Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Science Debate 2008

Posted by kdawson on from the good-luck-with-that dept.

bhmit1 writes "BusinessWeek is reporting about Science Debate 2008, an attempt to put the scientific issues front and center in the US Presidential race. After 12,000 scientists signed on in support of the idea of a debate focused on science, no campaign has replied to an invitation to such a debate. The article notes that only one candidate has said much about science issues in the campaign, and that some who are running are sufficiently anti-science as to deny evolution. There is a link to a comparison of the candidates' positions on issues informed by science. (Yes, Ron Paul is included.)"

5 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. How ironic by HappySmileMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    After 12,0000 scientists Science first, English (punctuation) second, eh?
  2. "The Republican War on Science"? by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    linked up with Chapman and two other proponents, journalist Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science

    Something makes me think, this will not be an entirely objective undertaking...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  3. Obama and patents by pipatron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At least one sane guy there, reading about Obama:

    Reforming the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

    Seems like that one is the geek choice.

    --
    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  4. Re:Science privatization by p0tat03 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have a very narrow view of research. Almost all research that is done on government funding is invisible to you, the layman. They are fundamental topics that will see applications only YEARS down the road from now. The trick with private research funding is that they ensure only short-term success, since being investment-based that's all they can be.

    Not to mention that private funding will always focus on the topics that will lead to business-applicable technologies soonest, as opposed to general research that will open up entirely new segments of science altogether, which is a long term benefit.

    Government research support is absolutely critical. My brother is a researcher in the field of evolutionary genetics, something that few private companies will think about funding. But the knowledge is important, and in time has led to real advancements in our knowledge and our technology.

    So please, keep up government scientific funding, it's the only competitive advantage the USA has ever had, and the only hope it has of maintaining its supremacy as a superpower.

  5. Re:Pro-science can be bad too by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you go by a strictly scientific viewpoint, such [eugenics programs] are defensible.

    Actually, those who use this argument show an extremely poor understanding of biological science. In general, genetic diversity is a good thing. By taking our ideas about what are "good" traits within our current environment and breeding selectively for those, we open ourselves to biological disaster when the environment changes. Not to mention that these traits are usually chosen for aesthetic, and not particularly biologically utilitarian, purposes. That religious moralists always trot out this chestnut as an argument that "we need religion" shows both their biological ignorance and their desire to "Godwin" the debate.

    --
    That is all.