Comments on: Current Science Research Budget

By: Pearly

Pearly — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:26:12 +0000

I think the top 2 would be baldness cures and cures for erectile dysfunction.

By: Justin N

Justin N — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:26:53 +0000

As a social science grad student studying the effects of internet media… I really, really hope so.

By: Stella

Stella — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:41:39 +0000

“euphemism”

By: somerandomperson

somerandomperson — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:47:09 +0000

Dude…
its just a graph. and using big words doesn’t make you seem much more correct.

By: Nauds

Nauds — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:19:31 +0000

Tsk, they don’t pay for media research. That’s what mass communication grad students are for.

By: Scythelord

Scythelord — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:06:35 +0000

More like complete fail. Society cannot stop advancement in some areas just because other MORE COMPLEX areas are not making as much progress. That would be completely and totally retarded.

Curing cancer will be yet another nail in the coffin for human kind anyway. Already overpopulated. Take away one more population control and watch it all crumble.

By: Ruth

Ruth — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:34:05 +0000

As a Liberal Arts Person actually in the field of media research, let me assure you that research on “how much Internet and TV affects people” is not nearly as well-funded as the author seems to think. Tania is right, it is backward.

By: Stella

Stella — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:30:28 +0000

I was just about to say that! The amount of time and money that drug companies spend on trying to give old dudes boners is insane!

By: XD

XD — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:52:01 +0000

thats a whole new graph

By: wkutrent

wkutrent — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:27:16 +0000

That’s absolutely right. Lots of things on here are funny, but all of those do have at least a little reality to them.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:30:09 +0000

You forgot viagra and other sex-related performance/size-enhancing drugs. They must be working on those constantly because I always get emails about it.

By: WorldsTallestMidget

WorldsTallestMidget — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:03:21 +0000

Mr. Limbaugh, your time on the Interwebz is over now. Please go back to building your Liberal Death Ray.

By: WorldsTallestMidget

WorldsTallestMidget — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:01:42 +0000

“There’s a grant for that!”
Meh…doesn’t sound as hip.

By: WorldsTallestMidget

WorldsTallestMidget — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:01:01 +0000

According to my conservative Christian mother, “cancer will be cured when the Rapture arrives, dear.”
REPUBLICANS FTW!!!

By: WorldsTallestMidget

WorldsTallestMidget — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:59:31 +0000

I’m sorry, Mr. beck. You’re 30 minutes on the community Internet Machine is over. Please go back to your heavily-fortified room and await Armageddon.

By: WorldsTallestMidget

WorldsTallestMidget — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:57:46 +0000

/pats X on the head for and congratulates him for showing all of us he has a big brain.

By: WorldsTallestMidget

WorldsTallestMidget — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:56:22 +0000

Yeah I felt that “Erectile Dysfunction” should’ve been right there with the last stupidly vague column.

By: WorldsTallestMidget

WorldsTallestMidget — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:55:30 +0000

Um, explain to me how Black’s rant is a fail?
What he’s trying to say is our priorities in this society are COMPLETELY F-ED UP!
Lewis Black = EPIC WIN

By: WorldsTallestMidget

WorldsTallestMidget — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:54:11 +0000

Perhaps he was saying for every $200,000 in cancer research they drop $5 million in the other?
Either that or he has the money skills of Rain Man.

“How much is a TV, Raymond?”
“Hundred dollars.”

By: Adam

Adam — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:22:42 +0000

Yeah, it really is backwards.

By: random.next

random.next — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:38:21 +0000

I shall refer everyone talking about global warming in here to the second graph on the following page: http://graphjam.com/2009/11/19/funny-graphs-end-world/

I’ll talk to you again in July.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:22:35 +0000

Shouldn’t the biggest one be “finding ways to cover up data contradictory to man-made global warming”?

By: 7leagueboots

7leagueboots — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 03:26:25 +0000

Not to be as absurdly geeky as this will sound, but the budget for looking for alien life wouldn’t even register on this chart. It gets a lot of publicity because it captures the imagination, but gets pretty much no funding.

By: Tania

Tania — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:17:13 +0000

Speaking as a researcher, this chart should be relabeled as “Science the Media Will Report.” Cancer research is huge, with lots of money spent on DNA repair, gene expression, apoptosis (programmed cell death), etc. The categories on the graph are almost completely backwards in height.

But it’s Graphjam and not supposed to be serious, I know. Just thought I’m say something.

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:07:59 +0000

NASA received $17 billion last year. Not that all of its budget is spent on search for aliens, but it can be assumed that at least $1-2 billion was devoted to that search. Also, I get the feeling that this person thinks the search for extraterrestrial life is a waste by placing it higher than cancer research. Yet they don’t place the $600 billion budget of the military, which does create jobs but is significantly more expensive than the whole NASA program, which generates about 7 dollars for every 1 dollar invested in space research.

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:33:13 +0000

This was a remarkably dumb graph. If you’re trying to diminish the importance of researching effects of TV & Internet, it doesn’t take away manpower from researching cancer… It’ll just be social scientists working on the TV & Internet problem. Social scientists can’t/aren’t interested in finding the cure for cancer.

Bury this graph plz -.-

By: Sinistrad

Sinistrad — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:08:16 +0000

Wait wait, you posted this graph on the wrong site. Put your picture next to the graph and post it on FailBlog. Kthx.

By: Fayceless

Fayceless — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:57:48 +0000

If this graph were titled “Media coverage of research” it would be more accurate. (though boring)

As it is, it fails.

By: gow

gow — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:57:24 +0000

you win the internets for EVAR

By: gow

gow — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:55:31 +0000

ya the most is probably H1N1 right now cause the governments gross over reaction to it

By: Dug

Dug — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:42:17 +0000

a million dollar study which finds out people like sex

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:59:03 +0000

This fails so hard it almost wins.

By: NoOneInteresting

NoOneInteresting — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:42:16 +0000

Too bad the chart isn’t one as well.

By: NoOneInteresting

NoOneInteresting — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:40:32 +0000

I think you forgot the “in” prefix on the word “accurate” in your comment.

By: Zane

Zane — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:06:00 +0000

This graph is not in millions of dollars. It’s in millions of budgets.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:49:50 +0000

That’s only funded by Republicans. Now the actual science showing that global warming is a fact and research with the goal of reducing global warming, that’s in the single billions.

By: ahsdkfl

ahsdkfl — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:45:20 +0000

a 3rd grader definitely made this

By: charj

charj — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:36:39 +0000

A chunk of that whopping $5 million has gone to waste when the author has already given them the answer: They affect people at least to the point of not knowing subject-verb agreement.

By: Tommy

Tommy — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:28:27 +0000

indeed… most commercial product research is done solely by the companies itself… Government run research would never waste time on things such as the internet or TV unless there was a serious concern attached.

By: Cowlifornia

Cowlifornia — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:21:12 +0000

You win at everything forever! Because your a Kenyan and you run like a Kenyan and Kenyans are fast like a Cheetah!

By: Ekid2k

Ekid2k — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:34:06 +0000

Just my school does $4million of research per year

By: bkgirl

bkgirl — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:17:16 +0000

What’s dumb is that you can easily find out exactly what the government is funding. Go to grants.gov. If there is a grant for it, it’s there.

By: Veras Gunn

Veras Gunn — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:09:17 +0000

Shouldn’t this be on fail blog, not GraphJam?

By: Nubify

Nubify — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:05:29 +0000

We really should’ve found the cure for cancer years ago.

By: Will B.

Will B. — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:48:11 +0000

In terms of knowing wtf you’re talking about, this is made of FAIL. Go back to 4chan.

By: jl5691426

jl5691426 — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:37:01 +0000

Congress stopped funding Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence several years ago.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:08:40 +0000

What about the fraud that is global warming? Where is it on this graph?

By: Sara

Sara — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:58:37 +0000

So, what you’re telling me is that you have no idea where research dollars are actually going. Got it.

By: wedgeman

wedgeman — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:01:03 +0000

Social studies, such as those detailing internet usage related to some social ill, are fairly cheap and simple to perform.

A SINGLE lab involved in cancer research has a budget often in the millionsn per year. Multiply it through every lab in the country and it’s well into the billions per year in the US.

However, the Media doesn’t find little bottles full of cultured cancer cells nearly as exciting as studies relating internet use to weight or political skew or whatever.

In conclusion: multiply Y-axis by about 1000x, and reverse the X-axis completely, and you get reality, though the “gadgets” should be higher. Or, continue to view this graph and enjoy your little media-skew bubble

By: ld

ld — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:54:11 +0000

The author is a joke.