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

Fisheries Management

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Fisheries Management

[nharmon]

You would be surprised how many big bad conservative republican corporate heros are also big on environmental conservation and wildlife management.

Re:Fisheries Management

[ImaLamer]

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.

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.

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...

[stromthurman]

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.

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...

[kippy]

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.

Re:Interesting but...

[(trb001)]

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

Re:Interesting but...

[kippy]

Wake me up if he ever decides to actually do more than talk.

Psst, wake up!

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

[zardinuk]

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.

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.

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.

Why is this even a question?

[SewersOfRivendell]

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.