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"
So, Sen Obama's entire science policy can be summed up by "Error establishing a database connection"?
Interesting.
The Internet is generally stupid
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
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.
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....
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?
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
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
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.
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?
Politics is for everyone - at least, in any FREE country it is.
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.
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?
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."
It would be kind of silly for Obama to do much advertising on Slashdot. "Preaching to the choir", I believe it's called.
I'm not sure how accurate that is. There is no shortage of so-called "libertarians" here on slashdot, arguing for the virtues of "the invisible hand of the market". Just look at all the chatter that comes up anytime Ron Paul is mentioned in a story here...
And besides, if the bulk of the slashdot reader population was liberal, why would it be even worthwhile for McCain to run Obama attack ads here? I don't know of many liberals who want to ignore foreign diplomacy opportunities or chastise Obama as "the world's biggest celebrity".
And then if you check the slashdot list of stories tagged "slashkos" you'll see how many stories have been assaulted by readers for being too liberal. So clearly there are plenty of conservative / libertarian readers here who feel that slashdot is too liberal. Yet I don't see a "drudgedot" or anything of that nature used to tag stories that are too conservative (as well there ought to be)...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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
thats a whole new approach to education that may cut education costs for everyone drastically and shorten the time spent in education.
Read radical news 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."
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.
Cancer prognosis isn't exactly something unstudied, and having had multiple melanomas removed is obviously worse for the odds than not having had melanoma at all.
I'd have to dig up an account to get journal access to quote recent numbers, but if I recall correctly the 5-year prognosis for people over 70 with a localized melanoma removed is somewhere around a 70-75% survival rate. That's not a death sentence, but it's not great.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"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
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
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 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
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.
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
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.