Online Science Policy Critique Of Kerry And Bush

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."

Comments

Interesting but...

[Malfourmed]

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?

Re:Interesting but...

[l4m3z0r]

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.

Re:Interesting but...

[Karma Farmer]

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.

relevance of science

[pbranes]

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.

Re:relevance of science

[jfengel]

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.

Re:Fisheries Management

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This is Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Fisheries Management

[TykeClone]

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.