from the research?
Once that is sorted and the genetic basis is determined, breeding seems a natural next step. Probably the selective breeding of cultivars for specific usages.
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo, with any luck, this could be a pretty big agricultural breakthrough.
Oh, personally, I just want to know the answer to a simple little question "why does grass grow?". That's all. When you get right down to it, how do they know when to produce new leaves, to flower, how much grain to produce (in cereals, which are a major part of my work), how many tillers to make?
Once that is sorted and the genetic basis is determ ...[text shortened]... seems a natural next step. Probably the selective breeding of cultivars for specific usages.
Originally posted by VapataHopefully. That's the idea. Still, people like Wajoma seem resistant to the government funding this type of research. In NZ, of course, agriculture is the single biggest economic sector, comprising around 40% of NZ's national income. It will take some years before this (my work) would become comercially viable, but unless the groundwork is done we'll never get there. I believe my work will have wider ramifications, especially for developing nations, since we'll be able to develop varieties that will be able to produce a reliable (although perhaps not very high) yield, even under harsh conditions with low fertiliser inputs. Unfortunately, it will be Wajoma's (and his ilk) beloved companies that will take this work and use it to exploit poor farmers in poor countries.
So, with any luck, this could be a pretty big agricultural breakthrough.
Originally posted by amannionZeeb and his lot would say something along the lines of "hundreds of billions of dollars" is the harm in being cautious. This is the argument that you get from people who value money more than people.
If global warming is happening as a result of human intervention in biogeochemical cycles, let's stop arguing and do something about it.
If it's not, what harm is there in being a bit cautious anyway?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by scottishinnzif it is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollers then someone will have to earn hundreds of billions of dollars. the reason the oil companies and the like are worried is because they don't think it will be them.
Zeeb and his lot would say something along the lines of "hundreds of billions of dollars" is the harm in being cautious. This is the argument that you get from people who value money more than people.