Slashdot Mirror
Obama Answers Science Policy Questionnaire
thebestsophist writes "A couple months ago, Scientists and Engineers for America, Science Debate 2008, and a bunch of other science organizations sent McCain, Obama, and all the Congressional candidates a bunch of questions on science and technology. Topics included biosecurity, genetics research, and national security, as well as the more common questions on research and education. Well, Senator Obama just answered."
Senator McCain has not responded to the questionnaire at this point in time, but the site has a profile of his views and actions relating to science policy, which provides a good basis for comparing the candidates' stances. We've previously discussed the differences between the two candidates' technology platforms. According to a recent NPR story, both candidates intend to keep politics out of science.
The national GOP just approved a plank in their platform that bans all embryonic stem cell research, publicly funded or privately funded. A private lab using discarded implantation embryos would be illegal if McCain and the Congressional GOP pass a law implementing that plank.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:3vaVqFocGkUJ:sharp.sefora.org/people/presidential-candidates/barack-obama-presidential-candidate/+http://sharp.sefora.org/people/presidential-candidates/barack-obama-presidential-candidate/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
It's not blocked. The feds (meaning the tax payers) won't pay for it. Plenty of private research is going on.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Yes, there is more here an Palin's views: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html not a good day for science....
The fed's number one strategy for controlling research is by holding the purse strings. Most fundamental research in the country is supported by the federal government (as a result of development timelines being longer than the 7-year investment cycle), so you don't have to pass a law against doing a certain kind of research in order to kill it. So, personally, I'd say "yes" - but don't confuse the response of one individual as the voice of the entire community.
The first Q&A is posted on one of the organizer's blogs:
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/08/barack_obamas_answers_science.php
Another is here:
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/08/obama_on_science.php and here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/2008/08/sciencedebate08_obama_takes_up.php
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
No one was implying that they shouldn't. However if you'd take a second to un-stick your head from in-between your ass-cheeks, maybe, just maybe, you could have seen that there is some merit in people wanting as much information as they can find in the meantime. A broad idea is better than no idea.
Try this link for the whole thing:
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
The stem cells don't come from abortions, they come from the embryos grown in test tubes in fertility clinics. They usually grow upwards of 10 "just in case", and freeze the rest. The majority of these "expire" in the freezer, at least they expire for the purpose for which they are intended. They would otherwise be trashed, and you have fallen for the pro-life propaganda if you think they are from abortions.
In a televised debate, Palin supported allowing both creationism and evolution in public schools. The next day she clarified her position to one of allowing the debate of alternative views and not of having it in the curriculum.
I think that should alleviate any extraneous worries.
informative gives karma, funny does not.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
But embryonic stem cell research does not depend on material from abortions. By the time that an embryo has developed to the point that a woman even knows that she's pregnant, the embryo is no longer useful for stem cell research. "Embryonic" stem cell research uses blastocysts that were generated for in-vitro fertilization but never implanted. These are quite literally cells that can't develop into babies without considerable further medical intervention.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I stated a fact that someone didn't like.
That makes it clear why you're struggling with the topic.
The word "fact" does not mean "a notion I believe to be true". If you are having a hard time telling the difference between opinions and facts, then you will continue to have a hard time telling the difference between religion and science.
Unfortunately McCain/Palin don't intend to keep THEIR religion out of YOUR life...
Evangelical Christians could turn out in droves for Palin, a member of Feminists for Life who opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest, if she maintains her promise.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4641030.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093
I know this is probably easy karma, but here's the google cache
It would be easier to take your posts seriously if your assertions resembled reality. "U.S. President George W. Bush signs an executive order which restricts federally-funded stem cell research on embryonic stem cells to the already derived cell lines. He supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on the already existing lines of approximately $100 million and $250 million for research on adult and animal stem cells."
Claiming Bush banned all federally funded stem cell research is a simple lie with a clear partisan purpose. That's easy to see because you don't mention the Dickey amendment:
The Dickey Amendment is the name of an appropriation's bill rider attached to a bill passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed.
It's because the word "evolution" is used ambiguously to refer to both the observable fact of evolution and I guess the theory of natural selection. The fact that biological species evolve can be observed in bacteria or fruit flies. There can be different theories to explain these observations of evolution. No theory that denies the observed facts can have much credibility. Other posters have pointed out that the only theories that say evolution does not occur are found in religion, which demands they be accepted without proof.
Here's the long answer by Stephen J. Gould.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
I don't get people like you. "Humane" is a meaningless term when we're talking about an embryo, with no capacity to feel or be aware of its fate. It's like talking about being humane to a piece of fruit. I understand, and in a limited sense agree with the principled stand that an embryo is a human being for all moral purposes regarding life and death, but it makes zero sense to care, in a pragmatic way, about whether an embryo dies because the test tube is flushed or it becomes a stem cell line. Killing it quickly or slowly has no relevance at all to the embryo, given that it will not develop into a person.
That's why, as is the case with all law based on Christian principles, the intention makes all the difference in the world.
It's okay to let embryos that don't have a chance of developing into a human die quickly, in order to minimize suffering.
It's not okay to kill embryos, or anything human, in order to learn. And it's not okay to take a risk on this point. In other words, even if "it might become human and feel pain during during the test" that completely, 100% disqualifies the experiment. It is known that the basis of human reason, the brain stem, including pain receptors, become operational, and start firing before 15 days pass, so you wouldn't be able to do much research anyway. You might say the brain boots up VERY early in foetal development. This can be established in vivo btw.
That brain stem will start controlling the heart muscle, if not very coherently at this point, before the 18th day, sometimes even on the 15th day. That control of the heart muscle becomes coherent in about 15 minutes in case you're wondering, and once those 15 minutes are passed, the quality of that signal only goes down, right up until you celebrate your 80th birthday, it only goes down until your heart stops beating.
This is known since before the invention of the echo, since it's this discovery that led to the development of echos.
And before you say otherwise, embryonic science was, until very recently (WWII, don't ask who changed this, you don't want to know, and it will certainly not help your point), done by studying embryos that were aborted to save the life of the mother. Embryos that couldn't be saved, because if the mother died, so would the embryo. (if they could save the embryo they did, often even at the expense of the life of the mother)
P.S. :
You know what the real nasty "little detail" of abortions is ? Human embryos are intelligent enough, some at seven weeks development (about 20 days after the brain boot up), certainly long before a woman would become aware of a pregnancy (which takes 4 weeks at least, 8 weeks to be certain), to attempt fight the scissors that are inserted to "implement" the abortion. Every gynaecologist knows this, for they've seen it. When they're 4 or 5 months, some (actually 2) are known to have won this fight, and manage somehow to induce labour, ending in them taking their first breath. Would abortion proponents be okay with killing these babies too ?
If that isn't proof of "sentience", then what is ? That means that a baby becomes sentient between the second and seventh week, mostly before a woman would become aware of a pregnancy.
Abortion is what stem cell research is in danger of become. The expense of one (and by your standards, fully "sentient") human life for the comfort of another.
So at what point does an embryo become a person ? Certainly in the thread you consider intelligent attempts at defense against an attack to be proof of sentience, so I imagine you're answer, if you indeed adhere to your own stated principles, would be "before 1 month passes".
And if we break this barrier down ... exactly what principle prevents killing of children or adults ? They don't differ in sentience from a foetus of 7 weeks of age.
The real difference between them is that we can't see foetuses suffer, so "they don't suffer". They certainly don't protest in a court of law or on CNN.
His responses can be found here, but in case of another slashdotting, here is the list. Please excuse the formatting, I am not an html expert.
Barack Obama's answers to the top 14 science questions facing America
1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America's continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?
Ensuring that the U.S. continues to lead the world in science and technology will be a central priority for my administration. Our talent for innovation is still the envy of the world, but we face unprecedented challenges that demand new approaches. For example, the U.S. annually imports $53 billion more in advanced technology products than we export. China is now the world's number one high technology exporter. This competitive situation may only worsen over time because the number of U.S. students pursuing technical careers is declining. The U.S. ranks 17th among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving degrees in science or engineering; we were in third place thirty years ago.
My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. We will increase research grants for early-career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs.
A vigorous research and development program depends on encouraging talented people to enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and giving them the support they need to reach their potential. My administration will work to guarantee to students access to strong science curriculum at all grade levels so they graduate knowing how science works - using hands-on, IT-enhanced education. As president, I will launch a Service Scholarship program that pays undergraduate or graduate teaching education costs for those who commit to teaching in a high-need school, and I will prioritize math and science teachers. Additionally, my proposal to create Teacher Residency Academies will also add 30,000 new teachers to high-need schools - training thousands of science and math teachers. I will also expand access to higher education, work to draw more of these students into science and engineering, and increase National Science Foundation (NSF) graduate fellowships. My proposals for providing broadband Internet connections for all Americans across the country will help ensure that more students are able to bolster their STEM achievement.
Progress in science and technology must be backed with programs ensuring that U.S. businesses have strong incentives to convert advances quickly into new business opportunities and jobs. To do this, my administration will make the R&D tax credit permanent.
2. Climate Change. The Earth's climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change-a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?
There can no longer be any doubt that human activities are influencing the global climate and we must react quickly and effectively. First, the U.S. must get off the sidelines and take long-overdue action here at home to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions. We must also take a leadership role in designing technologies that allow us to enjoy a gr
Not the OP but here:
http://pol.moveon.org/emails/palin_announcement.html?rc=homepage
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
When you accuse the parent poster of partisanship, it's helpful to make sure your post doesn't smack of the same thing!
As to the Dickey amendment--- that was written by a Republican Congressman and attached to a major appropriations bill (that's what "rider" means). Clinton signed it because there's no line-item veto, and thus a President sometimes has to accept undesirable riders when the alternative is killing an important bill. It is in no way representative of his or the Democratic party's agenda.
Someone reading your post might come away with the mistaken impression that Clinton did not care to fund this research, and therefore Bush should be commended for his flexibility! Surprisingly, that reader would be greatly mistaken. Due to lobbying by scientists, the Clinton/Gore administration actually implemented a plan to fund of this type of research in spite of the amendment. The plan involved a grant deadline of March 2001 and had no restrictions on embryonic research. This is when incoming President (a man named George W. Bush) went ahead and stopped the grant review process and imposed his (and in the opinion of researchers --- quite harmful) Executive Order preventing funding of research on new embryonic lines. http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL02/doerside.html
Now, the interesting thing about your post is that it's technically correct on nearly every point, and yet the overall thrust is entirely misleading. Some might even consider that this was deliberate! Now, you have to remember that people read these comments and judge you on the way you make your argument, not just the factoids that you throw out. So if you're going to offer your opinion, I believe that it's important to your cause that the facts fully support your argument. By offering arguments that are technically correct, but lead the reader to a surprisingly false conclusion, you actually do serious harm to your credibility and damage the cause you support.
(If you'll forgive an old man his rambling, I'm inclined to believe that reliance on this sort of "truthiness" is one of the reasons that the conservative brand is experiencing such a terrible backlash right now. You can fool people once, but they get really pissed off when you do it. Or something.)
He's already survived seven years.
That you, before looking it up, concluded anything about his odds proves my point. You were basing your opinions on what you heard, and what you heard is specifically crafted to make you think the worst.
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
Alaska is a state the size of a small city and Wasilla is not a city. Sure, maybe in Alaska it qualifies as one but nowhere else. I grew up in a town in Massachusetts and that town had twice the population of Wasilla.
As for Obama, how is it that for him the only experience you count is Federal? Palin has 0 years of federal experience compared to Obama's 3 years. Gee, that sounds like Obama has more.
If we include state experience, which you only saw fit to mention Palin, we see that Obama has 8 full years compared to Palin's 2. Wow, that also sounds like more experience for Obama.
Additionally, while in the Senate Obama has served on the Foreign Relations Committee as well as the Homeland Security Committee. Those two committees deal directly with one of the biggest political issue the next President will have to deal with. How's that compare with Palin? Well according to her "[she hasn't] really focused much on the war in Iraq." So no Obama doesn't have any executive experience, but he does have experience that relates to actual issues a President will deal with. All the executive experience in Alaska will not give you that.
Barack Obama is only less qualified for office when you distort the facts to fit that conclusion. My mom was spouting the same nonsense the other day, but she has an excuse since she is a willfully ignorant fundamentalist.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
It isn't a particularly controversial statement among doctors that "elderly patients who have had multiple melanomas are at significant risk of dying due to cancer". The exact numbers depend on how exactly you define the patient groups, what sorts of time horizon you're looking for, which risk factors you control for, etc., but nobody disputes that the risk of death is fairly significant.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Why don't we discuss academic qualifications? Oh, I know why -- because it makes you look stupid!
Palin: BA in journalism that took her 5 years at U of Idaho
Obama: BA from Columbia, JD from Harvard, Editor in Chief of the FUCKING HARVARD LAW REVIEW, Constitutional Law professor
I know you Republicans think the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper, but you know what? The knowledge that Obama understands it is very reassuring to me given the flagrant abuses of the Constitution we've endured in the last 7 years.
+++ATH0
Please go out and vote!
Please recruit your friends!
We do not need 4 more of idiotic leaders that just abide yo the silly dictates of ignorant, uncultured and religious extremist leaders.
Please!
That's not true. At all. Really.
Here's a little history lesson:
European scientific tradition began with the ancient Greeks and then the Romans, long, long before Christianity. When Christianity took over, scientific progress halted, almost completely. So did the arts, culture, and accurate record keeping, to name a few other things that stopped progressing. They don't call it the dark ages because of a super-volcanic eruption. It wasn't until the renaissance, when religion began playing a lesser and lesser role in the lives of people, that science and consequently technology really began to progress. And the less religion interfered in Europe, the more progress was made. You'll find most great people who advanced the arts and sciences in and after the renaissance about as "religious" as Einstein. Einstein is a self-described agnostic, and if you bother to read his wikipedia page, he doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian "God". There are a relatively small number of scientists today who belong to the "I want to discover the facets of the thing God has created for us" camp, and fewer still believe in the same Judeo-Christian god of the Judeo-Christian theists. At the end of the day, blind faith just doesn't work for the educated.
So no, your utilitarian argument for the teaching of Christianity in the science classroom, as ridiculous as it is in the first place, has no wings. And no amount of prayer or faith is going to make it fly.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Hell, I grew up in a town in Massachusetts with twelve times the population of Wasilla. And Wasilla is essentially bankrupt because Palin messed up an attempt to seize land through eminent domain to build a sports complex.
Alaska has about 600K residents. Obama's district as a State Senator had 1/3 that population and as a Senator he shares a district that is 20+ times that of Alaska.
Palin is the least qualified major party candidate for VP in the last century.