<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Research and Intelligence &#8230; Research for Intelligence</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lewisshepherd.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/research-and-intelligence-research-for-intelligence/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lewisshepherd.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/research-and-intelligence-research-for-intelligence/</link>
	<description>A fuzzy technologist carves up facts &#38; figures</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:04:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Fred Zimmerman</title>
		<link>http://lewisshepherd.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/research-and-intelligence-research-for-intelligence/#comment-350</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred Zimmerman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:50:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lewisshepherd.wordpress.com/?p=285#comment-350</guid>
		<description>The article&#039;s pessimism seems overstated.  The article is about the state of science funding, which is a different thing than the state of science.  The same argument applies to the concerns about the percentage of research grants funded.  A more useful basis for arguments about the state of science in the US would be to look at trends in citation indexes.

That said, I am 1000% in favor of increased funding for science. Yours via the miracle of zaptxt.com,

Fred</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The article&#8217;s pessimism seems overstated.  The article is about the state of science funding, which is a different thing than the state of science.  The same argument applies to the concerns about the percentage of research grants funded.  A more useful basis for arguments about the state of science in the US would be to look at trends in citation indexes.</p>
<p>That said, I am 1000% in favor of increased funding for science. Yours via the miracle of zaptxt.com,</p>
<p>Fred</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
