The International Olympic Committee is reportedly contemplating some changes
to the way it will run the Marathon in this year鈥檚 games. Two scenarios are
under consideration. In one, any runner who is ahead after 20 miles (32.2
kilometres) may simply stop and claim to be the winner. In another, runners will
complete their races at secret locations, and then sell private videos of their
efforts to anyone who wants to verify a claim of victory.
The IOC鈥檚 decision to consider changing the centuries-old fashion of
determining who won a race was apparently triggered by the joint victory
announcement by the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics of Maryland. On 26
June in the East Room of the White House both declared victory in sequencing the
human genome, an event noted in headlines around the world.
What gained less attention was the fact that the Human Genome Project had, by
its own admission, only completed 85 per cent of the job. Project organisers had
previously set the bar for declaring a 鈥渨orking draft鈥� of the sequence at 90 per
cent. But as the date for the White House event approached it became clear they
wouldn鈥檛 make even that goal, so 85 per cent was deemed close enough.
Advertisement
In Celera鈥檚 case, company officials say they have, in fact, completed the
entire sequence, and anyone willing to pony up for a licence鈥攕ome of which
are said to cost as much as $50 million鈥攊s welcome to have a look
for themselves.
Having opened the door with the genome announcement, it鈥檚 easy to imagine all
sorts of changes that could be brought on by the new rules for declaring
victory. For example, newspapers could start reporting baseball scores at the
end of the eighth innings, since the team ahead in the eighth almost always
wins. Or what about reporting football scores at the 88th minute? That should go
down well with Italians still smarting from France鈥檚 injury-time equaliser.
THE FEDERAL government spends $80 billion a year on research and
development. Not a lot when compared to what the government spends on
healthcare, but still not to be sneezed at.
Politicians long ago realised that snagging a chunk of that money for
research done on their patch is a good way to score political points. A report
commissioned by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
conducted by RAND in California, confirms what we knew all along鈥攖hem that
has, gets. Big states like California ($14.4 billion) and Texas
($4 billion) do well because they are big; might makes right, as is often
claimed here. Some smaller states such as Maryland ($8 billion) and
Virginia ($4.6 billion) do well because they have historically done well,
and momentum is a tremendously powerful force.
Another factor favouring Maryland and Virginia is their proximity to
Washington DC. It seems that one of the largest expenses in the federal R&D
effort is not the actual research, but the salaries of the legion of bureaucrats
charged with running the research enterprise. Though almost devoid of research
facilities within its tiny boundaries, the District of Columbia nonetheless
ranks 10th in the country for the amount of federal R&D funds that it
receives鈥攁 whopping $2.7 billion. On a per capita basis, that comes
to $5139, more than four times as much as the next closest state.
Alas there are no political points to be scored for this accumulation of
wealth. By constitutional fiat, the District of Columbia does not get a senator
or a representative in the US Congress.
