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."
Other candidates (Score:3, Interesting)
In a chart, even better.
(going to be some election, with even non-Americans like me taking this intense an interest, hm?)
The printable version... (Score:5, Interesting)
Gah...flash. (Score:5, Interesting)
With regards to the questions, wouldn't it have been more fun if they had asked B and K unprepared questions on science directly in person, without any speechwriters to hide behind?
"The HIV virus is a retrovirus. Can either of you tell us what that means?"
"Give us the strongest arguments pro and con for the existance of man-made global warming."
Non-Americans (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, if non-US citizens could vote, it's pretty clear what the result would be [cbsnews.com]. Although maybe we shouldn't publicise this, it might provoke a nationalistic wave of support for you know who...
Eurpoean perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
I was amused that most of Kerry's responses mentioned John Edwards, but Cheney is not mentioned ONCE in Bush's answers. I suppose that makes sense for the questions about energy policy...
Its clear that the candidates don't ever plan on using these responses verbally. I'd love to see W try and pronounce "carbon sequestration". (In the Bush response to question #12.)
Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Bush campaign hasn't suffered at all from this attack on Bush's intelligence. It didn't suffer in 2000 either. However, Al Gore's campaign did latch onto it in an attempt to put down Bush and gain more support for the Dem's. It didn't work, in fact, it played to Bush's advantage. Instead of focusing on real issues, Gore was busy telling us all what a moron W was. You'll notice Kerry hasn't taken that strategy. There's a reason.
Funding (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I'm still against the blocking of research funds. More eyes can be useful on this subejct, obviously.
Re:Non-Americans (Score:5, Interesting)
Although maybe we shouldn't publicise this, it might provoke a nationalistic wave of support for you know who...
It already has. One of the most effective slurs against Kerry has been "he looks French."
An excellent idea (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Which country does the US currently owe the most money to?
2. How much is one trillion, in millions?
(If you can't answer this, i don't want you spending my taxes. The English answer is often different from the American answer, too.)
3.a. What's the basic standard treatment for radiation sickness?
3.b. How thick should the walls of a fallout shelter be?
***
What else should be on the test?
Re:Religion (Score:5, Interesting)
Only if you have to take the Bible literally. For example the Roman Catholic church reformed in the 60's to become much more liberal by normal Christian attitudes. Basically they say that if the Bible says "the Earth is flat" and then someone proves that it isn't, then the Bible was wrong. That's ok because it doesn't have to be taken for literal truth, or maybe someone messed up copying things along the way, or whatever. I have a fundamentalist geologist friend and he said "due to the abundance of evidence I can only say that the Earth is several billion years old." (I forget if it is billion or billions, sorry). Some religions and people are anti-science. But don't assume that Christians are all as shallow as you make them out to be. To semi-quote Neil Stephenson in Snowcrash - "Most smart people come to realize that 90% of the Bible is crap. The problem is they assume that the whole thing is crap, when that 10% is very important."
Re:Missile defense (Score:3, Interesting)
getting rid of radio-activity instead of material? (Score:1, Interesting)
From the article linked to the story poster: 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
I have a question that's so simplistic that I expect it's stupid. Admittedly I don't understand the facts about nuclear waste, but here goes ....
Can nuclear waste not be totally incinerated? I assume if this is possible then it will become carbon that is .... less radioactive?
Alternatively, is there no process that can change the structure of the atoms so they are not radio active anymore?
Re:Religeon (Score:1, Interesting)
Yep, looks like belief in the Bible certainly prevents one from make sound decisions.
Re:Is this really Bush v Kerry? Implications of Q6 (Score:4, Interesting)
On ITER [iter.org]:
Question6, Bush: "a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen"
July 13th 2004, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham [energy.gov]: "a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen"
Firstly, ITER as a source of hydrogen? I know ITER might spur the hydrogen producers, but then could this equally say ITER would be a source of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and tritium (heavy-heavy hydrogen). Huh?
Secondly, are these the words of our much loved Mr. Bush or did he just copy and paste some of Spencer Abraham's memos? This looks more like a 'whole party' thing.
Re:Religion (Score:4, Interesting)
Vatican II changed nothing of the faith. It was a pastoral council that changed only the expression of liturgy and language used to make the Faith more understandable to the modern world. Nothing of the faith changed.
The Church has always realized that Sacred Scripture is not a science textbook. The Bible is the story of how God relates to man and man's response. Many literary devices are used that seem to be non-sensical in modern English, but are in harmony and make perfect sense when you understand Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek prophetic language.
A perfect example is the whole "Left Behind" group nowadays which states that Christ will come not two times but three. (When He comes back the second, He will only be "in the clouds", so that's not a "real" coming back). What they neglect to notice is that the phraseology of "coming on clouds" in the Bible represents God's judgement. Ergo, when Christ comes back the second time it will be as Judge.
Many things in scripture use Hebrew prophetic language, and you have to understand the culture to understand the message. The Bible was not written outside of its culture as a message only for those 2,000 - 6,000 years later. It had relevance to the people each part was written to at the time, and you have to know the background to get a true sense of what Scripture is saying.
If you are really interested in this, check out a book entitled "Making Sense Out Of Scripture" by Mark Shea.
Re:Eurpoean perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
However, both Bush and Kerry emphasize that they want to make it easier again to attract smart foreign students, at least according to this SPIEGEL article (in German) [spiegel.de]. In the time since 9/11 it has become extremely hard to get into the country, and not only for students that match certain profiles. Even if you're a white female Christian from Northern Europe there were quite a few obstacles.
Re:We non-Americans are hoping.... (Score:2, Interesting)
We are well on the way with our black-box voting machines toward making our "elections" into an episode of MTv's Real World. A majority of us don't vote, and the rest don't care whether our votes will be counted with any integrity. Both our major party candidates for President are on the record favoring illegal military interventions abroad and the capriciously systematic suppression of civil liberties at home. We are generally represented in Congress by representatives who show open contempt for their constituents interests. We see no reason to hold our President or any of his advisors accountable for the murder, torture and disappearance of captured prisoners in the WarOnTerror(TM). Worst of all, the electorate pretty much regards any criticism of these policies as unpatriotic at best, and perhaps even a majority of them consider it treasonous.
What do we have to do before the rest of the world will wake up and realize that the U.S. is experiencing its second revolution, and the outcome will not be a victory for democratic principles?
(We've not gone quite as far south as Russia, but Bush says he looked into Putin's soul and found a friend... and, no, I don't feel confortable posting this under my real name. Yes, it's that bad now in America.)
Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Religion (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not going to get into the whole abortion debate here, because fundamentally that's a personal decision and religion really should have nothing to do with it at the legislative/judicial level. Nonetheless, the Catholics while still endorsing "God Guided Evolution" (last I checked) also still buy into a number of other apocryphal stories in the Old Testament such as Noah and that guy who got eaten by the whale (Johna?).
What the Church needs to do is step back and say one way or the other "The Bible contains passages which may be metaphorical" or "The Bible should be taken literally at all times." If you're willing to admit the former, you need to be willing to allow the individual to judge what is Metaphorical and what is not for themselves. Obviously the Church has it within her power to take exception to this from time to time through the Pope's power of speaking Ex Cathedra.
Still, were the Church to view things in this way it would set a powerful precedent for the rest of the world and might just allow some of the Authoritarian Theocratic States (like the USA) to accomplish something in the sciences.
Obviously there are portions of the Bible that are important. That whole "love they neighbor" thing can make for a pretty decent place to live. But you can buy into that without agreeing with the bit about Adam living to be 900 or so.
Re:Discover also has an analysis... (Score:3, Interesting)
The model that supports global warming is seriously flawed. The only people that support global warming in the scientific community are those whose grants are based upon it. Gee, I wonder why.
You want to seriously look into how the Global warming scam is being played, check out www.junkscience.com They have a lot of information over there that just might open your eyes.
Re:An excellent idea (Score:4, Interesting)
- How many sovereign countries are there in the world?
- How many world religions?
- Earth's circumference? Land surface? the U.S. land surface?
- How long does it take to cross the U.S. by car, east coast to west coast? How many timezones do you traverse? How much do you pay for the gas for this trip?
Have a public debate, randomly draw 10 questions like those out of a pool of 100, and let the candidates answer them.
I don't know any exact answers to any of these questions, but I think it would be very interesting to hear some unprepared guesses from the candidates, orally, with a bit of discussion about how they arrived at their answers.
You'd get to know the guys a lot better than by being inundated by election TV ads and smear campaigns.
Re:Religeon (Score:5, Interesting)
Allow me to paraphrase:
Religion and Science are mutually exclusive because Science is built around the Scientific Process. Through this process of hypothesis and conclusion a theory can be disproved and shown to be wrong. Observable evidence from the physical world can be applied to a conjecture about the physical world and can be used to show that conjecture as true or false.
Religion does not have what are called "falsifiable" hypotheses. In other words, Religion puts forth explanations for which no evidence can be collected.
A Scientific Statement is one like "This ball drops to the floor because of a force called gravity which acts on all things."
A Religious Statement is one like "This ball drops to the floor because the Gods want it to and they reach out and pull it to the floor."
I can collect evidence for or against the Gravity hypothesis. We can argue over it and come to a meaningful conclusion. The Gods hypothesis is unfalsifiable because no matter what evidence I bring to the table you can say "The Gods didn't want your ball to fall" and that's the end of the discussion.
As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.
That's a bit misleading. It's not that Science doesn't have room for morality; it's that Science doesn't address the issue. I'm sure that somewhere someone has compiled a sociological study of what behaviors are required of the individual in a utopian society. These could be considered a scientific moral code if you wanted to think of them that way. Religion fuses moral judgments with an attempt to explain the world. These are better separated. If you have thoughts on how a person should treat another person or thing, those thoughts are your own. There is nothing unscientific about your willingness to live by those beliefs or to encourage others to live by them. We can even scientifically demonstrate which beliefs make the people around you happy and angry and by extension which are more suited to the social community we live in (a Scientific pursuit). What we can't do is say that behavior X is desirable because a deity requires it. Morality is about how you interact with yourself and your world. If you don't want to eat pork, fine, don't eat pork. Don't tell me it's because God doesn't like pork though. Even God's gotta have a reason not to like bacon.
Our Man Dubya (Score:4, Interesting)
From a scientist: not just politics as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been paying close attention to science policy since the Nixon years. Every administration, Republican and Democrat has had serious problems with its science policy, but in my opinion, and in the opinion of many of us old enough to have been there, there has never been an adminstration where Science was so badly distorted for ideological reasons. From climate change to missile defense to abortion to environmental toxins to the teaching of evolution, the Bush administration has made science subordinate to its ideological positions.
As others in this thread have noted, the actual printed responses in the Nature article are mostly unhelpful canned PR blurbs (and it is a scary sign of ideological polarization to see Nature, the world's most prestigious general scientific journal, described as "far left"), but it is important not to lose sight of the fact that this is not just politics as usual. There are plenty of conservatives and Republicans who are friends of good science, but there is nothing conservative about the Bush administration in this regard: they are radicals, in favor of science only when it supports their ideology.
This is terribly dangerous. To paraphrase the great physicist, Richard Feynman, (whom I first heard make statements like this when I was a student at Caltech): For any technological society to succeed, sound science must take precendence over ideological conviction, because nature cannot be fooled. In my opinion, the Bush administration's failure to understand this concept presents a grave danger to our country and to the world.
Re:Other candidates (Score:5, Interesting)
---
Since I recently moved, I tried re-registering to vote in the new district. My wife (hardcore Republican) said not to bother because I usually side on the independent and I would be "wasting my vote". Funny thing, when I pass by the political party tents at the local Fair, they all ask if I'm registered to vote. I say, "No". I let them speak their piece about registering to vote, and I'm usually ready to fill out the paperwork they provide as a convienience. When I mention the fact that people tell me I'd be wasting my vote because I side with Independents, they get all quiet and move on to the next person. I guess their mottos are, "Please support Democracy and register to vote (as long as you vote for us)"
Every time that happens, I see why I side with the independents.
Re:Religeon (Score:2, Interesting)
So my point was, that a lot of scientists seems to disregard the "rules" of science anyway - like not dismissing a thoery without evidence, and not accepting a theory as face (i.e. evolution - taught as fact in schools).
You claim the bible is inconsistent with itself, yet provide no reliable evidence to back this up.
I believe that many things which science would claim as proving the bible wrong are by no means difinitive.
Walk with me a while:
So you see, there's nothing that science will show me that will remove my faith in God, because I know he's real.. I do know he, being God, knows a little bit more about how things work than we do.. so I'll trust him first.
Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out... (Score:4, Interesting)
For those who can't see the video, there's the transcript [whitehouse.gov].
Jedidiah.
Re:Religion (Score:2, Interesting)
All kidding aside, this is very interesting. I'll have to read up on this aspect of things because so many times it get's bogged down into what is happening on Slashdot with this subject. I haven't seen so many Troll/Insightfull/Flamebait/Interesting/Overrated
Listed under science instead of politics? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This really bears repeating... (Score:3, Interesting)
Who is going to decide who qualifies as 'outgoing, well-versed, and apolitical scholars, with advanced degrees'? You? Big Brother? The Council of Guardians?
Democracy is a bad system, but it is the best.
Re:Other candidates (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, the point is that our nuclear weapons are pretty "good". We can, quite easily, use them to nuke cities or islands full of civilians if we so desire.
What do you want to do? Nuke them harder?
Tactical weapons research...taking out military targets. That's worth researching. It can make war more humane while making our military force more powerful.
But I don't see any advantages in having nuclear weapons more devasting than what we already have.
Well, maybe for attacking space aliens or something.
Re:This really bears repeating... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunatly (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe that this country would benefit greatly from massive tax reform. However, I also believe that tax policy is too crude of a tool to reliably control the economy. The effects of policies this broad are too subtle to predict and even after the fact, attributing changes in the economy to specific policies is an intellectual fraud.
Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm more interested on why people assume that it has to be creationism OR evolution. But then, the same people who hold that view are want to be oppositional for whatever reason, which is one of the driving forces behind Anti-Bushisms.
As for Bush's "radical religious beliefs", you need to get a new cliche. Most theologans agree Bush is far from a "radical", he is actually quite centrist. I think you confuse radicalism for integrity; most people who share Bush's beliefs aren't willing to risk any form of conflict to see them enacted.
Missing Questions... (Score:3, Interesting)
1) What will you do to help make American students interested in math & science again?
2) What will you do to help entrepeneurs wanting to start companies that apply science? Our economy has become such that only hugely profitable 'googles' are worth starting anymore.
3) Do you recognize that we're becoming a nation that does little but sell, market and consume products designed and built by others? How long do you think this can continue?
4) Why are we simultaneously becoming politically similar to China, in locking people into state dependence, and economically unlike China by creating a climate where designing and building things is a losing battle given taxes, entitlements, regulations and a useless, pampered, lawsuit-hungry, unqualified workforce coming out of politically-correct, declining, anti-science, anti-God and anti-industry schools?
Re:Non-Americans (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe I speak for many of us when I say that we like to read stuff that doesn't agree with our political viewpoint as long as it is well reasoned and doesn't claim to be the absolute truth but acknowledges that it's only an opinion.
Re:Unfortunatly (Score:4, Interesting)
And thus the increases in federal income tax revenue that happened in the 80's under Reagan and the 00's under Bush. Except that neither happened--tax rates were lowered, and tax revenues--surprise!--lowered also. Read about it at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
There are some arguments for supply-side economics, but no (or incredibly few) serious economists believe that reducing marginal tax rates increases tax revenue. It might reduce tax revenue less than one would expect, but it doesn't increase revenue.
Re:Non-Americans (Score:5, Interesting)
From both candidates, I want to get solid answers to the following questions, among others:
Re:Non-Americans (Score:1, Interesting)
If that's been "one of the most effective", I wonder how much more effective it has been to criticize his senate record, vietnam storytelling -err- recounting -err-, flip flopping, endless Kerryisms etc. Those must have been incredibly! effective.
In other words, if you are stupid enough to go for the "he looks French" line, you'll probably buy into the other Republican campaign lines, and not be able to recognized the dissonance between Bush's speeches on domestic policy and what his actions actually are, or will accept without thinking the current excuse for the ware in Iraq.
Re:Non-Americans (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Fallacies (Score:1, Interesting)
Christianity, to a Christian, necessarily and by default, means more than science or anything else. If there truly are "many" scientists out there who profess to believe in the unverifiable specific-case mysticism of the collection of books assembled by the Council in Nicea called The Bible, then you can be sure which worldview is dominant.
But regardless, one thing's for certain: "the set of people" is not what's appearing in these threads, and you're the one committing a fallacy of conflation. "People" hold contradictory opinions (for instance: Christians. Ha ha). But there can be no disputing that the core components of Christianity - even to the historiocity of Jesus - do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Because of this, it's reasonable to assume that anyone seriously interested in using science as a tool for understanding the universe (rather than, for instance, using it as a tool to justify extant irrational beliefs) would have no need for Christianity, which is not only incompatible as far as dogma and verifiability go, but also seeks to serve the same purpose.
P.S. - Bush is a hard-core statist and is very much enamored with your personal tax dollars, and the mainstream basis for disagreement with him is his announced motive for restricting stem cell research - Christian morality - rather than any argument about acceptable government use of tax dollars.
Re:Other candidates (Score:4, Interesting)
Last election I was registered republican and was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. He dropped the ball in my opinion (enough to make me distance myself from the party altoghether) And I've got a number of friends who feel the same way. Unfortunately the democrats did a piss poor job selecting a candidate that could attract us former republicans.
*sigh*
Now I'm registered libertarian, but find my beliefs a bit too hypocritical to fit well with them either...
Re:Bush on Oil Exploration and Terrorism Then? (Score:5, Interesting)
I do hear it in the popular media, and the implication is there in many campaign speeches (not pointing at Kerry). The biggest talk, though, is from Joe Schmukatelli. A large number of people have the impression that this stuff would be a cure-all if only Bush would let scientists work on it, and this is simply not true. It's not even true that the research isn't done. The guys across the hall that I mentioned have literally ten times the money we have. And we're a very well-funded lab.
Maybe I hear more because people around me know I'm in the field, so perhaps my experience is skewed. But I do get that exact impression (ES==Fountain of Youth) from the general populace.
The problem is not that scientists are overblowing their claims. The problem is that when newspapers & TV report on research, they leave out a lot of the qualifiers that we throw in. It's a problem that we have had in science for a long, long time. It's not a conspiracy or anything, it's just that reporters use hyperbole a bit too much in order to make the story more interesting. And this gives the wrong impression.
Very few people listen to scientists, most listen to journalists. Very few people read JBC, or even know what it is. Some people at least know what Cell is, more have perhaps read a Xeroxed commentary article from Nature. Most people don't even get their science from Scientific American or even Popular Science. They get it from the WSJ, the NYT and the local news. And I have not yet seen a report in the popular media that doesn't blow discoveries way out of proportion.
Re:Religeon (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, for the record, I'm a moral absolutist and a deontologist (and a Christian). The nature of the relationship between religion and morality is such if you follow a religion then you also follow a system or morality, but not vice versa. It's totally possible for their to be atheistic moral absolutists. So your question is an inclusive-or rather than an exclusive-or. The answer would be that I imagine God would rather that people believe in Him but either if they believe in him or they follow a system or morals then they should act in good ways.
You probably know more athiests... (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of us don't come out and say: "nice to meet you; there is no god".
I'd bet a lot of people who you know, who are morally "normal", are atheists and you just haven't realized it.
I am an athiest and independant of that, I realize that the world works better when:
You treat others as you would like to be treated...
Nothing that does no harm can be wrong...
and a few other guidlines.
So I try to live that way. In my experience, most athiest are of a similar mind.
I am a religious scientist. (Score:2, Interesting)
To bring this back to the original topic, another part of the distortion of science by the current administration is the deliberate use of a false dichotomy between science and religion as a calculated wedge issue to whip up the evangelical base. Again, this is not a simple partisan assertion. Neither Bush senior nor Bush junior's Republican challenger, John McCain, did this sort of thing. This is a specific criticism of the current Bush administration and its terrible distortion of science.
As it happens, I have over the past several years been giving a cycle of lay-led sermons in my church on the connections between my field (biomedical science) and spirituality. Interested parties can get them from my
http://homepage.mac.com/colgrove
In the "sermons" folder. My next sermon is coming up October 3rd (on "Death"), and you are all welcome
http://www.tparkerchurch.org/
Re:News Agencies Deny NK Blast was a Nuke (Score:2, Interesting)
"Do you have blacks, too?"
Bush's overwhelming and jaw-dropping ignorance is clearly evident here...alongside many of his other statements.
Interesting reading. (Score:2, Interesting)
About half way down the page is a is a section titled Head to Head Bush vs Kerry where they both got a chance to answer fifteen science related questions. I found this part to be the most interesting as you get to hear their answers in their own words instead of the usual "iffy" synopsis about what they think from some talking head with an axe to grind that never took a science class in his life.
As an example of this in the stem cell section at the top of the page the editors say:
"
research...Scientists have been frustrated by this rule for three years..
They say that it is slowing progress in stem-cell research,..."
While in the q and a section Bush says:
"I am committed to pursuing stem-cell research without crossing a
fundamental line and I am the first president to provide federal funding
for human embryonic stem-cell research.
government invested $25million in embryonic stem-cell research and
nearly $191 million in adult stem-cell research. My administration
is also creating a national embryonic stem-cell bank . These efforts
are providing a boost to research while not providing taxpayer funding
that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos.
My policy makes it possible for federally funded researchers to explore
the potential of embryonic stem-cells, while respecting the ethical and
moral implications associated with this research."
Not really the same thing at all.
I really hate that about our news. They tell us their version of what someone said instead of just quoting them in context so that we can see what they really said.
Most of the time I am convinced that our so called "objective news reporting" is anything but. Don't these people believe in the integraty of the news anymore?. Aren't reporters taught to be fair, objective, and complete anymore? It used to be that a reporters integrity and accuracy was his most valuable asset. People would talk to reporters like Walter Cronkite because they knew the man would report the facts as they happened without trying to put his own spin on things.
Anyway what does the
I think that it would be an interesting read.
Related News Story and Politics & Science Webs (Score:2, Interesting)
In addition, the social psychological community has been feeling the government burn recently because the US House of Representatives passed a vocal vote on 9/9/04 to block future funding of two currently approved NIH and NIMH grants (Click here for that article [biomedcentral.com]). This creates an unsettling precedent allowing governing bodies to trump the peer review process. [Sigh
You got to be kidding me (Score:3, Interesting)
Gee, he's only a life-long Catholic. He doesn't need to "try to affiliate himself", he's been well-affiliated with the Catholic Church for decades.
only to be told by the Church itself to buzz off.
A few right-wing cranks in the Church hierarchy are trying to score some political points over abortion. Notice how they don't say anything about pro-choice Republican politicians. Notice how they don't say anything about pro-death penalty Republican politicians.
And unless the Pope has come down on high and said Kerry needs to "buzz off:, the Church itself hasn't said anything.
I don't care (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, all I can really do is pull the lever for Badnarik.
A different questionnaire from Science journal (Score:4, Interesting)
Some of the responses are copied-and-pasted, but the Science questionnaire also covers issues like Creationism, NSF funding, and their "top three priorities in science and technology," which the Nature article doesn't cover.
I found their top 3 priorities in science and technology particularly interesting:
Bush: ensure every American as access to affordable broadband by 2007, perform next-generation hydrogen research, and recruit science and technology to combat terrorism
Kerry: restore and sustain preeminence of American science and technology, ensure Americans prepared for jobs of future, and ensure that his administration's decisions are informed by the best possible science and technology advice
Re:Other candidates (Score:3, Interesting)
But I don't see any advantages in having nuclear weapons more devasting than what we already have.
They ARE researching tactical nukes. It has been easy to make larger and more powerful nukes. I think China detonated a 100 Megaton or one in the atmosphere at one point. We KNOW NOW how to make larger nukes. Its making small efficient nukes that are hard. Like ones that are weaker than 20 kilotons. (Remember I SAID EFFICIENT). In nuclear weapons, 1-10 kilotons is not that easy to produce without having a lot of fallout. Tactical nukes are on the wish list of weapons.
Remember kiddies, the first nuclear weapon ever used was detonated in New Mexico,U.S.
Re:Exactly my point (Score:3, Interesting)
Something we could well copy from them, although I admit that it's highly unlikely under the current adminstration.