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.
... 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 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.
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. 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?
My point is that big pharma can afford to pony up for basic research.
They can, but they won't. They'll spend the money on marketing, and making derivitives of existing drugs before they spend much on basic research. Basic research really does need to be publicly funded.
Think about the discovery of GFP, a fluorescent protein that is crucial to a number of revolutionary tools. Do you think any Pharma company would ask their research staff to identify that glowing stuff in jellyfish? Of course not.
Long term, investing in basic research is the best investment a society can make. Unfortunately, companies aren't in it for the long term, or for discoveries they can't control. Public funding is crucial for basic research and the healthy progress of science itself.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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."
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.