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.

Comments

Politics out of science? what about religion?

[houbou]

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

Re:Politics out of science? what about religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Politics out of science? what about religion?

[jjohnson]

The national GOP just approved a plank in their platform that bans all embryonic stem cell research, publicly funded or privately funded. A private lab using discarded implantation embryos would be illegal if McCain and the Congressional GOP pass a law implementing that plank.

Re:Politics out of science? what about religion?

[flyingsquid]

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.

Re:Politics out of science? what about religion?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Politics out of science? what about religion?

[amRadioHed]

How can you say that someone who has been a chief executive of a state (and a city) is unqualified compared to someone who has never run a company of any size and whose sole federal experience is less than one term in the Senate?

Alaska is a state the size of a small city and Wasilla is not a city. Sure, maybe in Alaska it qualifies as one but nowhere else. I grew up in a town in Massachusetts and that town had twice the population of Wasilla.

As for Obama, how is it that for him the only experience you count is Federal? Palin has 0 years of federal experience compared to Obama's 3 years. Gee, that sounds like Obama has more.

If we include state experience, which you only saw fit to mention Palin, we see that Obama has 8 full years compared to Palin's 2. Wow, that also sounds like more experience for Obama.

Additionally, while in the Senate Obama has served on the Foreign Relations Committee as well as the Homeland Security Committee. Those two committees deal directly with one of the biggest political issue the next President will have to deal with. How's that compare with Palin? Well according to her "[she hasn't] really focused much on the war in Iraq." So no Obama doesn't have any executive experience, but he does have experience that relates to actual issues a President will deal with. All the executive experience in Alaska will not give you that.

Barack Obama is only less qualified for office when you distort the facts to fit that conclusion. My mom was spouting the same nonsense the other day, but she has an excuse since she is a willfully ignorant fundamentalist.

Politics/Science

[Naughty Bob]

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)

Re:Politics/Science

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Politics/Science

[arth1]

I, too, think that creationism should be taught in school, and that debate should be encouraged. But not in any science-related classes, of course. That's what classes in religion are for, obviously.

Sounds good to me. Let us start by teaching them about Tiamat, how she got raped to give birth to the elder gods, and how her head was crushed with a sledghehammer by her son to create the land.
And then other Assyrian/Babylonian myths, including the Judeo-Christian variety.
Let's not neglect the western varieties, like how the frozen milk from the cow Audhumbla created Burr, the father of Burin, the father of Odin, the all-father.

Cause they're all equally valid -- none of them more or less than the others. The important lesson to the kids would be that there is really no limit to people's gullibility.

Re:Politics/Science

[YttriumOxide]

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)

Obama's response?

[interstellar_donkey]

So, Sen Obama's entire science policy can be summed up by "Error establishing a database connection"?

Interesting.

Re:Obama's response?

[sokoban]

Yeah, and McCain's is summed up by "Error 404: File not found"

Re:Obama's response?

[CaptainPatent]

Oh man, his policy changed. Now it's "Server not found"

He's already flip-flopping on the issues!

Yesm but...

[sycodon]

...will Science stay out of Politics?

Re:Party planks are ridiculous

[tjstork]

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.

Re:His VP want creationism taught in schools...

[Locklin]

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.

They're not from aborted fetuses, theyre from IVF

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:His VP want creationism taught in schools...

[dubl-u]

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?

Re:Party planks are ridiculous

[dachshund]

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?

Re:I think big pharma can afford basic research.

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Party planks are ridiculous

[dachshund]

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.)