Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Answers Science Policy Questionnaire

Posted by Soulskill on from the one-down,-one-to-go dept.

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.

13 of 550 comments (clear)

  1. Politics out of science? what about religion? by houbou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Politics out of science? what about religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, McCain bowed to the christian fundamentalist wing of the GOP when he picked Sarah Palin as his VP running mate. If he's willing to do that now, what makes you think he won't cave in the future?

    2. Re:Politics out of science? what about religion? by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Considering how hard McCain has been working to pander to the evangelical right, I would have a hard time expecting him to keep religion out of politics. And of course religion wants to regulate science, so feel free to connect the dots. Add to that his new hard-core anti-abortion VP candidate, and it shouldn't be hard to predict his stance on stem cell research.

      Sarah Palin has said that she's in favor of teaching creationism in schools alongside evolution, and that she's not convinced that global warming is caused by human activity. So we've now got a VP candidate who wants to teach religion in science class, and who rejects scientific consensus where it is inconvenient or inconsistent with her ideology. McCain, of course, may have his own views, but his VP choice shows that he's more interested in appeasing the religious right and radical conservatives than insisting that his administration's policies are based on the best scientific evidence available.

    3. Re:Politics out of science? what about religion? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Her views will most likely be of little consequence unless the old man croaks

      John McCain is 72 years old and has had several cancerous growths removed.

      I'm not an actuarial, but I bet the odds are not good that he'd make it through a full term. Then, I'm afraid, li'l Missy's views are going to be of great consequence.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Politics/Science by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
    1. Re:Politics/Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honest question: What the fuck is there to "debate" about creationism? There's absolutely no evidence for any of it, and it's based entirely on a book(s) written by men thousands of years ago. You either believe it based on blind faith or you don't. It doesn't seem like there's a whole lot to "debate."

    2. Re:Politics/Science by YttriumOxide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Last time I looked, public schools did not have religion classes

      Really? I'm not from the US, and this comment actually surprised me. I'm what I describe as "staunchly atheist" (I consider religion to be a kind of mental disease), and yet I'm actually in FAVOUR of there being education in schools about religious beliefs. At my school, we were taught the fundamentals of Hinduism, Buddhism, and the Abrahamic Religions (with separate sub topics for Islam, Judaism and Christianity). Some other religions were mentioned for comparison (especially the ancient Greek, Roman and Norse pantheons), but we really only concentrated on the big ones (there's just not enough TIME to study all of them!). That was at the lower level of high school, and it was considered that if you did well at that class and enjoyed it (in conjunction with social science) that you would then move on to advanced social sciences in senior high school, and then things like sociology, psychiatry, teaching, or similar things at the university level.

      Religion is a major part of the world, and there NEEDS to be an understanding of it taught at schools so that people understand what it's all about. Not as an "indoctrination", but as an "education". If the schools DON'T teach this, you end up with people not being able to accurately question religious beliefs, or completely misunderstand things about the people around them (e.g. the view that it seems many "lesser educated" people in the US have about Muslims)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  3. Yesm but... by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.
  4. Re:Party planks are ridiculous by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If "American pharma company said that they could make 10 billion dollars on stem cell products from embryonic research", then they wouldn't be at the federal teat looking for fundin

    Yeah they would. Why spend a billion dollars to make ten billion dollars, and get only 9 billion in profit, when you can have the feds kick in the billion and get ten billion in profit.

    American companies are always going to ask for federal funding, whether they "need it", or "not". It's just more profit, if they get it.

    --
    This is my sig.
  5. Re:His VP want creationism taught in schools... by Locklin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:His VP want creationism taught in schools... by dubl-u · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  7. Re:Party planks are ridiculous by dachshund · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    And yet, the Republican party has a history of acting on the whims of its lunatic fringe --- instituting bans on Federally funded stem cell research that have had a massive impact on the research community. Whereas I'm not aware of any Democratic plan to end all industrial activity.

    Overall, I'm exhausted by these moronic "slap both parties down" posts. There are huge, meaningful difference between what both parties will accomplish if elected. To analogize, it's as though you have a choice between a full-on uppercut to the chin, or just a gentle tap on the shoulder. I guess both involve blows to your body, so why should you care which one you get?

  8. Re:I think big pharma can afford basic research. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!