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
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.
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....
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
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."
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.)
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.
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