Dee revealed:

> This reconfiguration of labs has been on the books for
> quite a while now with all labs to be closed with the
> exception of Weslaco.

This is a new and creative use of the term "reconfiguration".
Would one to say that one's house was "reconfigured"
into a smoldering pile of rubble by an electrical fire?     :)

I remember a very similar scenario not long ago
in the field of high-energy physics:

a) As luck would have it, the president
    in office was also named Bush.

b) The attempt was to centralize a
    wide range of efforts to one effort
    at a single site in (surprise!) Texas.

c)  The attempt used funding, or more correctly
     the lack thereof, to enforce a similar "Battan
     death march" of scientists to some one horse,
     no-Starbucks town in Texas.

The project was called the "Superconducting Supercollider",
or "SSC".  Purely political agendas spent millions of tax
dollars digging part of a very large circular tunnel with the
intention of lining it with superconducting magnets that
simply did not work as well as hoped, just as all the
scientists had warned.

The remnants of the tunnel are still there.  So is some very
expensive tunnel-digging equipment, slowly rusting.

> Yes the industry as I understand it is quite aware, but
> also is aware of needing positive research and not negative
> research. There is a big difference between the two.

*ANY* research is an absolute bargain-basement,
once-in-a-lifetime gem of a deal compared to most
other uses of tax dollars.  Research, including
"negative" research, has a clear track record of
substantial payback in tangible results to industry
and society.

The mere fact that you are reading this is proof of the massive
payback of R&D.  As recently as 1979, a computer capable of
letting you read this e-mail would have cost more than your
house.  I know, I had to sign checks to buy some of the beasties.

Now they retail for $599.95

The sort of work done at the bee labs is certain to have a very
high payback to investment ratio, simply because the amounts
of money required are so small.  Even the wildest dreams of
researchers at the bee labs are so low-cost that the entire
bee-lab program could be funded by something so minor as
simply asking our congressmen to turn off the lights when
leaving their offices.

But regardless of cost, R&D in any form is not a process where
even the majority of efforts can be expected to have outcomes
that can be viewed as "positive".

I used to run one of the labs at AT&T Bell Labs.  There were
executives that viewed some projects to be "a waste".
That sort of Monday-morning quarterbacking forced me to
explain, more often than I would have liked, as follows:

             "If we knew the outcome ahead
              of time, then it wouldn't be R&D!"

The proof of the value and certainty of research payback can be
found in the annual reports of the larger multinational gangs of
robber barons.  There is not a single company with revenues
measured in billions that does not have a large, well-funded
group of people who wear white lab coats, and have a free
hand to explore and experiment in areas of their own choosing.
Mere coincidence?  You decide.

By contrast, an approach where scientists are pressured to
"produce", and satisfy something other than their own curiosity
results in expensive comedies like the Abrams M1A2 tank, a
snafu resulting in a tank inferior to even the (by then obsolete)
USSR T-72 tank.

Still not convinced?  Read up on the National Science Foundation,
and figure out why politicians are excluded by law from any
involvement in project funding decisions.

> I also believe that land grant universities were to be part of
> this in the long term planning. Anyone heard of anything yet
> pertaining to the land grant universities?

It would be nice if proposed budget reductions at the bee labs
were equaled by budget increases for land-grant extension
programs, but I lack sufficient supplies of single-malt to be
able to make myself believe that this is true.

        jim