Joe Genius on Hiatus

[jackierulesall]

Attention Backyard Scientists & Joe Geniuses:

We had an awesome first season of Joe Genius! For now, the show will be on hiatus... because we all need a break from time to time. But be sure to stay tuned for more info and upcoming news, and until then be sure to get all the past homegrown science experiments gone wrong at Revision3.com/JoeGenius and keep up with the show on Twitter @JoeGenius.

[chicagobob]

I seriously hope your show is coming back...it's no longer listed in the Shows section, and now they got some lame show called Scientific Tuesday, it appears to be geared to 4th graders, dear god rev 3 is really going downhill, the only good shows left are either being cancelled or just running out of steam.

[bolomkxxviii]

I really enjoyed the show. Just the right "feel" to it. Hope Rev3 brings it back.

[burnedtubes]

Originally Posted by bolomkxxviii

I really enjoyed the show. Just the right "feel" to it. Hope Rev3 brings it back.

Doubtful... They are cutting shows left and right. It's a sinking ship brought on by the bad economy.

[boldfire]

Exaggerate, much? They don't cancel that often, let alone "left and right".

[tokenuser]

Originally Posted by boldfire

Exaggerate, much? They don't cancel that often, let alone "left and right".

Burnedtubes has a problem with facts that get in the way of his perception of reality.

Joe Genius was originally stated as having 13 episodes.
We got 13 episodes.

Will we get more? Who knows. This was at least in part funded by the NSF (National Science Foundation - a US government science/research group). I suspect someone wrote a grant submission for science education, and JG is what popped out.

Want more? Stop voting Republicans into congress who kill budgets for this type of thing.

Originally Posted by tokenuser

Burnedtubes has a problem with facts that get in the way of his perception of reality.

Joe Genius was originally stated as having 13 episodes.
We got 13 episodes.

Will we get more? Who knows. This was at least in part funded by the NSF (National Science Foundation - a US government science/research group). I suspect someone wrote a grant submission for science education, and JG is what popped out.

Want more? Stop voting Republicans into congress who kill budgets for this type of thing.

While on the subject of facts, here are a couple for you:

1. As many Democrats voted for the MTR as there were votes against it -- 121 Democrats for, 126 votes against.

2. All an MTR means is that the budget will be frozen at 2010 levels.

Also, the thought that tax payer dollars were spent in order to fund this trash is appalling to me. Just how much was this guy paid to edit together a bunch of pseudo-scientific youtube videos?

[tokenuser]

Since you want to talk facts, let's get specific ...

Trouble came on May 13, when the H.R. 5116 reached the House floor. Election-year politics and the toxic partisan environment carried the day. Following all debate and consideration of amendments, Republicans introduced a “Motion to Recommit” (MTR) that stripped out all the increased authorizations for science, freezing spending for the next three years at 2010 levels. Opponents of the bill also included a “poison pill” provision requiring that all NSF personnel who had been found guilty of using office computers to watch pornography be fired. The provision caught the bill’s sponsors by surprise, and 121 Democrats opted to support the MTR to avoid being tarred in November as pornography supporters. The motion passed 292 to 126, sending the bill back to committee.

Are you familiar with how NSF funds get allocated to projects and what their purpose is? My experience is indirect - reviewing and editing my wifes submissions and budgets (and entering data into FASTLANE for her) with respect to her environmental and cancer based research. She also participates in the grant review process.

She doesn't go to the NSF and say "I have proven a link between living within a 12 miles radius of a coal fired power plant and testicular cancer and I will sell it to you for $3M funding over the next 3 years". Similarly, the JG folks wouldn't have said "We have produced 13 educational videos targetting getting teens interested in science that we'd like to sell you for $100000".

No. The NSF gets proposals. I am betting the JG production team were approached by an academic who partnered with them to PROPOSE a project to get young teens interested in science. They would have outlined the goals, the underlying methodology, linked to prior related works, and detailed the expected outcomes/deliverables. The NSF approves funding on the merits of the proposal. If its a success, then that makes it easier to get future funding. If it's a failure, then future funding is unlikely ... but, the outcome is not the only benefit of funding.

The hidden benefit is training. In my wife's case most of her (after the university skims off it's 50%) allows her to "hire" graduate research assistants - basically funding PhD students while they experience the Socratic "master/apprentice" learning model that produces the country's brain trust. I suspect that much of the budget the NSF provided JG went on training interns.

Originally Posted by tokenuser

Since you want to talk facts, let's get specific ...



Are you familiar with how NSF funds get allocated to projects and what their purpose is? My experience is indirect - reviewing and editing my wifes submissions and budgets (and entering data into FASTLANE for her) with respect to her environmental and cancer based research. She also participates in the grant review process.

She doesn't go to the NSF and say "I have proven a link between living within a 12 miles radius of a coal fired power plant and testicular cancer and I will sell it to you for $3M funding over the next 3 years". Similarly, the JG folks wouldn't have said "We have produced 13 educational videos targetting getting teens interested in science that we'd like to sell you for $100000".

No. The NSF gets proposals. I am betting the JG production team were approached by an academic who partnered with them to PROPOSE a project to get young teens interested in science. They would have outlined the goals, the underlying methodology, linked to prior related works, and detailed the expected outcomes/deliverables. The NSF approves funding on the merits of the proposal. If its a success, then that makes it easier to get future funding. If it's a failure, then future funding is unlikely ... but, the outcome is not the only benefit of funding.

The hidden benefit is training. In my wife's case most of her (after the university skims off it's 50%) allows her to "hire" graduate research assistants - basically funding PhD students while they experience the Socratic "master/apprentice" learning model that produces the country's brain trust. I suspect that much of the budget the NSF provided JG went on training interns.

Well who knew? All it takes to squelch a bill is to question your opponents' moral stature. What a pathetic rebuttal. I don't care how they got the money; who approached whom. It was wasted.

[tokenuser]

Originally Posted by jrmy0641

Well who knew? All it takes to squelch a bill is to question your opponents' moral stature. What a pathetic rebuttal. I don't care how they got the money; who approached whom. It was wasted.

Yes. Moral stature is all it takes approaching an election. Republicans are notorious for inserting poison pills in legislature, and Democrats don't (normally) have the balls to call them on it )the recent lame duck session seems to be the exception).