Slashdot Mirror


Abuses of Science Political Cartoon Contest

AngryNick writes "The Union of Concerned Scientists has announced a cartoon contest for amateur and professional artists. 'The absurdity of political interference in science is fertile ground for satire,' said Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. 'We hope these contests encourage amateur and professional cartoonists alike to express concern--through humor and art--about the impact of the abuse of science on our safety, health and environment.' A celebrity judge panel will select twelve finalists and the public will then choose the Grand Prize winner. The winner will receive a host of prizes, including $500 and an all-expenses-paid trip to have lunch with the celebrity judge of his or her choice. You can read Contest details, sample topics and the list of celebrity judges."

12 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. Can we start.... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we're talking political abuse-of-science, can I link to this essay by Michael Crichton about "environmentalism as religion" just to remind everyone that things like this cut both ways?

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  2. Re:Geee by Cheapy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When the Republicans (not necessarily the Right) try their hardest to subvert science, then I would expect scientists to lampoon them.

    --
    Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
  3. The bluntness of scientists and possible offense by spineboy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I worked at N.I.H (National Institutes of Health) in Washington, D.C. for 4 years doing research and let me tell you - scientists love cartoons! - everyones lab door had four or five cartoons on it (usually The Farside). They can also be pretty blunt and to the point. I'm pretty sure some of these cartoons will ruffle some feather quite a bit, which is what we need I guess. Unfortunatley, media portrayal of scientists is not always ideal, and may further serve to spread the barrier between rational thought and the great number of uneducated people who may be religious/creationists. I happen to be Catholic and couldn't be happier on the Vaticans stance that evolution is a valid scientific theory, and that the earth isn't 6,000 years old.

    Please no flame wars about the old churches stance on celestial mechanics - we've all seen it before, no need to bring it up and get side tracked. We are talking about todays political climate.

    And please let's not limit this discussion to evolution and creationists - there's been a great deal of interference on the topic of global warming. The old Republican party stance that it's not occurring has been disproven by the vast majority of atmospheric/climatologists scientists, and have shown it to be a fact. I hate that because Al Gore (A Democrat) is pro-environment, that many Republicans feel that they have to take an opposing viewpoint - what gives!? Yes, I'm sure the Dems do the same with other issues, but we are talking about science here, so let's keep our egos and passions aside and behave like rational thinkers.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  4. Re:Geee by Pu'be · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given the fact that you posted it I have to presume that you are unaware of the fact that your post is a reasonably good example of why this contest is a good idea and the sponsoring organization is necessary.

    Yes, you are right. (That was sarcasm)
    If you take the time to read the sponsoring organization they are clearly promoting a liberal socialist agenda. One side, anti Bush, Anti republican, etc etc. The kind of organization they are would not let out cartoons critiquing their side.

    But ultimately this has no place on slashdots main page. Let people only listen to one side, I do not care. I take the time to read both sides, and I understand both sides are morons. Thank you for proving though that you have no clue about one sided propaganda.

  5. The Scientific Method by erexx23 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People of religion have been studying science for decades.

    There is no disparity.

    Those who seek conflict only search to reaffirm their own personal beliefs about the world.

    The "debate" deserves parody.

  6. Jesus would have been pro-science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I read the New Testament, one thing that really stands out to me is the emphasis Jesus placed on always asking questions. He never told his followers to obey him obediently. He wanted them to question his actions and words. He wanted them to think for themselves, and analyze the world around them, for themselves. That's the very essence of science: understanding nature via observation and experimentation.

    A common theme throughout the Gospels is somebody asking Jesus a question, and Jesus telling them to look. Sometimes they would have to look inside themselves, but other times they were told to look at the world around them. They could find the answers there. All they had to do was look.

    Frankly, we don't need comics to prove wrong those Republicans, neoconservatives, evangelists, etc., who have perverted the teachings of Christ. As Christ taught us to do, all we need to do is look! We can look for ourselves at his very teachings just to see how perverted some people's interpretations of them are. And we can use his wisdom in our pursuit of science. As scientists, we always need to be continuously observing, experimenting, and otherwise understanding the world around us. That's exactly what Jesus encouraged his followers to do.

    1. Re:Jesus would have been pro-science. by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I read the New Testament, one thing that really stands out to me is the emphasis Jesus placed on always asking questions. He never told his followers to obey him obediently. He wanted them to question his actions and words.

      You must be reading a different New Testament from the rest of us. For example, Christ's pronouncements on divorce look nothing like your description above.

      Mark 10:2-12: "And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

      There is no questioning nor observation nor experiment here. There is a bald pronouncement: divorce is forbidden (there is a hotly contested description of the same exchange in Matthew that may permit divorce on some grounds if we could only figure out how to translate the Greek word "pornei" unambiguously.)

      The key to this passage is the question of scriptural authority vs the authority of Christ. Jesus is saying that even though the scriptures permit divorce, God doesn't approve of it and the time has come to end it. Jesus is claiming arbitrarily and without a shred of empirical evidence that God wants married people to stay that way. Period. He does not mention social ills or practical problems. He simply invokes what God wants. This why Christianity is religion, not science.

      There is no practical way within the Christian framework to challenge Jesus' flat-out prohibition on divorce. To do so you either have to avail yourself of Matthew's ambiguous loophole, or you have to deny the validity of Christ's words in this instance, possibly invoking the fact that we know prohibiting divorce can lead to various social ills, the exploitation and/or battering of spouses, etc, and Jesus was clearly against that kind of thing.

      But once you have done that you are well on your way down the interpretive slippery slope that leads to secular humanism. You'll find lots of friendly people ready to greet you with open arms when you reach the bottom!

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  7. Sure, I can't think of a better subject to pick. by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Heck, if we're talking abuse of science, I can't think of any better subject to discuss than the author of Andromeda Strain, Prey, and State of Fear. The man's been mangling science for years and then making his books look better by tossing a gratuitous biblography of all the papers he supposedly read to justify his plots. (Alien crystal viruses, grey goo, and local cooling disproving global warming, oh my!)

    Michael Crichton doesn't know what he's talking about. State of Fear is filled with junk science. Read a more thorough debunking here.

    The essay you link is nothing but an attack on the argument by attacking the source of the argument as being from zealots. He accuses the environmental movement of being responsible for massive deaths, and claims that they're distorting facts without backing any of it up with "facts" of his own -- except for "facts" like the harmlessness of second-hand smoke. Crichton's a loon and an asshole for making that last argument in particular, but the bulk of the essay argument is that environmentalists are wrong in their assertions (without any justification of why) and thus religious nuts for asserting something that his holiness Crichton declares to be wrong. (Oh, he could cite mainstream articles, but you wouldn't believe him anyway, so why back up his bald-faced lies?)

    He attacks environmentalists as being the same as people who romanticize primativism, use errors on predictions of a socially affected phenomena like population growth show that scientists who care about the environment can't be trusted. He claims that DDT is harmless because it's not a carcinogenic (when it's the liver, immune, and nervous toxicity that actually caused it to be banned). He states that we can't totally roll back carbon emissions without fusion technology, so it's a waste of time to bother reducing them in the meantime. He falls back on the old saw of the environment being a complex system that's hard to understand as justification for not erring on the side of safety.

    His speech is nothing but a litany of half-truths, distortions, unbacked assertions, and ad hominem attacks. So, yes, let's start our discussion of abuse of science with a discussion of Crichton. It's only appropriate.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  8. Re:Geee by dasunt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From what I've seen, any area on the political playing field will try to attack science if it hurts their sacred cows.

    Bring up the cost/benefits of Kyoto, and most of the objections won't be from Republicans.

  9. wish I could draw... by clambake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Somone steal this and submit it:

    Devil holding up a sign, "My gandpa ain't no monkey!" in a group of evolution protestors. One guys turns and says, "YOU'RE here too?" And the devil replys, "What? And let even MORE people see how brilliant he can be?"

    1. Re:wish I could draw... by clambake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah yes, more to the specific point, which God is more powerful:

      A) The god that creates everything in on feel swoop 6000, filles with incosistancies and plotholes and has to step in every so often to adjust settings here and there.

      B) The one who can plan out events billions of years in advance, making everything fit so perfectly together, using simple rules that are capable of fractal growth into marvelously complex systems that continue to run flawlessly for millions of years without intervention?

      In a head to head battle, I have a feeling that God B will have figured out how to win before the fight even begins.

  10. Re:My winning entry by derubergeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was thinking of something more along the lines of a cartoon showing a Politics & Science Cartoon Contest with a panel of celebrity judges determining the winner.

    --
    Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the /. bean counters might report.