I think you'd all be sorely mistaken if you think only Palin or Republicans have this level of ignorance about science and scientific research. Palin just makes the mistake of voicing her ignorance, but in a way, I prefer that, because that can then give an opportunity to open dialog on it to educate her (whether or not she'd listen any better than the other bricks sitting in Congress, I don't know yet). It's much better she says it now so scientists and science advisors can intervene and give her a briefing on why fruit fly genetics is so important and how it has informed our understanding of human genetics and disease BEFORE she has the power to cut the research budget further.
On every grant application written, there is a section usually called something like a "Summary Statement" at the very beginning. The instructions are to write this so an 8th grader can understand it, and to use it to highlight the importance of the research to human health or other more broad implications. There is a reason for this section, and that reason is so that when Congress is reviewing budgets and looking at what is getting funded, it is written at a level they can understand. Yes, it is sad that the people who hold the purse strings for scientific funding have to be given explanations of the work at the level of a high school dropout to understand it, but that is reality. Unfortunately, it's a self-perpetuating reality, since people who don't understand science also don't understand the need to promote early science education in the primary and secondary school systems.
We've had similar problems in the past. Long before the Bush administration, every few years, someone in Congress gets the bug in their butt that any research on "sexual behavior" should have funding revoked. All of us who study reproductive biology and neural mechanisms for the associated behaviors know this happens (note how I just phrased that), so we NEVER use the phrase "sexual behavior" in our grant applications. That way, when they do a keyword search to decide whose budget to cut, ours won't be the ones that pop up.
The other sad reality right now is that it doesn't matter who gets elected for the next 4 years. The economy is too bad to think scientific research is going to recover in this time. I expect it to get worse before it gets better...though it's frightening to think it can get worse.
NIH has already changed its application rules to adjust to the shriveled budget. No longer do researchers get three chances on an application (the initial proposal and two chances at revisions to address reviewer critiques), it's just been cut back to only one revision. That's really going to be harsh in the first year or two, because grants originally submitted up until now are being grandfathered in, so we'll have second revisions competing with applications that only get one chance at revision.
I would expect that in the present economy and with the current problems facing the country, the lion's share of public research funding will be going to defense and energy related research. Although, if McCain/Palin end up in office, I can envision Palin's pet projects would include setting aside funds for studying things like Down Syndrome (which, ironically, is a genetic disorder and could benefit from some of that fruit fly research...someone just needs to explain this to her).
Every administration has their pet projects. Research funding has never been static. I don't see that as a negative though. When funds are limited, instead of spreading a little bit of money to a lot of people doing a lot of different things, so nothing really ever gets accomplished, a lot of people focusing on one area of research get a lot of money for a few years, so there's a good chance of pushing forward knowledge in that area. And, then, in a few years, the winds change, a new election is held, and another area of research gets emphasized for a while.
