Bush vs. Kerry on Science 1618
chrisspurgeon writes "The science journal Nature put 15 questions to Senator Kerry and President Bush. Read the candidates' responses on topics such as stem cell research, greenhouse emissions, and manned spaceflight to Mars."
Easier to read version (Score:3, Informative)
for lazy slashdoters (Score:4, Informative)
Climate change
Throughout his time in office, President George Bush has been slammed by environmentalists for avoiding steps to reduce global warming. Climate experts recommend cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions - and John Kerry pledges to take a greener stance.
Yucca Mountain
Twenty years ago an act of Congress put forward Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for the nation's nuclear waste - but fierce disputes over whether the site might leak radioactive material have held up its construction ever since. Now the mountain, in the political swing state of Nevada, has emerged as a hot campaign issue in the US presidential race, and both candidates claim that sound science is on their side
Stem cells
Before President George W. Bush arrived in the Oval Office, most Americans had never heard of a stem cell - a microscopic biological entity that can transform into hair, muscle or other human cell types. But four years on, the issue has escalated into a divisive one in US politics, and looks set to attract continued attention in the forthcoming election.
Manipulation of science
George Bush's presidency has suffered a rash of accusations that he is either ignoring or manipulating science. Democratic rival John Kerry, meanwhile, pledges to follow impartial scientific advice - but observers say that they are yet to be persuaded.
Nuclear weapons research
Late in 2002, the Bush administration proposed controversial plans to begin work on new designs for nuclear weapons. The idea has prompted fierce scientific and political opposition ever since.
Discover also has an analysis... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Religeon (Score:3, Informative)
OK, that was a cheap shot, that was hundreds of years ago.
No, that's not a cheap shot. In fact the "hundreds of years ago" makes it worse: they didn't admit they were wrong about Galileo until 1992!!
-chris
Re:Funding (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics (Score:2, Informative)
Teacher Associations are for K-12. Try an experiment, walk into any university and ask the professor if they belong to a teachers association or teachers union. No such luck.
Actually, having been in university for the past 30 years, I heard way more professors come out in support of Reagan over Carter then Carter over Reagan. Haven't met a professor yet who supports Bush over Kerry. But I am sure they are out there.
Re:The printable version... (Score:5, Informative)
Printable Version (Score:2, Informative)
It's a PDF, but it's much easier to read. I hate clicking a bunch of links to read a simple article.
summary of responses (Score:5, Informative)
For the slightly interesting questions, here is the summary of responses(I am sure that Bush did not write his responses personally; for Kerry I am unsure, but I suspect that he didn't either):
Stem cell research: Bush quotes amounts of federal money given for stem cell research, whereas Kerry promises to allow federal funding of stem cell research on new lines. Scientists interested in stem cell research will all prefer Kerry's response.
Nuclear weapons: Bush promises to fund development of new types of nuclear weapons, Kerry promises not to.
Ballistic missile defense: Bush promises to deploy a system within the next two years, Kerry promises not to deploy the system Bush proposes for immediate deployment. No word on whether Kerry plans to continue funding research or eventually deploy a different system.
Greenhouse gas emmisions: Bush quotes previously announced goal of 18% reduction in US greenhouse gas emissions. Kerry promises to join Kyoto protocol.
Space science: Bush quotes Mars mission plan. Kerry promises that NASA will be given sufficient support for any future missions he proposes. No mention of any planned mission proposals, and it implies that he will can the Mars mission plan, although it doesn't say that explicitly.
Re:Religeon (Score:5, Informative)
Christians read the Bible as if it came from a teacher, not as a textbook. As a result, Christians differ over what parts they think refer to historical narrative, and which ones are meant to instruct philosophically or morally or theologically.
For example, no Christian reads the Hebrew Proverbs as if each one of the proverbs is always true in all circumstances, in all possible ways. Proverbs is a book of proverbial wisdom, that is, a book of instruction in how to live wisely. In general, following the proverbial wisdom will lead to a more prosperous life than living otherwise, and people understand that. The Gospel of Mark, however, is understood by all Christians to be a historical narrative. The book is clearly intended to be read that way, as it refers to specific people in specific places, many of which are historically verifiable. The book of Revelation, obviously, doesn't work quite that way.
The most-debated books with regard to historical narrativity are the first few chapters of Genesis, Job, Esther, and John. The rest are understood to be historical narrative. Whether or not you agree that it is true historical narrative, it is obvious that certain books are intended to be read that way (1/2 Kings, Exodus, Ruth, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts), and others not (Isaiah, Romans, Revelation, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon).
Despite your previous comments, the Old and New Testament Scriptures have shown themselves to be reliable in the vast majority of archaeological findings. Don't trust my judgment -- take a look at the Biblical Archaeology Society [bib-arch.org], hardly a bastion of evangelical fervor.
Jon
You mean he served in "Indochine" (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps not coincidentally, the French also were involved in Vietnam, as its colonial power. Will John Kerry's nefarious weak-kneed continental foppishness never cease to disgust red-blooded Americans?
The "Wait a minute, don't you think he looks kind of... French...?" moment may have been as low a moment for the American electoral process as Karl Rove's South Carolina push polls implying John McCain had sired a mixed-race child out of wedlock. Hear all about it from McCain's own campaign people. [boston.com]
Not that the "Frenchie" thing was near as disturbing, as a tactic -- it didn't smack so outrageously of the most extreme possible "Southern Strategy." But it was if anything even more puerile, which has got to be a record.
Re:Religeon (Score:3, Informative)
Lets be a bit more practical here. I was raised Christian and as I grew up I began to realize that if the Christian belief statements were correct then what I was learning in Science Class was not correct. The issue wasn't the basic stuff but evolution, the age of the earth etc. Something there was quite incompatable. All due respect to my Catholic friends who believe in evolution but there is no point in any religion if you believe that you are the product of evolution.
Because science facts may be verified I began to undertake to check some of the assumptions of the evolution science teachings. Religion on the other hand may be taken on faith. I looked pretty deep. I could go into depths too far for a /. post but I began to find that Evolution Science was as full of holes as a swiss cheese. Then I began looking into its history and I learned that it was merely a competing religion to Christianity justifying some pretty bad behavior on the part of its followers.
In a more serious note: The religion of "Bush" is entirely for public consumption. He is more than willing to bed down with the worst thieves of corporate history and has no morals regards his comittments to his friends like keeping campaign promices. He shows no loyalty to the USA subjecting its people to a trade war by their own government and claiming that this piracy is good for the economy. He has repeatedly chosen to place our Congress and State Legislatures below the authority of the dictatorship in the WTO in Switzerland. At his direction we no longer have the authority to pass laws for our own health and safety without this shadow dictatorship being able to override them!
I have no doubt he prays, but when he gets up he preys on our freedom and prosperity. History is full of men who used religion to fool the populace but who themselves acted outside of any of the beliefs of that religion.
Special note to those who might be tempted to take this as a Pro Kerry statement. IT IS NOT! To evaluate one man honestly is not an evaluation of another. I merely report what is the condition of Mr. Bush(43) here. Mr. Kerry has his own problems with beliefs and facts.
Re:Funding (Score:2, Informative)
Research "which is fully funded" that has been providing results has been using adult stem cells.
Stem cells are stem cells. Fund the research that delivers.
Re:Religeon (Score:2, Informative)
i) Arbusto Energy / Spectrum 7 (CEO, 1977-1986): Formed 1977, declared bankrupt, 1986.
ii) Harken Energy (director, 1986-1990) : GWB implicated for insider trading and accounting practices. 1992 SEC investigation still sealed. Made loss of over $20million.
iii) Texas Rangers baseball club (owner/managing partner, 1990-1994) : 383-379, for an entirely average
So, that's two unmitigated financial disasters and a ballclub that defines "league average". If that's a model Harvard MBA student, perhaps they should consider tightening their syllabus up a little bit.
Re:Other candidates (Score:5, Informative)
The theory that a vote for Nader/Badnarik is a vote for Bush stems from the idea that people who vote for change are probably voting for Kerry and not for Bush. So, by voting for a third-party, you're effectively taking a vote away from Kerry.
Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Neither party truly supports science (Score:4, Informative)
This has to be the most insightful post on this article I've seen, and it's a shame people appear to be modding it down.
You may prefer Bush or Kerry as President, but their knowledge of science begins and ends at the poll stand. If enough people believe something, even if it's crackpot, one of these candidates will choose that position to gain a few more votes.
Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Other candidates (Score:3, Informative)
like Kyoto..., as in international treaties, not necessarily the specific Kyoto treaty.
Re:Non-Americans (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously, I'm right-of-center politically, and what I find insightful, you may find unconvincing.
Re:for lazy slashdoters (Score:3, Informative)
Yucca Mt:
Bush: for Yucca mountain. Claims safe, but only touting safe for 10000 years, where at least 100000 would be needed for radioactive decay to safe level.
Kerry: against Yucca mountain.
Nuclear Weapons Research:
Bush: more Nuke spending
Kerry: less Nuke spending
Emissions/Environment.
Bush: voluntary emissions changes
Kerry: greener stance - stronger base emissions guidelines.
Stem Cell research:
Bush: keep current - policy leans towards funding by private sector so taxpayers not responsible for paying for "further destruction of human embryos"
Kerry: loosen restrictions, as long as still morally acceptable.
NASA/Moon/Mars:
Bush: 15 years to manned moon mission (and base?) and use that as a launching point for future missions.
Kerry: NASA needs more funding (no real answer on manned mission to moon or Mars)
Mad Cow:
Bush: USDA leading taking measures such as banning eating of 'downer cattle' (fyi, animals that can't walk at time of slaughter), prohibiting specific material from older cattle (+30 mos), and expanded surveillence.
Kerry: Bush mishandling - need to ensure 1997 ban on bone-meal in feed (fyi, this is usually the ground bones of sheep, where the prions that cause mad cow come from).
Drugs:
Bush: US is gold standard for speeding new therapies and drugs to patients.
Kerry: Make sure FDA has funding to make sure drugs are safe. Current approval rate may be too fast to be safe.
Things they both agree with, to an extent: missile defense system (continue it), scientist movement (allow, as long as security isn't compromised), WMD (get global community involved), ITER fusion (keep research), biomed (both claim committed to it), endangered species (make changes that best protect the species), and transgenic crops (important to agriculture).
Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation (Score:5, Informative)
Bush has made several comments [msn.com] supporting the teaching of creationism in public schools. But, given the radical religious beliefs permeating his administration, this is not really surprising.
Re:Bush already did this, Kerry refuses. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Non-Americans (Score:1, Informative)
Us pays disproportionate cost for UN ? Are you kidding ? http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/10/15
Furthermore, it is probably the UN that will have to clear the billion $ mess that US made to irak.
Re:Religeon (Score:3, Informative)
The parent (and gp) bring up an issue that I think is really important re morality: Is morality relative or absolute?
Judaism and Christianity are clearly on the moral absolutism side. (AFAIK other religions are, too, but I'm not as familiar with them, so I'll only talk about these two.) These religions claim that morality is not related to culture or society, but is part of the nature of the universe (and ultimately from God). Adherents of these religions may disagree on what they are, and even what evidence or data are valid for determining what they are, but they agree that whatever morality is, it is something that is Out There for us to discover/understand, not something we invent.
On the other side is moral relativism. I'm not in this camp, but from what I understand it's basically that morality is not a property of the universe, or handed down from (a) god(s), or anything like that. I'm not sure if all moral relativists believe that morality is a construction of people/culture/society, but that's the form I've seen most often.
Re:This really bears repeating... (Score:1, Informative)
-Thomas Jefferson
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
-- John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Fallacies (Score:5, Informative)
Fallacy - The set of people who are scientists does not intersect the set of people who are Christians.
Fact - Many scientists are also Christians, including myself.
Fallacy - Bush does not allow stem cell research.
Fact - Bush does not support fetal stem cell research with my personal tax dollars. Dollars for stem cell research are still being spent by our government, and private institutions can perform their own embryonic stem cell research if they so choose. You can even donate your own personal money to support embryonic stem cell research.
That is all for now, thank you.
Re:for lazy slashdoters (Score:3, Informative)
Emissions/Environment.
Bush: voluntary emissions changes Bush claims he has commited the nation to a goal of reducing "greenhouse-gas intensity" by 18% over the next ten years... that sounds like a pretty firm statement to me.
Kerry: greener stance - stronger base emissions guidelines.
Stem Cell research:
Bush: keep current - policy leans towards funding by private sector so taxpayers not responsible for paying for "further destruction of human embryos" Bush administration has spent hundreds of millions on stem cell research, but pushes the use of adult stem cells.
Kerry: loosen restrictions, as long as still morally acceptable.
If you want a good summary, take a look at the BBC summary [bbc.co.uk]
Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual (Score:3, Informative)
For an example of this, read the unfortunate tale of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko [skepdic.com]. Soviet agriculture took decades to recover from this ideological distortion of science.
Re:Non-Americans (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Discover also has an analysis... (Score:3, Informative)
What's up for debate is how much of the warming is being caused by humans. It could be that human activity is having little impact and that the warming is natural; or it could be that humans are accelerating a natural process; or that humans are the primary cause of warming. Nobody knows.
Max
Re:Fallacies (Score:5, Informative)
Umm its embryonic stem cell research. In no way are these things ever fetuses. They never attached to the uterus lining which is the definition of a fetus. The cells in questioned are the waste of invitro fertilization. And his ban affects all universities from exploring embroyonic stem cell research which has greater possibility of curing nerve and brain diseases since adult stem cells cannot transform into nerve or brain cells(neurons). Calling them fetuses is pure FUD and leads me to question wheter your statement about being a scientist is truthful.
Embryonic Stem cell research [wisc.edu]
Statement from the white house about in vitro fertilization and embryonic research.
The origin of embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are derived from excess embryos created in the course of infertility treatment. As a result of standard in vitro fertilization practices, many excess human embryos are created. Participants in IVF treatment must ultimately decide the disposition of these excess embryos, and many individuals have donated their excess embryos for research purposes.
White house statement [whitehouse.gov]
Re:Short term thinking. (Score:3, Informative)
It's true that nobody can predict the future 100%, but according to U.S. intelligence [reuters.com] the prospects are pretty dim. Even Republicans are very concerned [boston.com].
Creation science is an oxymoron (Score:5, Informative)
There's no such thing as "creationism" in science. Science is merely an epistomology that stresses experimentation, prediction, data gathering, and objective analysis. The fundamentals of science is simply this: an hypothesis must be falsifiable, or it is merely conjecture and flights of fancy.
I can assert there are invisible pink unicorns all around us, helping us every day. There are only two way to prove this assertion: present all these pink unicorns, or create an experiment that tests for the *nonexistence* of pink unicorns, and have that experiment present negative results. (That's a double-negative, which is a positive. Don't do that in English.)
Also, the ideal scientist will not set out to "prove" or "disprove" an hypothesis. They set out in search of the truth of the matter. An hypothesis is merely one step on the way to that truth, and they set out to test that hypothesis. As soon as they attempt to "prove" a particular hypothesis, their interpretation of the data becomes biased and skewed. (For example, check out Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box [talkorigins.org].)
Evolution is a theory, yes; but in science, "theory" is a class of hypothesis that have passed experimentation. This means it has been backed up by evidence, not by personal belief or the assertions of ancient documents of questionable literal veracity. The basics of evolution by natural selection (generally what people mean when they talk about "evolution") have passed all tests so far. Since we can't easily directly test natural selection, these tests are mostly comprised of tests of the predictions and necessities of natural selection, such as the genetic relationships among species, or the filling-in of the fossil record.
The problem isn't a personal belief in creationism, or a higher being. (To have a creation, you must have a creator.) That is a very personal choice, and since there is no known way to prove or disprove the existence of a God, there is no way to prove or disprove creationism. And in this, I respect whichever side you choose.
However, to teach something that doesn't even rate the label of "hypothesis" as a competing theory to evolution is to ignore the fundamental philosophy of science: the doctrine of testability. This is why the proposition of teaching creationism in a science class is absurd.
Doing so would be a disservice to our children, our society, and our future.
Re:Non-Americans (Score:4, Informative)
Conservatives: please do not take the New Republic as representative of left-of-center views. It is not.
For your left wing fix, consider Counterpunch [counterpunch.org]. For something moderate, take a look at The Nation [thenation.com] or the columnists for Salon [salon.com].
PS Any slashdot story that includes the word "Bush" (notwithstanding those discussing plantlife) is flamebait and should probably go on flamebait central [slashdot.org].
Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money. (Score:3, Informative)
Or would you have our troops fight with spitballs.
I live in North Carolina. I love how John Edwards runs around telling everyone that Bush drove jobs away, and that as president he'll bring them back. My question is always, "So what did you do while you were in the SENATE!!"
Re:Religeon (Score:3, Informative)
Some will believe in God, though not in an afterlife.
Some will have serious doubts God exists, though will choose to follow the religious laws out of habit (and hopefully) a sense that doing so can make people's lives better.
Some certainly believe that God doesn't watch over them... even they concede that for some (possibly mysterious) reason he chooses to allow bad things to happen.
Some will find evidence to support these beliefs. Others will contrive false evidence.
Few believe that dinosaurs don't exist, the rest interpret the existence of fossil records differently. Others are ignorant that there is a fossil record.
BTW, most preachers, even the most ignorant, will tell you (if you haven't been rude to them yet) that tarot-card-readers are scam artists that tell you what you want to hear. The rest will claim they are witches. Go figure.
Religion is often abused by con artists. It is speculated that religion was invented by con artists. Sometimes, it is used to make things better, to give hope and joy to people who endure the worst of conditions. When a christian organization donates food to starving people in africa, or helps rebuild homes after a hurricane strikes, surely some do it out of fear of going to hell. The rest do it because it is good to help others. You could learn from them.
Kerry's Senate Record (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a brief synopsis of Kerry's Senate accomplishments [aflcio.org]:
Instrumental in passing most recent minimum wage increase; introduced bill to significantly increase commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS; passed law addressing nurse shortage; expanded early childhood development efforts; introduced plan that expanded children's health insurance coverage; stood with consumers against big banks on the bankruptcy bill and led and won the fight to pass the anti-money laundering act to stop terrorist and drug financing; secured assistance for families of Agent Orange; and led inquiry into savings and loan cleanup.
To keep things fair and balanced, here's a view from a Kerry-Edwards site [johnkerry.com], and one from Fox News [foxnews.com].
Re:Unfortunatly (Score:3, Informative)
Bzzz wrong answer, but thanks for playing the "lets make up data game"... I like to rely on more useful data like say the IRS Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 1973-2003 [irs.gov] which clearly shows that tax revenue doubled from 1980 to 1989!
Believe as they might the data shows otherwise.
Re:Stream (Score:3, Informative)
According to the CIA, Pakistan is a republic [cia.gov]. Of course, both the USA and USSR were republics, so that word is nearly content-free in terms of describing a government. But it is funny in light of the number of forum trolls who claim "The USA is a republic, not a democracy" [google.com].
OMG do he look incompetent.
Anyone who likes to giggle at presidential incompetence owes it to herself to watch the infamous "tribal sovereignty" video [mac.com].
Re:Why life doesn't count until it's born (Score:2, Informative)
Not quite correct. Many cultures don't even consider the baby a person until well after she's born, and allow the parents to quietly dispose of an unwanted child without fuss.
Ceremonys like baptism are often when the infant becomes officially "born".
Orthodox rabbis, for example, won't hold a funeral for a baby who died after less than a week. They think it'll make everyone feel more comfortable to pretend it was just a kind of miscarriage, and not a dead person at all.
Re:Hitler was not a devout Catholic! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Other candidates (Score:3, Informative)
If I had to be shot at with either an M16 or a typical hunting rifle, I'd pick an M16. They shoot a
See, I think you think that an "assault weapon" (I use quotes because that's not even a real type of weapon--it's made up to sound like assault rifle and thus, to confuse the two) is fully automatic. It's not. It's semiautomatic. That means you pull the trigger and *bang*. You pull the trigger again and *bang*. Contrast this with automatic, which means that as long as you hold the trigger down, it rapidly fires. Many rifles and all pistols are semiautomatic. The weapons banned are not machine guns. They don't shoot any faster and they don't use any more powerful ammunition. If you look into the (now expired) ban, the criteria include things like: flash suppressor, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc. These things are all cosmetic or at most ergonomic and have no effect on lethality. This is why all manufacturers had to do to make their rifles legal was to change minor cosmetic things. Of course, the media calls this a "loophole", but it's not, that's just the arbitrary criteria that is in the ban.
I'm not exaggerating at all when I say this: the ban only affects civilian guns that *look like* military guns. The civilian versions are semiautomatic and are made to be next to impossible to convert to automatic. It's a ban on "scary looking" guns, nothing more, nothing less.
As I've said, I have not heard *one* argument for the ban coming from someone who actually understood weapons and the ban. The media knows that most people will just accept what they say and sure enough, most people think that the ban is of fully-automatic weapons like the AK-47. Fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934. Before that, anyone could buy a Thompson Submachine gun (a tommy gun--what gangsters use in movies) for about $200. Now you have to have a special license that is quite hard to get to own an automatic weapon.
As for purposes for owning one: many people collect them (since they *look like* military rifles), they're accurate, they're reliable, they're durable, and the main thing is that there is no logical reason to *not* let someone have one.