Science Debate 2008

bhmit1 writes "BusinessWeek is reporting about Science Debate 2008, an attempt to put the scientific issues front and center in the US Presidential race. After 12,000 scientists signed on in support of the idea of a debate focused on science, no campaign has replied to an invitation to such a debate. The article notes that only one candidate has said much about science issues in the campaign, and that some who are running are sufficiently anti-science as to deny evolution. There is a link to a comparison of the candidates' positions on issues informed by science. (Yes, Ron Paul is included.)"

Re:Obama and patents

[Amorymeltzer]

Except, like almost everything he says, it's empty and has nothing behind it. What does "reform" mean? I get it, he wants change, but what does that entail, what does he want? Saying you want to "change something" without saying how is pointless.

Clinton wants

Speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle

That sounds pretty geeky!

Too bad Kucinich is out, he supported

Kucinich has proposed several technical initiatives in the areas of renewable energy, pollution control, and open source software and media.

Maybe he's got a /. account?

Actually, both Richardson (D) and Thompson (R) seem to be the geekiest, they both want to spur kids to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math! Richardson even had numbers to back his proposal up!

A mystery revealed

[shma]

The summary mentions that only one candidate has spoken about science issues during the campaign, without mentioning who it is. I'm sure you'll be as surprised as I was:

"It's hard to get 12,000 scientists to agree on anything," says Alan Leschner, chief of AAAS and former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "But science is the biggest issue facing modern society, and we are concerned that only one candidate--Hillary Clinton--has so far devoted any energy to science."

Re:Obama and patents

[FTL]

Obama has been very clear about support for major increases in science and technology:
    http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/14/barack-obamas-google-friendly-technology-platform/ [techcrunch.com]
But the media hardly mentions it; focusing instead on Hillary's tear.

That's why you need to RTFA

[mangu]

It might be that there's an extra 0, not a misplaced comma

The article mentions several times the number 12,000, that is "twelve thousand", the submission has an extra zero, not a misplaced comma.

Re:Science Position

[John3]

If you're hoping a candidate is going to dismantle all government funded research then either you are dreaming or else I missed the sarcasm tag. What candidates might be able to say is they will adopt a more "hands off" approach to government funding decisions to avoid politics from affecting research funding decisions.

Re:Science Position

[Brandybuck]

As long as government funds science, then science will be political. No sarcasm intended, just the reality. This is not to deny that corporate or private funding of science would not be similary biased. It's like journalism, true 100% objectivity is not an option. As long as we insist that government pay the salaries of scientists, we need to recognize that science will be political.

Re:Science Position

[ChrisMaple]

The government's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens. Much of this protection is provided by the military. To have effective military, advanced weapons are important. Although weapons are mostly built and designed by non-governmental organizations, there is value to some government-funded research and some government-performed research. Secrecy is one reason that some of this science should be done by the government, Dr. Teller's arguments not withstanding.

Re:Pro-science can be bad too

[MightyMartian]

It's safe to say the Holocaust would never have happened if Darwin and Mendel hadn't been born.

The idea of racial purity predates Darwin and Mendel by millennia, my friend. This comment of yours is asinine. What made the Holocaust possible was technology. I can well imagine if the Spaniards had had Zyklon-B in the 15th century, they would have got rid of the Jews that way, rather than forced conversion and exile.

It is, in fact, evolutionary biology and genetics which has made a lie of every single racist claim made in the last two or three centuries. The "races" that the Europeans saw are not even logical ways of dividing human populations, they're just simply artifacts of a mariner cultures skipping thousands of miles of intermediate populations.

Re:Tragically...

[maxume]

Scientists, in general, do not put abiogenesis(I am assuming this is what you meant...biogenesis is utterly non controversial) under the umbrella of evolution. If you insist on the conflation, you are creating your own problem. I'm sure you could find some scientists that would support each of the concepts that you are using to support the notion that the overall meaning of evolution is vague, but they simply aren't general positions.

Given that speciation has actually been observed, the scientific distinction between micro and macro evolution is tenuous at best, and more likely incoherent.

Also, consider: Your assumption that your post would be modded up only because of its logic and quality, and down only because of its ideology demonstrates a willingness to inject comforting assumptions into your reasoning.

Compelling reason for fetal stem cell research

[snowwrestler]

Fighting disease in adult humans is only one possible application of what can be learned by studying stem cells. And you're right that the possibility of creating stem cells from adult cells would be a big step in this direction.

But stem cell research was originally (and some still is) just one aspect of wide-ranging pure research into human genetics and biology. The main reason to study fetal stem cells is that it is the only way to understand the biology of how humans reproduce, and how genetic information is expressed to create a human. Some aspects of the basics of genetics can only be studied in naturally developing fetal stem cells. Artificially created stem cells skip these steps.

Unfortunately when Bush prohibited federal funding, his order covered ALL fetal stem cell research, not just the research that was aimed at fighting adult diseases. It would be like prohibiting all research involving neutrons just to fight nuclear weapons proliferation.

In terms of remains vs. resources, there is a ton of precedent for this approach to biology. Almost everything that is known about human anatomy was originally discovered by dissecting corpses. Medical students to this day dissect real human corpses in their anatomy and physiology classes. So even if we believe that embryos are essentially human, I don't think that automatically precludes their use in research.

Re:How ironic

[theheadlessrabbit]

In Asia, they count numbers in blocks of 4, rather than 3.

I still get confused when my boss tells me my paycheque is going to be "two hundred then thousands" I respond with "Just say 2 million", to which they say "counting in 3's is difficult"

in short, it's not wrong. just different from what your used to.