Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Politics Science

Online Science Policy Critique Of Kerry And Bush 33

Posted by timothy from the which-skull-and-bones-member-would-would-you-like dept.
museumpeace writes "David Appell, one of Techonology Review's bloggers, has posted a quick review of Nature Publishing Group's comparison of candidate positions on Science faulting both for various lame answers. That might save you the trouble of reading all the other coverage at NPG, and the more informative articles published by Science. But if you want a heads-up about which kinds of research will thrive or get the ax in the next four years, you might want to slog through "Kerry and Bush offer their views" . Both publications require registration or payment to access most of their content but the science policy debate is being aired out for free."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Online Science Policy Critique Of Kerry And Bush More

Online Science Policy Critique Of Kerry And Bush

Comments Filter:

  • Fisheries Management (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @09:45AM (#10317981)
    I heard a story about NPR about fisheries management and how it looks like Bush is making some positive steps there. It sounds like he appointed a bunch of oil people to this committee which worried all the environmentalists, but then the guys he put there ended up agreeing with the scientific findings (to the surprise and delight of the environmental folks). Sounds like they are going to put a bunch of stuff that was under a bunch of different jurisdictions into a fisheries management group, that I assume will be putting some good changes into effect. Interesting.
    • You would be surprised how many big bad conservative republican corporate heros are also big on environmental conservation and wildlife management.

      • Re:Fisheries Management (Score:5, Informative)

        by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john@lamar.gmail@com> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @10:40AM (#10318426) Homepage Journal
        I don't know if that is true, but I know that Nixon devoted 1/3 of his 1971 State of The Union on the environment and started/supported creation of the EPA.

        But between Bush and Kerry, Kerry takes the cake for being an "environmentalist".

        From Project Vote Smart [vote-smart.org]:

        Environmental Issues

        2003 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 53 percent of the time.

        2003 On the votes that the Sierra Club considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

        2001-2002 On the votes that the National Parks Consevation Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

        2001-2002 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.

        2001-2002 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 73 percent of the time.

        1999-2000 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.

        1999-2000 On the votes that the National Parks Conservation Association considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

        1999-2000 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 84 percent of the time.
        • The environment used to be primarily a Republican issue. Republicans started to distance themselves from the environment after the dreaded "hippies" made it one of their chief concerns. I've heard many republicans complain about how the Democrats stole the environment issue from them. Pretty interesting to think about how the parties(which are generally considered opposite numbers, they aren't they are both pretty close to eachother in truth) can trade issues like that.

        • Re:Fisheries Management (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Kerry may be more of an "environmentalist", but in at least in this fisheries management issue, the solution seems to have made Big Oil (TM) and the environmentalists happy. I found that surprising, and it seems like a pretty big accomplishment.

        • Re:Fisheries Management (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TykeClone ( 668449 ) <TykeClone@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @08:20PM (#10324916) Homepage Journal
          I'd think that Republicans (that care about this) would generally fall into the "good stewardship" camp - use, but try not to do too much damage. I'd think that Democrats would fall more into the "restore the pre-settlement environment" camp - no usage, no people, just good vibes.

          I also think that outdoorsmen in general (hunters, fishermen, and the like) do want to protect the environment more than they're given credit for.

          I think that there are plenty from both parties who don't care one way or another.

          The looks of the list you've got seems to confirm that. I'm sure that the Sierra Club is not interested in using resources wisely - just setting them off to the side.

  • Interesting but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Malfourmed ( 633699 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @09:46AM (#10317989) Homepage
    This is interesting but surely the more pertinent question is: how many voters see a candidate's science policy as being important enough to influence how they would vote?

    • Re:Interesting but... (Score:4, Informative)

      by stromthurman ( 588355 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @10:24AM (#10318270)
      Taking this excerpt from a BBC article into account, "it is the first time in decades that economy has not topped the list of concerns - security came first with 41%, while 26% cited the economy," I would say that when even economic concerns are not the chief issue, issues of science are bound to be very low on the list.

      For anyone interested, here is the complete article [bbc.co.uk].

    • Re:Interesting but... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by l4m3z0r ( 799504 )
      A lot less than should. Especially since we have seen the corrupting and tampering of science by this administration. Which should make alot more people angry about how they are manipulating science to back up their views rather than evaluating their policies for flaws through science. This kind of stuff is actually very short sighted. If you manipulate science to show that your policy is ok and it turns out to be crap or really bad while during your run at office you come out looking good we have big p

    • Re:Interesting but... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kippy ( 416183 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @11:59AM (#10319253)
      Since Kerry has pretty much sided with Bush on most of the big issues that matter to me (No Child Left Behind, Use of Force in Iraq, Patriot Act), the only things left for me to vote on are terrorism and science.

      Since I'm a big backer of a manned space program, Bush's stance on that issue actually carries quite a bit of weight with me.
      • Bush's stance on that issue actually carries quite a bit of weight with me.

        Unfortunately, Bush's public stance on most issues don't carry any weight in his proposed budgets.

        Its really cool that he talks about spending billions of dollars to go to Mars. Its really cool that he talks about spending billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq, or fight AIDS in Africa, or a whole bunch of other cool ideas. Wake me up if he ever decides to actually do more than talk.

        • Re:Interesting but... (Score:3, Informative)

          by (trb001) ( 224998 )
          I think the billions of dollars for Iraq are already in the works, being dished out as we speak. Kerry harps on the war spending nearly every dat. I haven't heard a lot on the AIDS front, and I'm not sure we should...there's no organized method to distribute it, no plan of what to do with it either.

          --trb

        • Re:Interesting but... (Score:3, Informative)

          by kippy ( 416183 )
          Wake me up if he ever decides to actually do more than talk.

          Psst, wake up! [slashdot.org]
      • Ahh yes terror. Let's see 9/11 killed 1 in 800,000 Americans and people feel the need to suddenly change their worldview.

        I guess such people also feel "No Child Left Behind" or "Let no child get ahead" as most educators call it is a great idea. What such people fail to realize is spending $ to fight a war which gains nothing is much less important than fixing the US highway system. I live 5 miles from work and it takes me 30 minuets to get home most nights. That's a huge economic drain that someone wi

  • relevance of science (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pbranes ( 565105 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @11:04AM (#10318661)
    I believe that it is impossible to segregate the scientific goals of the candidates from other goals. They are speaking about issues such as stem cell research and terrorism. They also speak about creating jobs using science or making America more powerful relative to the rest of the world. So, people need to not look at this as a stand-alone issue, but rather as science being an integral part of every other issue - economic, morality, military, terrorism, education, environment, etc.
    • I'd have to agree with this. Stem cell research, genetic manipulation, and abortion are all part of the same argument. Seems like they both have the same scientific goals, please the likes of the scientific community while reserving a huge portion of the national budget for social and foreign war efforts. Maybe science will be more important in a relatively calm election year.
      • Stem cell research, genetic manipulation, and abortion are all part of the same argument.

        Stem cell research, genetic manipulation, and abortion can be presented--usually for the purposes of political grandstanding--as being part of the same argument.

        In practice, there's actually very little overlap between them.

        • I would agree that an abortion and stem cell research don't have a whole lot in common in and of themselves. However, the foundational idea does. I believe that stem cell research and an abortion do not respect the right for a person (including a fetus, fertilized egg, etc) to not be killed by someone else without due process of law. This ties them together so that the issues are one and the same.

          See, to me (and to a large number of other people), there is a huge overlap and not just political grandst

          • Hmm, using the leftovers from fertility treatments that are sitting in a jar at well below freezing is like killing a developing embryo. Now if you want to limit stem cell research to cells not aborted for that purpose fine but doctors use dead people in med school all the time. That does not mean doctors higher people to kill people it just means that they use dead bodies. Abortion is legal and will continue to be so with or without stem cell research.
            So where is the overlap?
            • See, I believe that a human being is created as soon as an egg is fertilized, therefore, we must treat that fertilized egg (or embryo, human being, etc - they are all the same to me) as a person with rights. I believe that fertility treatments - where they create many fertilized eggs and hope some survive - is wrong. My wife and I are having trouble conceiving now, but we would *never* consider fertility treatments.

              doctors use dead people in med school all the time

              It doesn't matter to me if a doctor u

        • Right, for the democrats is an obligation to serve science by proving that embryonic stem cell research is the payoff for treating embryo's as non-humans, and for the republicans, it's the opposite, but each issue is tied to the other, so if one goes they all go.
    • I agree but the problem is that a scientific development leads its political consequences by years, sometimes decades. Politicians and most businesses don't operate in that sort of timeframe. So even though most of the jobs we do and the way we fight wars involve technology that was hot science 10 or 20 years ago, few of us are voting like science mattered, let alone being led by leaders who think that way. A poll at scienceblog.com [scienceblog.com] shows that its readers strongly consider Bush harmful to scientific pro
    • I'd love to have people think of "science" in terms closer to its root scientia, "knowledge". Bad science isn't just bad decisions on matters filled with people called "scientists" (environment, medicine, basic research). Bad science is bad thinking.

      Science is many things, but among them is a collection of techniques for removing bias, self-deception, and self-interest from decision making. These are techniques that scientists usually apply every single day in their personal lives. I'd love to see the
      • We often look at science through a historical lens and too infrequently do we consider how those scientists were seen at their own time.

        How was relativity research received at the time? How about the concept of a void? Or the curvature of the Earth?

        I'd like to see *all* science treated fairly, I really don't care if its based on a belief that the universe is a billion years old or that a god created it. If you can study it and make hypotheses and try to prove it, its science.

        I'm sure there are lots of
  • Why does the politics section have an american flag and american stuff on it? Politics exist on other countries also, you know.

  • This is Science? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @12:20PM (#10319478)
    "Does the USDA's mission to promote U.S. agricultural products, that is, to eat more, get in the way of
    efforts to combat the emergent obesity problem?"

    That's NOT a scientific question. It's a political question skewed to go against a typically Republican ally of the US Agriculture business.

    Likewise:

    "Should there be any restrictions on using foreign aid for abortions or counseling on birth control methods?"

    Is not a scientific question either. It's a skewed political question because Clinton's rules on foreign aid DEMANDED its use for abortions and birth control.

  • Why is this even a question? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SewersOfRivendell ( 646620 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @01:55PM (#10320546)
    Kerry said that national scientific policy would be based on sound science [johnkerry.com], not ideology, in his acceptance speech at the DNC. But we know he's a flipflopper, the so-called liberal media tells us so [whatliberalmedia.com], so he can't be trusted.

    Bush, on the other hand, can run his campaign secure in the knowledge that he has a superb [house.gov] record [americanhumanist.org] on science [twnonline.org]. Christian Science [carm.org], that is.

    Keep this in mind the when you see the talking heads on CNN or NBC fellate Bush at the debates. The national media is not only biased, it's feeding America's ignorance. [fair.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.

Close