Come on, how stupid can these scientists be? You don't compare markers, you compare proteins. Ultimately, it's the proteins that build up the phenotype and the functions, not all of the markers. Heck, if they used enough markers, they can probably plot the entire 6 billion+ humans on a frigging genes clustering map. The point is, its the proteins that are important, and proteins should be analyzed, not markers.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1196372

I can't believe I pay so much of my tax money to fund these stupid people's research.

The vast majority of these markers are neutral and do not get expressed in the phenotype nor in the functions and are subject to genetic drift. These scientists are dumbasses. Agree?

Well, not all research has to be immediate-goal oriented, in fact that is one of the short comings of the more modern science.

Also a LOT of this science is quite politically-influenced as well... I am not found of this fact.

I will definitely agree with you that many scientists are in fact dumbarses, and believe me I have met many (and even more soon-to-become, or so they hope). Some are truly great, some are a bit weird, but a lot are just, how should i put this? A bunch of tossers.

A lot of them want to play the part, and they find something that they can do (perhaps egged on or inspired by various political influences), and they then do "that science stuff" without any true passion, just so that they can get the grants or sponsorship and continue living like a scientist. Not too many of them are thrilled with the idea of lots of hard work with no publishable/ego-boosting findings. I've written this a bit harsh, and humans will be humans, but just because some people have done some research and published some papers does not at all mean that they've done anything useful or meaningful at all (and lots of people would assume that they would be, because they think that that is the main motivation in the first place. How wrong people can be). I have developed this opinion mostly at university and talking to other people (some in the field). Take it as you will.

Additionally, most scientists that were ever alive haven't died yet. I don't personally know if that is true or not (I would imagine what would constitute a "Scientist" in this case would be a author or co-author of a scientific paper) but if that is the case then there's your problem. The bell curve and all of that.