Online Science Policy Critique Of Kerry And Bush

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online Science Policy Critique Of Kerry And Bush

Posted by timothy on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @01:25AM from the which-skull-and-bones-member-would-would-you-like dept.

museumpeace writes "David Appell, one of Techonology Review's bloggers, has posted a quick review of Nature Publishing Group's comparison of candidate positions on Science faulting both for various lame answers. That might save you the trouble of reading all the other coverage at NPG, and the more informative articles published by Science. But if you want a heads-up about which kinds of research will thrive or get the ax in the next four years, you might want to slog through "Kerry and Bush offer their views" . Both publications require registration or payment to access most of their content but the science policy debate is being aired out for free."

33 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

what rush? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-22 01:26 · Score: 0

don't see no rush...
Fisheries Management by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-22 01:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

I heard a story about NPR about fisheries management and how it looks like Bush is making some positive steps there. It sounds like he appointed a bunch of oil people to this committee which worried all the environmentalists, but then the guys he put there ended up agreeing with the scientific findings (to the surprise and delight of the environmental folks). Sounds like they are going to put a bunch of stuff that was under a bunch of different jurisdictions into a fisheries management group, that I assume will be putting some good changes into effect. Interesting.
1. Re:Fisheries Management by nharmon · 2004-09-22 02:11 · Score: 2
  
  You would be surprised how many big bad conservative republican corporate heros are also big on environmental conservation and wildlife management.
2. Re:Fisheries Management by ImaLamer · 2004-09-22 02:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I don't know if that is true, but I know that Nixon devoted 1/3 of his 1971 State of The Union on the environment and started/supported creation of the EPA.
  
  But between Bush and Kerry, Kerry takes the cake for being an "environmentalist".
  
  From Project Vote Smart:
  
  Environmental Issues
  
  2003 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 53 percent of the time.
  
  2003 On the votes that the Sierra Club considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
  
  2001-2002 On the votes that the National Parks Consevation Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
  
  2001-2002 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.
  
  2001-2002 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 73 percent of the time.
  
  1999-2000 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.
  
  1999-2000 On the votes that the National Parks Conservation Association considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
  
  1999-2000 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 84 percent of the time.
  
  --
  Get your Unix fortune now!
3. Re:Fisheries Management by l4m3z0r · 2004-09-22 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  The environment used to be primarily a Republican issue. Republicans started to distance themselves from the environment after the dreaded "hippies" made it one of their chief concerns. I've heard many republicans complain about how the Democrats stole the environment issue from them. Pretty interesting to think about how the parties(which are generally considered opposite numbers, they aren't they are both pretty close to eachother in truth) can trade issues like that.
4. Re:Fisheries Management by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-22 04:13 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Kerry may be more of an "environmentalist", but in at least in this fisheries management issue, the solution seems to have made Big Oil (TM) and the environmentalists happy. I found that surprising, and it seems like a pretty big accomplishment.
5. Re:Fisheries Management by TykeClone · 2004-09-22 12:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'd think that Republicans (that care about this) would generally fall into the "good stewardship" camp - use, but try not to do too much damage. I'd think that Democrats would fall more into the "restore the pre-settlement environment" camp - no usage, no people, just good vibes.
  I also think that outdoorsmen in general (hunters, fishermen, and the like) do want to protect the environment more than they're given credit for.
  I think that there are plenty from both parties who don't care one way or another.
  The looks of the list you've got seems to confirm that. I'm sure that the Sierra Club is not interested in using resources wisely - just setting them off to the side.
  
  --
  A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Interesting but... by Malfourmed · 2004-09-22 01:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is interesting but surely the more pertinent question is: how many voters see a candidate's science policy as being important enough to influence how they would vote?

--
a world in progress...
1. Re:Interesting but... by stromthurman · 2004-09-22 02:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Taking this excerpt from a BBC article into account, "it is the first time in decades that economy has not topped the list of concerns - security came first with 41%, while 26% cited the economy," I would say that when even economic concerns are not the chief issue, issues of science are bound to be very low on the list.
  
  For anyone interested, here is the complete article.
  
  --
  I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this margin is too small to contain.
2. Re:Interesting but... by l4m3z0r · 2004-09-22 03:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A lot less than should. Especially since we have seen the corrupting and tampering of science by this administration. Which should make alot more people angry about how they are manipulating science to back up their views rather than evaluating their policies for flaws through science. This kind of stuff is actually very short sighted. If you manipulate science to show that your policy is ok and it turns out to be crap or really bad while during your run at office you come out looking good we have big problems 10 years later.
  The current administrations stance on science should be recognized for what it is, a lack of leadership and an inability to evaluate their own work. Not that Kerry would do any better but he has shown in most cases to listen to credible scientific studies(other times not however). Obviously I hold science to be in high reguard, because when it comes down to it, all policy must be backed and checked with scientific scrutiny. If you don't support that then you don't support any body evaluating your work to see if it holds water. But hey people seem to like the denial, head in the sand approach that this administration offers.
3. Re:Interesting but... by kippy · 2004-09-22 03:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Since Kerry has pretty much sided with Bush on most of the big issues that matter to me (No Child Left Behind, Use of Force in Iraq, Patriot Act), the only things left for me to vote on are terrorism and science.
  
  Since I'm a big backer of a manned space program, Bush's stance on that issue actually carries quite a bit of weight with me.
  
  --
  Blaze a trail to the New World
4. Re:Interesting but... by Karma+Farmer · 2004-09-22 04:42 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Bush's stance on that issue actually carries quite a bit of weight with me.
  
  Unfortunately, Bush's public stance on most issues don't carry any weight in his proposed budgets.
  
  Its really cool that he talks about spending billions of dollars to go to Mars. Its really cool that he talks about spending billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq, or fight AIDS in Africa, or a whole bunch of other cool ideas. Wake me up if he ever decides to actually do more than talk.
5. Re:Interesting but... by (trb001) · 2004-09-22 04:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I think the billions of dollars for Iraq are already in the works, being dished out as we speak. Kerry harps on the war spending nearly every dat. I haven't heard a lot on the AIDS front, and I'm not sure we should...there's no organized method to distribute it, no plan of what to do with it either.
  
  --trb
6. Re:Interesting but... by kippy · 2004-09-22 06:06 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Wake me up if he ever decides to actually do more than talk.
  
  Psst, wake up!
  
  --
  Blaze a trail to the New World
7. Re:Interesting but... by Retric · 2004-09-23 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh yes terror. Let's see 9/11 killed 1 in 800,000 Americans and people feel the need to suddenly change their worldview.
  
  I guess such people also feel "No Child Left Behind" or "Let no child get ahead" as most educators call it is a great idea. What such people fail to realize is spending $ to fight a war which gains nothing is much less important than fixing the US highway system. I live 5 miles from work and it takes me 30 minuets to get home most nights. That's a huge economic drain that someone with vision could deal with.
  
  Instead of destabilizing the Middle East by spending billions of dollars and a 1000+ lives to over through a petty dictator let's make America a Nation where we deal with the source of economic problems not just there symptoms. Instead of talking about sending a few tourists to mars let's spend 50 BILLION a year each and every year on get fustian and get working power plants in the next 20 or 30 years. Leadership is choosing to improve the situation it has nothing to do with looking good or saying the right thing and has everything to do with having the balls deal with problems and make the situation better for the next guy to hold office.
8. Re:Interesting but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-23 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  I think the billions of dollars for Iraq are already in the works, being dished out as we speak.
  
  This apparently isn't true - as of a month ago, only 3% of the $18 billion allocated last year had been spent on reconstruction. The ongoing security problems (i.e., the part where we haven't won the war yet) have put the actual dishing out process on hold. See, e.g.,
  http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/chi- 0408170344aug17,0,2861780.story?coll=ny-top-headli nes/
  
  Kerry's harping is over the incompetence of the war spending, not the nonexistent rebuilding.
  
  It's true that the Bush administration talks a good game, though...
Dupes On Politics Already? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-22 02:45 · Score: 0

There's a little value added here with the summary, but still... http://science.slashdot.org/science/04/09/16/03362 47.shtml?tid=226&tid=134&tid=1&tid=14
1. Re:Dupes On Politics Already? by Minna+Kirai · 2004-09-22 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  DUPE! Whatever idiot posted this was ignoring one of the highest-commented articles of the year. There are 1569 comments already written- let's all pick one, paste it in here, and we can have the same giant flamefest; with a lot less work!
relevance of science by pbranes · 2004-09-22 03:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

I believe that it is impossible to segregate the scientific goals of the candidates from other goals. They are speaking about issues such as stem cell research and terrorism. They also speak about creating jobs using science or making America more powerful relative to the rest of the world. So, people need to not look at this as a stand-alone issue, but rather as science being an integral part of every other issue - economic, morality, military, terrorism, education, environment, etc.
1. Re:relevance of science by zardinuk · 2004-09-22 03:47 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'd have to agree with this. Stem cell research, genetic manipulation, and abortion are all part of the same argument. Seems like they both have the same scientific goals, please the likes of the scientific community while reserving a huge portion of the national budget for social and foreign war efforts. Maybe science will be more important in a relatively calm election year.
  
  --
  "What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others."
  - Confucius
2. Re:relevance of science by Idarubicin · 2004-09-22 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Stem cell research, genetic manipulation, and abortion are all part of the same argument.
  Stem cell research, genetic manipulation, and abortion can be presented--usually for the purposes of political grandstanding--as being part of the same argument.
  In practice, there's actually very little overlap between them.
  
  --
  ~Idarubicin
3. Re:relevance of science by pbranes · 2004-09-22 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  I would agree that an abortion and stem cell research don't have a whole lot in common in and of themselves. However, the foundational idea does. I believe that stem cell research and an abortion do not respect the right for a person (including a fetus, fertilized egg, etc) to not be killed by someone else without due process of law. This ties them together so that the issues are one and the same.
  See, to me (and to a large number of other people), there is a huge overlap and not just political grandstanding.
4. Re:relevance of science by zardinuk · 2004-09-22 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Right, for the democrats is an obligation to serve science by proving that embryonic stem cell research is the payoff for treating embryo's as non-humans, and for the republicans, it's the opposite, but each issue is tied to the other, so if one goes they all go.
  
  --
  "What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others."
  - Confucius
5. Re:relevance of science by museumpeace · 2004-09-22 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  I agree but the problem is that a scientific development leads its political consequences by years, sometimes decades. Politicians and most businesses don't operate in that sort of timeframe. So even though most of the jobs we do and the way we fight wars involve technology that was hot science 10 or 20 years ago, few of us are voting like science mattered, let alone being led by leaders who think that way. A poll at scienceblog.com shows that its readers strongly consider Bush harmful to scientific progress.
  
  --
  SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
6. Re:relevance of science by jfengel · 2004-09-22 07:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'd love to have people think of "science" in terms closer to its root scientia, "knowledge". Bad science isn't just bad decisions on matters filled with people called "scientists" (environment, medicine, basic research). Bad science is bad thinking.
  
  Science is many things, but among them is a collection of techniques for removing bias, self-deception, and self-interest from decision making. These are techniques that scientists usually apply every single day in their personal lives. I'd love to see the same sort of intellectual rigor applied to the very areas you mention.
  
  Sadly, that's not how most people see science. They partition it off as a separate category and see certain issues as "science" and everything else as... well, other things: politics, religion, ideology, values. There are places for these things, but to draw the line and say, "No, rational thought stops here, I believe what I believe and it must be that way" makes for difficult policy, especially when your politics/religion/ideology/values conflict with mine.
  
  Science is far from perfect, and those who call themselves scientists are hardly immune to human foibles, even in their work. But I'd like to see it go a lot further.
7. Re:relevance of science by Retric · 2004-09-23 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, using the leftovers from fertility treatments that are sitting in a jar at well below freezing is like killing a developing embryo. Now if you want to limit stem cell research to cells not aborted for that purpose fine but doctors use dead people in med school all the time. That does not mean doctors higher people to kill people it just means that they use dead bodies. Abortion is legal and will continue to be so with or without stem cell research.
  So where is the overlap?
8. Re:relevance of science by pbranes · 2004-09-23 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  See, I believe that a human being is created as soon as an egg is fertilized, therefore, we must treat that fertilized egg (or embryo, human being, etc - they are all the same to me) as a person with rights. I believe that fertility treatments - where they create many fertilized eggs and hope some survive - is wrong. My wife and I are having trouble conceiving now, but we would *never* consider fertility treatments.
  doctors use dead people in med school all the time
  It doesn't matter to me if a doctor uses a dead body. Its just a body. What matters is a person's soul. A body is just a temporary holding place for the soul. When a soul inhabits a body - it is precious. When a body is devoid of a soul, it is just an accumulation or chemicals.
9. Re:relevance of science by MikeBabcock · 2004-09-24 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  We often look at science through a historical lens and too infrequently do we consider how those scientists were seen at their own time.
  
  How was relativity research received at the time? How about the concept of a void? Or the curvature of the Earth?
  
  I'd like to see *all* science treated fairly, I really don't care if its based on a belief that the universe is a billion years old or that a god created it. If you can study it and make hypotheses and try to prove it, its science.
  
  I'm sure there are lots of people out there who think string theory isn't science or that multi-dimensional space isn't "real". I think science has more to do with assisting people's ability to think broadly.
  
  The concept of "thinking well" must be very well defined to not actually act as a form of censorship of science in and of itself.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Politics Section by beattie · 2004-09-22 04:17 · Score: 1

Why does the politics section have an american flag and american stuff on it? Politics exist on other countries also, you know.
1. Re:Politics Section by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-22 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  Read the FAQ
This is Science? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-22 04:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Does the USDA's mission to promote U.S. agricultural products, that is, to eat more, get in the way of
efforts to combat the emergent obesity problem?"

That's NOT a scientific question. It's a political question skewed to go against a typically Republican ally of the US Agriculture business.

Likewise:

"Should there be any restrictions on using foreign aid for abortions or counseling on birth control methods?"

Is not a scientific question either. It's a skewed political question because Clinton's rules on foreign aid DEMANDED its use for abortions and birth control.
Why is this even a question? by SewersOfRivendell · 2004-09-22 05:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Kerry said that national scientific policy would be based on sound science, not ideology, in his acceptance speech at the DNC. But we know he's a flipflopper, the so-called liberal media tells us so, so he can't be trusted.
Bush, on the other hand, can run his campaign secure in the knowledge that he has a superb record on science. Christian Science, that is.
Keep this in mind the when you see the talking heads on CNN or NBC fellate Bush at the debates. The national media is not only biased, it's feeding America's ignorance.
1. Re:Why is this even a question? by Rayonic · 2004-09-23 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  What Liberal Media?
  
  Oh, That Liberal Media!
  
  Sorry, I just couldn't resist. ;-)
  
  --
  [PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation