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.
So both candidates say they will keep politics out of science, but what about religion?
Stem cell research for example is one of those field of research which is being blocked because of politics.. "well, because of religious groups, which uses politics as a tool to achieve their goals of blocking the research".
I wonder if each candidate is willing to tell the religious groups to grow up and let science be?, especially McCain's party
According to a recent NPR story, both candidates intend to keep politics out of science....
But only one side intend to keep science out of science...
(Credit to Soulskill for the alley-oop)
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
Does the community here accept that blocking funding to something is the same thing as blocking something? Or does blocking something require creating laws making some such or another illegal at the federal level (this probably being unconstitutional on the face of it).
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
I think the left wing is being tricked by pharma into paying for something that the private sector can easily afford. If religion were not in the equation, then, easily, the left would come against this as the handout to pharma that it is.
Is it that these cash strapped pharma companies might be able to pony up a few shillings toward that research. I mean, why do we have to have the Federal Government subsidize Merck? Doesn't Merck have enough money to collect and dissect human stem cells? For christ sakes, it's not like it costs a billion dollars to knock a chick up, and, you could always find women and men willing to part with their respective reproductive cells for a few bucks, for sure.
I mean, if embryonic stem cells could really cure cancer, paralysis, palsy and alzheimers, and can do so much, don't you think big Phara would and should pay for their research when they stand to make not billions, but trillions off of all of these miracle cures?
This is my sig.
...will Science stay out of Politics?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Embryonic stem cell research is being blocked. It makes sense for religious groups to be opposed to this on a fundamental level. When you have industries becoming dependent on materials from abortions for research, you create a financial incentive to support abortion. Now, most "pro-choice" people that I've met say that they fully support measures which create an environment that makes abortion less frequent. I can't imagine, then, a good reason to support allowing scientists to become dependent on tissues from aborted babies as that would have the exact opposite effect of what most pro-choicers I've met claim to want.
Furthermore, there is an ethics point of view here that you are willfully ignoring. You're obviously arguing from the perspective of a secularist, but what you're really saying is that any opinion that is based on religion is prima facie unacceptable in a democratic debate. Religious views may be absurd to you, and the morality based on "just a book," but so is secular morality. It's just based on one man's opinion, or feeble attempts to reconstruct religious morality without God; at least atheistic secularists like Michele Onfray have the balls to adopt a totally godless morality (though it tends to scare the shit out of many secularists who cling to religious morality like a security blanket). Bottom line is, secular arguments in science on matters of scientific **ethics** are no more valid than religious ones, as they are just one attempt to establish "what ought we do" which is a philosophical question that parallels the scientific one "what can we do?"
It's usually only the idiots who believe that science answers questions like "what ought we to do." Science is just a method for observing natural phenomenon. It cannot satisfactorally answer many fundamental philosophical questions that form the basis of law, morality and human interaction. Maybe you find religion to be flawed here too, and I can see why, even though I may disagree. However, it's just pure bullshit to pretend that science is capable of answering questions such as these, which have no ability to be tested and understood through the scientific method.
... until I see an ad on slashdot that tells me his position. Considering I'm looking at a McCain ad on this very page right now that is attacking Obama's foreign policy proposal, it shouldn't be long until the McCain camp launches online ads to tell us his plans for science as well.
Yes, I know its past time for me to install adblock. I do find it interesting how far the number of McCain ads exceed the Obama ads here, though. I'd say at least a 3-to-1 margin on slashdot.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I guarantee you that if an American pharma company said that they could make 10 billion dollars on stem cell products from embryonic research, about 3/4 of the Republican party would immediately sell out on any contemplated private ban on stem cell research, if such a ban were even constitutional. Yeah, there's some 1/4 of the GOP that would oppose stem cells under any circumstances but for the rest of us, its like, well, we don't the feds to pay for it because it is morally squeemish, but if the private sector is down with it, that's ok if it makes grammy walk again and our stock go up and we can then deal with our religious sentiments at the time we choose to sell out, and not before. And conversely, on the left, there's a minority of the Democrats that would ban all industrial activity whatsover, because it is bad for mother earth.
The point really is that we need to stop framing debates based upon what the radicals of either side of the aisle are telling us to frame them as and to start and think for ourselves.
You know, there's enough to go around in both "party planks" to make one want to wretch. The thing to keep in mind is that on either side of the aisle, party planks are written by radicals and both sides thankfully and freely ignore them. Having party planks is stupid make work for party organizers to give them something important sounding to do, but in fact they are actually pretty meaningless, except to get the opposition riled up about some terrible thing that is in the plank. In other words, we can expect moveon to go send out spam about some terrible republican thing just as much as we can rush limbaugh go on about how terrible democrats are because these things are in their planks, and party insiders on both sides would say, well, really, "not a chance."
This is my sig.
Because religious faith is totally illogical?
Because scientific theories are based on years of observed data and if something is observed that results in prior theories being wrong, science changes the theories.
There are no datasets for religious beliefs and when things are brought into play that questions the beliefs, they are discarded as opposed to adjusting the beliefs to update them.
In a nutshell, science doesn't mind being wrong.
My point is that big pharma can afford to pony up for basic research. Part of being a big business is to have the wealth to assess risks in the future and yes, they should pay for their own products. I mean, we give these pharma companies patent and copyright protections to incentivize them to do this research. In turn, they get to use this exclusivity to rape us on pricing, saying, "oh, but we're spending it all on research", then, they should spend it on the research. If you've got a drug patent, you have a monopoly just as much as AT&T did have back in the day and Ma Bell was kind enough to give us the likes of Claude Shannon, K&R, the transistor guys, and then some. I think its not unreasonable to expect that a company in the pharma business to accept the risks that go with pure research, otherwise, patents are sorta pointless, aren't they?
This is my sig.
blind faith and "the best explanation congruent with several centuries of data collection by millions of people encompassing every nation, institution, and field of science" are two entirely different things.
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
> Scientists put as much faith into many of their theories as do people of religion
Two major differences:
Scientific theories can be proven wrong. Religions theories can't.
Scientists will admit that they were wrong, once proven wrong or once they find it out themselves. Religious people say that even if I would prove that they are wrong, they would still believe as they were before.
Big deal. I probably couldn't sing it either. I could do with having politicians be a little less patriotic. Have them start doing what's best for the people instead of what's best for the country.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Scientists put as much faith into many of their theories as do people of religion. What's wrong with the religious faith that makes you not like it but deem the scientific faith as okay?
What?
The biggest prizes in science are for people who shatter old theories and create new ones. They're called Nobel prizes. Maybe you've heard of them?
It turns out religious people have a special term for people who challenge established notions. They're called heretics. Special prizes for that? Excommunication, exile, burning, torture, and death.
Notice any difference here?
I almost wish I hadn't posted, just so I could have modded you up myself. I salute your grasp of reality.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Politics is for everyone - at least, in any FREE country it is.
Death threats by scientists? When and where was that?
Because there are no alternatives or counter-arguments that are not religious, and thus do not belong in research or science class. Just because someone has a crazy idea doesn't mean that it has any merit. Otherwise you must also support teaching Stork Theory in Sex Education or alchemy in chemistry class. And that God doesn't exist should be preached in church.
Clever signature text goes here.
So both candidates say they will keep politics out of science, but what about religion?
Stem cell research for example is one of those field of research which is being blocked because of politics.. "well, because of religious groups, which uses politics as a tool to achieve their goals of blocking the research".
I wonder if each candidate is willing to tell the religious groups to grow up and let science be?, especially McCain's party
You're never going to get "religion" out of science, because science must always be governed by ethical concerns, and ethics in the west, especially the United States, is inherently tied to our religious values because our religion has influenced our ideas of ethics for thousands of years.
I realize Slashdot has a heavy Libertarian bent, with a large sympathetic atheist wing, but Slashdot is not representative of the public as a whole. Quite the opposite. So if you're hoping to let "science" work with no ethical boundaries (as most see them), then you're out of luck. Never gonna happen, at least not in this country.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
That's true, Obama will likely bankrupt the USA. Of course, McCain will likely bankrupt us even faster:
Where oh where is the fiscal conservative candidate in this stinkin' race?
And what happens when embryonic stem cell research becomes widespread? There's a limited supply of those IVF embryos.
There seems to be a strange perception the US is the only nation where this type of research can be possible.
Embryonic stem cell research is taking place and there is no history of shortage of material or the need to grow more.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
What you call "faith" of scientists is more like hunch or intuition, which gets discarded, as it must, if the reality tells them "no it ain't". Let me repeat: they get DISCARDED when evidence suggests otherwise. It's not faith as in religious faith, and hence your "fact" is an incorrect statement.
You are missing a fundamental difference between science and religion. Science, physical science really, is about the physical reality and helps us learn and cope with it as we experience it. Religion deals with something else, so it wouldn't have to rely on faith. Zebra and watermelon, you know.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
"What the fuck is there to "debate" about creationism? "
Is it science (no)? Is it relevant to current society (yes)? Does it match the evidence (no)? What is it's cultural significance, how should it influence policy, where should it be taught, and the list goes on.
Not eveyone thinks what you think as strongly as you do. How do you propose to define these isues for them without debate? Are you going to curse at them until they get it? The fact that you think there "doesn't seem to be a whole lot to debate" definitivley proves the debate is necessary.
Or are you happy sitting back, assured you're right while creationists are activley promoting their side?
One last thing. Creationism is beleived by a large number of people. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people seek to squash debate as though that makes their beliefs, and the societal effects of their beleifs, go away. They are influencing society every day, and if nothing else, it is necessary to promote a counterpoint in order to mitigate those societal effects.
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
At least, that's what the debate is about. The blind faith people are afraid that, if this Darwin stuff is taught, that their kids may not end up being blind faith people. So, somehow we need to give these kids an education while keeping them in the blind faith camp.
It was a bad policy, and I'm well past the point where "it had a rider" is a good enough reason not to veto it. The only reason something like that doesn't get vetoed is when the person is more concerned about getting re-elected than making good policy, and that crap has to stop.
Actually, I think he was more concerned with passing the appropriations bills for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. The Republicans know these bills are critical, and vetoing them would wreak havoc with the operation of government.
The Republicans also knew that a veto over a small rider --- however well deserved --- would probably not force them to remove the language, since it would only take a few "pragmatic" Democrats in Congress to side with them and override the veto. (You're free to infer whatever motives you want about those Democrats. Maybe they're sellouts, maybe they're in vulnerable districts, maybe they don't care about embryonic stem cell research, maybe they just really, really believe that funding the Dept. of Education is critical and not worth fighting a single rider over.)
The thing is, getting things done in our Constitutional democracy is a very tricky business. Sometimes you have no choice but to compromise, especially when the other side has a majority and no qualms about using it.
Just because someone has a crazy idea doesn't mean that it has any merit.
FWIW, it doesn't mean it doesn't have merit either.
Otherwise you must also support teaching Stork Theory in Sex Education or alchemy in chemistry class. And that God doesn't exist should be preached in church.
"Stork Theory" [lol] is rather readily falsified. Alchemy is the study of creation of gold from base metals, so it's probably more usefully placed in a [nuclear] physics class - but it is "taught" in chemistry as the starting point for modern chemical understanding, which it was.
"And that God doesn't exist should be preached in church" - you're making a slight error in the comparison. Creationists generally wish it to be mentioned that a deistic creation is not contrary to observation; or at least that there is a large body of people who believe that. This IMO would be a great way to start a cosmology class: what do you believe, what's the basis of that belief, how could we falsify it, what observations could we make, why wasn't Hubble ridiculed for blatantly fabricating his results [lol], ... .
Every Christian church mentions that people exist who don't [yet] believe in God.
I find myself close to Voltaires position in that my belief in God is empirical.
Voltaire didn't say it was empirical, just obvious to his mind. For you, there should be a big difference: the 250 years of scientific and philosophical progress in between.
That's not to say that you're not welcome to your faith. You are. But if you're calling it empirical, you aren't very clear on how empiricism works.
Turns out that one of those branded a heretic was this guy called Jesus of Nazareth. Maybe you've heard of him?
Yeah, he would be the prince of peace whose followers spend hundreds of years burning and torturing people for disagreeing with their interpretations.
Richard M. Nixon - Duke University School of Law (3rd in Class) - Watergate; The Imperial Presidency
Bill Clinton - Yale Law School - Travelgate; The Line Item Veto
Franklin Roosevelt - Columbia Law School - The New Deal (Constitutional only because of "The switch in time that saved nine"
Abraham Lincoln - Admitted to Illinois Bar - Suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus on Union soil
Woodrow Wilson - University of Virginia Law School - Permitted introduction of segregation of several federal departments
Being a lawyer does not guarantee that a person "understands" the Constitution any better than you or I. In fact, I think it makes things worse because lawyers are trained just to pick a conclusion and argue their way backwards to justify it. That's not how the Constitutionality of actions should be judged.
Furthermore, teaching Constitutional Law does not equate to being a scholar on it.
I graduated law school from a Top 20 Law School ("the mythical elite tier") and my (very effective) constitutional law professor's specialty was law and religion, not the Constitution. Teaching Constitutional Law does not mean that you are an expert on it.
Obama was a Senior Lecture at Chicago, which means he was non-tenured and an adjunct professor at best. His published legal work (or lack of it) sheds very little light on his view of the Constitution. Source. The only published work of his has been unearthed is his Note that he wrote for the Harvard Law Review. The title of that Note is "TORT LAW - PRENATAL INJURIES - SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE CAUSE OF ACTION BROUGHT BY FETUS AGAINST ITS MOTHER FOR UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF PRENATAL INJURIES." Constitutional Law it is not.
The more you look at it, the more you realize that both parties abuse the Constitution when appropriate. Hell we've ignored entire provisions of it quite blatantly for much of its existance. See U.S. Const. Art I Sec. 2 ("The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative;"). Don't think that a person knows more just because he was a Harvard Law Review Editor. For every Barack Obama it produced, there's an Alger Hiss to go along with him.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
Lol.. And of the 7-11 cleark had an asualt weapons or even a handgun, the 17 year old would be murderer would likely have failed at his task.
The second amendment does not give you or anyone else the right to say what I need. The entire concept of a free world, or a free nation revolves around you not telling me what I need and don't need and taking your misguided intentions to the point of denying me of that. You don't like it when someone limits your free speech abilities or picks other parts of the constitution like the 5th amendment or habeas corpus and claims you don't need it. Whenever you attempt to deny rights to anyone, whether it is guns or speech, you set the stage for others to deny rights to you over their same inane justifications. If your happy with the constitution being ignored, then fine. If your not, then stop picking and choosing what you agree with and don't and attempting to limit others based on your simply world view.
Actually, in all states prostitution is illegal. It is permitted under certain conditions in one state. But there is no constitutional protections about prostitution now is there. So I'm not really sure what your point is, prostitution does not equal the 1st, second, third, or any amendment to the constitution or any provision in it.
We are talking about constitutionally protected freedoms. So in the same sense, should there be limits to a fair trial? Should there be limits to your expectation of privacy or your right to be secure in your papers and effect against unreasonable search and seizure? Should there be a poll tax or a means test to your right to vote? How about we limit the right to run for office to free white males over 50 years of age even though the constitution places it's limits way lower and expressly forbid discrimination over race?
You can't limit the freedom the constitution forbid the government from limiting. As soon as you start determining what isn't needed, someone else will make their own determinations and take something that you enjoy away. Constitutionally protected freedoms are not the same as other freedoms like driving, or prostitution.
An in neither case is driving a car or being under the influence of alcohol a constitutionally protected activity.
No, following my logic, it is immoral to deny someone the constitutionally protected right to defend themselves against someone who has no regard for the law or any other ban. You have failed severely to make any apples to apples connections between what I said and what you have railed over. It is sad that you don't know enough about your own constitution to know the difference between a protected right and something the you can just do. I suggest that you start studying soon. As of now, you just don't get it and that is very sad.