Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
Frustrated US scientists push for pro-science President
newscientist.com — Frustrated by their government's position on the environment, climate change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists have decided to take matters into their own hands and actively promote the election of a president in 2008 who is more receptive to science.
koregaonpark- 698 diggs
- digg it
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -53/+16Unfortunately, when you politicize science, it becomes an ideology ie, a fixed system of ideas, rather than an objective quest for the truth. Scientists have a voice in shaping policy, but they are one voice among many. Many interests must be considered before a government can take action. Scientists lose their objectivity and credibility - the very things that give them the ability to influence politicians and the public - when they reduce themselves to saying things like this:
"SEA's main targets will be the Bush administration and the Republican leadership, says executive director Mike Brown."- SimonKay, on 10/12/2007, -10/+64@Radiant Being
"Scientists lose their objectivity and credibility - the very things that give them the ability to influence politicians and the public - when they reduce themselves to saying things like this: "SEA's main targets will be the Bush administration and the Republican leadership, says executive director Mike Brown."
Bush and the Republican leadership have been IGNORING scientists for the past five years. I don't think scientists have lost their "objectivity and credibility" because they question a government that is moving towards a theocracy. - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -27/+10I really don't see these as merely partisan political issues. For instance, the Kyoto Treaty to reduce global warming was killed in the Senate 95-0 in 1997 because there were legitmate economic issues that would have negatively impacted all Americans. That's about as bi-partisan as it gets. Stem cell research is funded by the government. Limited embryonic lines are eligible for public funding and there are no such rules against research involing adult stem cells. Finally, private institutions and state governments can fund embryonic stem cell research on their own. This isn't ideal but it is a happy medium that all sides in our democracy can live with.
- graizur, on 10/12/2007, -27/+9Please don't call the Bush administration a theocracy. It bad mouths God. :.-(
- ricree, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41"Please don't call the Bush administration a theocracy. It bad mouths God. :.-("
Theocracies tend to do that. It's one of the many reasons that religion and government need to be well separated. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I feel the government should subsidize research into new technology. The problem is, the government ends up subsidizing private investors because they think a desire for profit somehow equals a desire for technological leaps.
This is clearly BS as anyone driving a car that runs on gasoline right now should know. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yeah who needs facts anyway?
(sarcasm) - wacki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@RadiantBeing
"Scientists lose their objectivity and credibility - the very things that give them the ability to influence politicians and the public - when they reduce themselves to saying things like this:"
If objectivity and credibility are what matters in politics then why are frauds like Pat Michaels so influential?
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html
And why are oil lobbyists in charge of whitehouse environmental committees? And why was tobacco so good as suppressing scientific research? The only thing that matters in politics is money and votes. - wacki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@SimonKay
"Bush and the Republican leadership have been IGNORING scientists for the past five years."
Ignoring is not what has been going on. It's been an all out war to edit, delete and suppress science when it's inconvenient and fabricate the science you need. Chris Mooney has a book called "war on science". There's probably a 1,000 references/footnotes. He's a reporter and not a scientist so he misses a lot of key concepts but it's a great introduction to how bad it really is. It covers everything from stem cells to evolution.
- SimonKay, on 10/12/2007, -10/+64@Radiant Being
- Sandbelt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16I agree that they should leave specific people and administrations *coughBushcough* out of the picture and instead focus on the fact that most, if not all, research on stem cells is being squashed when it could have a very legitimate and helpful outcome on our progress as humans. Some people unfortunately see the issue simply as stem cells=dead babies, and that's just not the case.
I mean, fire is one of the most distructive forces in nature yet people around the world use it daily for industry, cooking, etc. despite the "danger". The point is, there is a much greater good to be accomplished by the using/legalizing the use of stem cells and the furthurance of it
s research.- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -18/+9How can you say that "most" or "all" research on stem cells is being squashed when the federal government funds research on adult stem cells and limited embryonic lines? It also doesn't prevent state governments or corporations from funding embryonic stem cell research.
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11 I think the State of California is investing 3 BILLION dollars into Stem Cell reserach. I'd hardly call that "squashed".
You need to put down the MSM and start finding out what's actually going on in the world. - madsci, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8from what I understand, the federal government does not fund the establishment of New embryonic stem cell lines and only funds the cell lines that have already been established since a certain date "??". However, those cell lines are under scrutiny because of contamination issues and thus do not provide reliable research models. Thus if a stem cell researcher wishes to explore his research he can not look for the feds for money. not providing funding on reliable research models I suggest is "squashing". bottom line is to get Bush out of office.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"I think the State of California is investing 3 BILLION dollars into Stem Cell reserach. I'd hardly call that "squashed"."
Ya, and the State can't spend the money because they are being sued by the same idiots who pressured Bush to take the stand he has ... the same morons that were funding the lawsuits in the Terry Schiavo case. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7There are people in the Religious "Right" that act worse then the people they condemn. Worse yet some condescend, and belittle people.
A lot of these people imagine every stem cell as a dead baby. Just like Britney Spears seems to think every pirated song equals a lost album sale.
Some people have a problem with facts. This is because learning can be difficult, and can contradict what would otherwise be simple beleifs. So many people simply don't learn.
- zspade, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18The problem is that for most companies/corporations, 10+ years of research before results can even begin to be had is just too long. That is why the government can truly play such an important role in the future of tech and med. I, as I am sure most of you, have been repeatedly frustrated with the current administration several times in regards to this. One of the major reasons I didn't vote for Bush was the whole fundemental Christian thing. Church and state bad, president and church, also bad. I personally want to see some logic in the whitehouse. We need a vulcan for president, damnit.
- ZombieNixon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is not only 10 years without results, but 10 years without revenue, let alone profit. This means that only companies with other profit making areas can fund such research, or ones that can get equity through a IPO.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Bush has left me begging for a pro-science president.. though scientists endorsing a particular president will just deter the throngs of religious fanatics that have grown so rampant in the past decade here toward the guy who believes God should rule the land (Divine Right), and the same portions of the population will end up voting for the same side and the past election will repeat and cycle into an endless loop of disaster and despair..
What the ***** am I even talking about.. I need to goto sleep. - jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10>Frustrated by their government's position on the environment, climate change and stem cell research
That's not the only reason that scientests in the US are frustrated.
Bush's "vision" for the space program is merely a welfare program for the aerospace industry.
Mars is a reasonable goal but the plan to get there is wretched. The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is merely an updated apollo command module. Back to the moon?
A MUCH more reasonable plan, and one with better short term payoffs, is to continue exploring with robotic probes of increasing complexity and capability.
A Manned mission to Mars is a worthy enterprise but the costs are prohibitive and we've still got a lot to learn before we are ready to go.- ZombieNixon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would agree with much of what you've said - however no mission out of orbit are worth it when just considered for the mission itself, manned or unmanned. There are many other better ways to spend billions of dollars on research. However, often the benifits of such missions is the technology that is developed to get the people/robots to other planets.
- thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jamessavik
"A Manned mission to Mars is a worthy enterprise but the costs are prohibitive and we've still got a lot to learn before we are ready to go."
Bush's main reason for saying that was to bring up the Kennedy image of sending a man to the moon.
- cecret, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Do we really want to live in a society that chooses to suppress scientific and intellectual thought?
- JEmerson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"We", as in the collection of American voters taken as a whole? Given that you keep voting for these guys, I'd say that yes, in fact, you do.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10That's because to the average American it is much more important to vote for the candidate who will make sure gays can't marry and protesters can't burn flags rather than the candidate that supports sound science and reason.
- Trotter516, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"Do we really want to live in a society that chooses to suppress scientific and intellectual thought?"
We don't. Go to the Middle East and you will see what that really looks like. - ZombieNixon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would think that, the average American has a different set of voting priorities, not necissaryily religious ones like jerbaker assumes, but educational, economic and health related ones which would quite often come before considering the scientific ramifications of their vote.
- lagrange, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1Science is for hookers and fat people.
- dick-richardson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4and impotent old men
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5"Pro Science" does not mean throw government funding at research. That is "pro science welfare", not "pro science"
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6No, but one could make a convincing argument that "pro-science" would at least mean not editing scientific papers to remove references to things you don't like, or prohibiting federal scientists from speaking inconvenient truths, or refusing to fund legitimate scientific endeavors because your religion is against it.
- Trotter516, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2The government doesn't need to fund or support all this research and such. That is the place of the private sector.
It has been proven on many different fronts that when the government gets involved, efficiency and results go out the window. Why? Because the checks will keep coming. But if the same group is working for private funding, they will actually be WORKING to produce results. It doesn't matter if it is stem cell research, space exploration, whatever.
Besides, if a pro-science president (well, let's be honest... they want a science controlled puppet) is put in office, you'd have all kinds of PhD's calling the shots from their ivory towers. Instead of a so-called theocracy, you would have a psuedo-technocracy. - Daedalus17, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It is getting increasingly annoying how people keep repeating "Stem Cell Research is banned!!!" over and over again. There are simple solutions to all the problems put forward by these scientists, but the answer is not government funding of scientific research.
If more land was privately owned we the whole global warming and environmental damage thing would be greatly reduced. When people own something they take very good care of it but when it belongs to everyone they don't have as much incentive to keep it nice. Compare the privately owned streams in Ireland to the government owned piles of garbage owned by the socialist Indian government. - ZombieNixon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The difficulty with government funding of science is it allows research into the 'pure', non-applied sciences, which for obvious reasons companies are less willing to fund. This is important given the gradual move of science from the pure to the applied category. However once governments start funding science the question arises of which science and how much - and then issues of 'picking winners' and political bias.
- jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5>if a pro-science president (well, let's be honest... they want a science controlled puppet) is put in office, you'd have all kinds of PhD's calling the shots from their ivory towers.
Oh God: what could possibly be worse than government by the educated?
Our Gov't by lawyers, used-car salesmen and industry puppets is way better. - arpad, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1> Oh God: what could possibly be worse than government by the educated?
Government without the consent of the governed which, I assume, is what you have in mind because who cares about the opinions of the uneducated? Certainly not the intellectual titans who haven't managed to display any competence at governing for oh, the last hundred years or so.
> Our Gov't by lawyers, used-car salesmen and industry puppets is way better.
Damn right it is. Sure as hell is better then any government by the educated. If only we had fewer whining intellectuals who can't understand why they can't become emperor for just a day.
- ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Do the searches and I came up with some bald dude that complained about religious people.
Swept under the rug as another initiative tainted with extremist views with little to no disregard for american values, buried. I hope fellow Diggers will do the same. - sjm20k, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Fact of the matter is, conservatism is the party that is against change and progress - it's all about maintaining the status quo. Theres no room for social or scientific progress when we're all living in the past and crusading around the world like we own the place.
- arpad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I know. It just sucks that all those far-left wack jobs want to try to keep welfare in place even though it's now clear it's a miserable failure. Then there's the social security system which is in such poor shape that a greater percentage of under-30 year-olds expect to see a UFO before they'll see a dollar from social security.
How about socialized medicine? Great, great success except that everywhere it's been put in place there's been a graceful slide from a capable medical system that meets societies needs to inefficient, compassionless bureaucracy that provides top-notch care if you're politically connected at the expense of all the folks who aren't politically connected. Yeah, great way to do business. - sjm20k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Honestly, look at history - who's view always loses? The conservatives. To be conservative by nature means to to oppose any kind of progressive change. All sorts of classical conservative values have been defeated thankfully (slavery, suppression of women's votes, segregation, etc etc).
Why board a sinking ship? The world is going to change and there isn't anything you can do about it short of blowing us all back to the stone age.
- arpad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I know. It just sucks that all those far-left wack jobs want to try to keep welfare in place even though it's now clear it's a miserable failure. Then there's the social security system which is in such poor shape that a greater percentage of under-30 year-olds expect to see a UFO before they'll see a dollar from social security.
- WailOS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I agree we need a more pro-Science president and Congress. Unfortunately, the two political parties in the US are made up of politicians (lawyers), not scientists. Good luck getting any pro-Science people from that pool.
At least the US hasn't slipped as far down the slope as Europe already has: Finland considered prosecuting Prof. Vanhanen for his work on IQ, and Norway banned publication of a book because of an interview with Prof. Dahlstrom on biological differences between men and women. The Political Correctness Cops are at least as dangerous to scientific inquiry as backwater religious evangelizers. In my opinion they're even more dangerous, because the absurdity of ID and similar things is obvious, but Political Correctness sneaks in under the guise of being the decorum of polite society. Then, before you know it, there are official investigations into your little snafus, then regulations are made, funding is cut...- etjazz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In regards to norway banning a book, could you please point to a source? I've never heard of any litarature being sensored in Norway in recent times.
Did you just pull those facts out of your ass? - WailOS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2etjazz:
I looked up the incident you asked about and it looks like I got the country wrong (keep in mind, this is an incident from last year), the book was banned in Sweden, not Norway.
Quote (trans. from Swedish by Secular Blasphemy, linked below):
"Our Swedish gender equality policy is based on us being equal and being socialised into different gender roles," declared Britt-Marie Lugnet-Häggberg in the Wednesday DN. "Annica Dahlström is an essentialist feminist (särartsfeministisk) and believes that boys and girls are [biologically] different. The county government cannot publish material with that opinion."
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,602512,00.html (an article in Swedish)
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2005/02/12.html#a6795 (Secular Blasphemy translation of above article)
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003607.html (Commentary on above article)
- etjazz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In regards to norway banning a book, could you please point to a source? I've never heard of any litarature being sensored in Norway in recent times.
- Doofy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1....who will give them more money.
- HeartOfFire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Frankly, I think a lot of our sciences have become degraded. In many fields theory has become an animal of its' own, quite apart from empirical study.
While we have continued to progress in the empirical fields, in many of the more theory heavy fields, we have been stagnating.
There is a great deal of dogma coalescing in some of these areas and they are relying on riding the coattails of the more empirical areas.
Theory is a very, very beautiful and important thing... but only insofar as it stands up to tests. Science is not so separate from everything else that people should be dogmatic about their theories and get political or even religious about their theories. They should strive to protect nothing but proven truth. And have complete confidence that the truth is weightier then whatever lies others might present.
When science is but a platform for politics... be that for the Republicans or for the Democrats... or for the Catholic Church of old... truth does not matter anymore. Only what is political convenient matters.
If you have conclusive proof on matters... take your case to the people, especially the critics. Don't use it for your own political desires. Have confidence in it. It will always win out.
If you feel you can not explain it... then you do not have it. - somebitches, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1When the kind of politicians in government are retarded ***** like Robert "the vagina can take a lot of punishment" Knight I would have to agree. Bush is a ***** moron, Republicans that haven't woken up yet are mentally retarded.
America needs to be taken back to the 21st century before religious fundamentalists turn it into a theocracy. If America cannot do this themselves then I think its time for Europe to invade *again* and fix the government. Call it poetic justice, *****.- arpad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Europe invade America. Let me just think about that for a second.
OK, I'm done laughing.
I've got a better idea. Why don't we open up the window at the State Department where countries that want to become American states can apply?
- arpad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Europe invade America. Let me just think about that for a second.
- Cardiakke, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Translation: Frustrated lefties with BDS wail "I want my grant money"
- ElectroBot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Al Gore/Jon Stewart 2008!
- brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Too bad GWB is too stupid to realize that the God that inspires him all the time is nothing but the money of big oil ceos and war profiteers.
- ricefarmer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2america is going down hill from here on out... ***** bush somebody should assasinate him
- Somniis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Don't be weirded out when a FBI agent knocks on your door.
(sarcasm btw) - ricefarmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i voted for al gore
- Somniis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Don't be weirded out when a FBI agent knocks on your door.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by