AIP Probes Bush, Kerry On Science Issues

martensitic writes "Physics Today (the 50-year-old monthly publication of the American Institute of Physics) continues their election-year tradition with this special report, posing nine questions 'in an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community'. The 'sometimes direct and sometimes vague' written responses 'show fundamental differences on several key issues.'"

Comments

I call bullshit on Bush

[DrunkClam]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,1096298,00.html/ The United States is embarking on a multimillion-dollar expansion of its nuclear arsenal, prompting fears it may lead the world into a new arms race. The Bush administration is pushing ahead with the development of a new generation of weapons, dubbed 'mini-nukes', that use nuclear warheads to penetrate underground bunkers. Last week, it gave a quiet yet final go-ahead to a controversial research project into the bunker-buster. The move effectively ends a 10-year ban on research into 'low-yield' nuclear weapons. Critics fear it may lead other countries to push ahead with developing such weapons. It also comes at a highly sensitive time diplomatically, with the US lobbying countries such as Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear plans. 'The United States is spurring a new global arms race with our own development of a new generation of nuclear weapons,' said Democrat Ellen Tauscher, who led an unsuccessful bid in Congress to have the programme scrapped.

I call bullshit on Bush

[DrunkClam]

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-10/p28.html / Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. ---------- Money for weapons is most certainly not money for science.

Re:Fact Check

[Doc Ruby]

It's disturbing that either of them can say they're spending money on this with a straight face. Bush is a wholly owned subsidiary of the military/industrial complex, and Kerry's Massachussets constituency is led by the Route 128 defense contractors, to say nothing of the Harvard and MIT departments fed on those budgets. I am a DSP programmer, and I know the tech is almost as far away now as it was back in 1988-1992, when Bush Sr. was funding Star Wars covertly for at least $6B:y. If we just spent that money on the ISS, lunar base, and DSP, we'd be building a world of international cooperation not nearly as threatened by the imaginary missiles that drive these budgets.

Re:Nuclear, Energy, and Environment issues for Bus

[Hittite Creosote]

And I really, really challenge you to find a real physicist who honestly believes that time travel is possible with enough energy.

I have to admit, the original parent isn't being a complete lunatic on this one - genuine physicists have come up with papers on this - see "Closed timelike curves produced by pairs of moving cosmic strings: Exact solutions" J.R. Gott, III, Physics Review Letters, v.66, p.1126 (1991).

I don't know if he's since accepted the complaints that he's wrong (see S. Deser, R. Jackiw, and G. 't Hooft, PRL, v.66, p.267 (1992))

Re:Nuclear, Energy, and Environment issues for Bus

[Rei]

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00. html?tw=wn_story_related

Scientists: Bush Distorts Science

The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.

The scientists listed various policy issues as being unfairly influenced by the administration, including those concerning climate change, mercury emissions, reproductive health, lead poisoning in children, workplace safety and nuclear weapons. New regulations and laws are necessary to fix the situation, the statement says.

"We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush administration, and it crosses disciplines, whether it's global climate change or reproductive health or mercury in the food chain or forestry -- the list goes on and on," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

(etc)

BTW, what on earth was up with your selective quotation? For example, for the Bush vs. Kerry on nuclear power, why did you pick out the word "regulation" for Kerry instead of, say, "A Kerry?Edwards administration will proceed based on peer?reviewed science."