Science in the Obama era

Jeff — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:02:55 GMT

The destruction of science during the Bush administration is second only to the big spending that has killed Republican leadership in this country.

Nevertheless, I've only heard lip-service over the last 50+ years concerning the importance of math and science. And, since Democrats seem to be well supported by the arts part of the population, if Hollywood and the media is any clue, I seriously doubt that science will have a net benefit.

Science just can not win. You've got the Democrats spending more on the arts and you've got the religious freaks in the Republican party that don't really care what science says.

It's just a good thing that science produces new products for sale. Otherwise, we would still be getting most of our energy from the Sun.

Oh, wait, that's what we're going to do in the near future. Oh, I'm so confused!

Obama, just get rid of the IRS and I'll be very happy no matter what happens in the wonderful world of science.

Science in the Obama era

rick, drake, CO — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:20:29 GMT

I'M ENCOURAGED THAT OBAMA PROMISES TO PLACE MORE EMPHASIS ON SCIENCE AND RESEARCH THAN GEORGE BUSH DID.

Afterall, America has become great over the centuries BECAUSE we promoted science and research!

Benjiman Franklin and Edison developed the use of electricity. Henry Ford produced the first gas-powered automobile. We were the first country to put ma man on the moon, and the first country to do a whole bunch of other things that have advanced mankind world-wide as a result.

We now have the opportunity to help develop renewable energy that will free us from our dependance on oil and also help reduce pollution and our impacts on global warming!

Science in the Obama era

Brian, Madison, Wisconsin — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:57:14 GMT

He earned my vote due to his pro-science polices for energy, and research. Too much research is driven by coorperations looking to make a buck, and not by those who are truly interested in knowledge for the sake of knowledge - which if history is any clue (Galen in particular), is how the most important discoveries are made in any field.

Science in the Obama era

Jim Rousch, Littleton, CO — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:12:14 GMT

Everyone knows Christians don't believe in Science.
History has shown it and this past election cycle has shown it.

It is time for Christians to start contributing to the American technological effort...by going away and letting the scientists do their job.

Let's make America #1 in the scientific world again.

EVOLUTION
STEM CELLS
MEDICINE

Science in the Obama era

Wayne in Kansas City, MO — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:34:11 GMT

I was horrified to read at one point on Obama's own official campaign website, no less, that one of the things under consideration was to slow the growth of NASA's budget to pay for healthcare reform. This seems to be extremely counter to the information here...

NASA seems to have been the favorite target for this kind of budget whacking through countless administrations, almost since the first footprint was made on the moon.

I would like to hear about this in future Cosmic Log entries, and to find out how it is that these two things are in any way compatible!

Science in the Obama era

John, Oklahoma City — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:40:47 GMT

I guess I am a religious freak and I do care what science says. Science tells me that a fetus has a distinct DNA from mother and father. You can do with this what you will, but I take this to mean a seperate person with rights. I am not denying science.

Science in the Obama era

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:58:25 GMT

How can conservative republicans and their lot be so %5%w7@ stupid? Surely their must be mutant genes circulating around that makes people like that.

Science in the Obama era

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:07:54 GMT

Obama seems overboard on this constant talk about "the dream" and the inplied prolific changes. However, he is a truly passionate leader. Thats what the world needs more of.

Science in the Obama era

Russ Singer Honolulu, HI. — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:07:25 GMT

Welcome to the Starship Planet earth, I would like to introduce your new captain, Barack Obama. Hyperspace here we come. I breath a sigh of relief everyday. I wake up in disbelief. The United States is going to become a world leader again, and move into the 21 century. It's about time.

Science in the Obama era

Virginia Savova — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:10:53 GMT

I hope there will be significant reform of the grant allocation process, as well as increase in funding. The review system now favors people who have strong personal ties with grant committee members, and/or have received grants before. It's almost a catch 22. You can't get a grant unless you have one. Grants should reviewed on the merits of the proposals, not on the personal connections of the applicants. this needs to change.

Science in the Obama era

Mark R. Whittington, Houston, Texas — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:45:49 GMT

The idea of a "Republican War on Science" is a myth. The climate change debate (note that it is no longer called "global warming") has become politicized and thus it has become hard to separate fact from fiction in the pronouncements on the subject. It doesn't help that the great climatologist Al Gore has compared anyone who doubts human made climate change, no matter what their scientific background or the evidence they present, to holocaust deniers. I hope that Obama does listen to a wide range of scientific view points and not just to those that match his idealogy.

Science in the Obama era

Sarah, San Francisco — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:16:08 GMT

The new cabinet position seems like an exciting idea. To have an executive branch that understands tech may actually help net neutrality and free speech, not to mention how tech has to do with every other branch of the government! There's another interesting article <a href="http://www.atelier-us.com/internet-usage/article/technology-in-the-obama-administration">here</a>.

Science in the Obama era

Conor Gorey — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:40:06 GMT

Problem is chris mooney think his field is more important then others. The government's job isn't science it's infrastructure. If business is not investing in it, there something wrong with it fundamentally. Democracts don't like intelligent people because they're harder to control and republicans know there are more important things out there. Science is pretty low when we have to balance the budgest trim the fat on government and make sure we don't get attacked or nuked.
And by the way, in 1972 the science community had a consensus we were suffering global cooling and as we speak of global warming, there are record cold fronts through out the world. They don't really know, but no one like to admit ignorance.

Science in the Obama era

ray smith — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:48:42 GMT

50+ years? wow, somehow, I believe there is some truth to that statement. I do not like what bush has done to "science" in his tenure but one thing for certain, science has not stood still, nor will it ever. Knowing that Obama's study was in the "scientific" arena of "political science" (perhaps minoring in marketing?), I will not be one of those expecting some great miracle of "change" for the good ole physical sciences. Maybe a new hadronic collider or alpha moon base or county sized solar/wind facilities could be our "hoover dam" of this epoch, but, somehow, I doubt it and now I worry about the space station and the mars rovers and the planetary probes as all being culpable to the great promise of "change". In the next 50 years will science still be a hodge podge of start and stop and start and stop projects with missed deadlines, cost over-runs and political manipulations of little or no merit? NO!. It is not now, and will not be in the future. Science is not american. It is human. There will always be someone, somewhere who will ask the questions, what is this gravity thing, what is the coefficient of expansion of ice or fire or what makes the sun hot or magnetic or loud etc...my curiosity WILL NEVER STOP, no matter who the president is or what his position on big or small science is and as long as this globe has enough people willing to find their own answers then the rest of you should know that the lack of the transition teams immediate positive response is only another piece of data collected in a long, long, long observation of where science stands in the eyes of politics. But it does not matter. Science will not stand still but instead will remain a constant force driving the politics of the world forward, inspite of the fact that politics would like to stand still. Rather than an Obama white house rolling up it's sleeves to help, I kinda think maybe it would be best if the "change" was to just step out of the way and let the science of the day rock on, there will be plenty of scientists willing to roll up their sleeves and help them....heck, some won't even wait to be asked, after solving a four page differential equation on energy transformation in high temperature magnetic torsional spinning hamiltonian space-time (yea, I just made that one up) one just simply does whatever, and it always seems to help, eh?

Science in the Obama era

Albert Boston — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:47:55 GMT

Science and Math, Space and Genetics, Business and Economy. Some of the most important cornerstones of the civilized world. Destiny is not without a sense of irony.

A man from a Kenya origin would come to remind us what really made the western world great.

Obama just made me believe in us again.

Science in the Obama era

praying for science — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:04:41 GMT

Russ: "Welcome to the Starship Planet earth, I would like to introduce your new captain, Barack Obama"
Sounds good! I am so happy for this dawn of a new era. I see our nation as just part of a strong partnership with other countries trying to race against time to save the earth and it's just going to accelerate, and to hedge our bets we may need to explore space to find a place to live (hopefully our planet stays OK and we can visit it).
I hope that we don't have starbucks and walmart out there. We have so many mundane problems that require new approaches, urgent problems that need global collaboration that will hopefully halt wars and ideological stagnation, and mysteries that we will chase, and it will amaze us as we see new discoveries and inventions unfold before us. At least I hope we can understand our planet and the universe enough to change some old ways, especially before most of the animals and plants become extinct. Although this economy is freaking us out, it may help in the long run to change our economy to be based on innovation and not as much fast-turnover based consumerism.

Science in the Obama era

Chris, Rockville, MD — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:35:16 GMT

I'm a Christian and LOVE science. To say that "Everyone knows Christians don't believe in Science." (Jim Rousch) is just as ignorant as the Christians who do not accept science.
I am glad to see Obama's willingness to support science and the many great things it will bring.

Science in the Obama era

CROSS — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:39:02 GMT

this is just great, Obama is helping the field of my major but at the cost of the two jobs I have to pay for school. I have to look for a new way to pay for school because Obama has his sights set on destroying small businesses, and I work for two of them to pay my way through school... THANKS ALOT OBAMA

Science in the Obama era

Ranky — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:05:56 GMT

While most writers excoriate the anti science stance of the bush administration, i wonder what would happen if research on the difference between races and genders had been the issue. Liberals are outraged every time there is any study saying that there is a difference between groups - Larry summers and james Watson being proof. even if the guy who says it is a liberal himself. face it, both parties accept only those aspects of science that are favorable to their viewpoints, and dismiss everything else as "pseudoscience".

Science in the Obama era

Eric, Salinas, CA — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:12:50 GMT

What a great article Alan! Finally us real science buffs have prevailed over the myth bound faith based nonsense pushed by the evangelical christian lunatic fringe. The first thing we need to do is ban the teaching of creationism as science or an alternative! It is total nonsense and has no scientific basis whatsoever.

The only science that the faith based crowd wanted was the science of killing people. Time to stop wasting so much money of warfare science and start spending a lot more on science that helps people live better. I sure hope we see an increase in scientific funding for mag lev trains, fusion power generators and space exploration. We need to become the world's leader again in science, not some deadbeat third world laughing stock the way we have become under "Dunce" Bush.

Barack Obama will bring real science back to the White House where it has been missing the past 8 years! Yes We Can! Yes We Did!

Science in the Obama era

D. Snow, Columbia, SC — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:13:16 GMT

What opportunities abound! Let's give this new-comer a chance to sort out the priorities and use the wisdom we saw in him fluorish and make good decisions on science and technology. It's obvious he knows how to use it (internet-savvy) and has advisors who understand the challenges to the environment, basic sciences, medicine and communications, among other things. Take a deep breath. Give the Obama administration a little space (no pun intended) and let's see what happens. I, for one, believe we will have productive, positive outcomes for the society and the environment in general. We (all!) have a chance to make a new world. AS noted in the acceptance speech, it will not be without sacrifices, since we are in such dire straits. Let us support the efforts and not tear it down before it has a chance to take root.

Science in the Obama era

Randy Edwards, birmingham, al — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:36:44 GMT

Well here goes the US. Obama will lead us down a wrong road when he said "even if the verdict runs counter to his own views." If he can not stand up for what he believes than how can he stand up for the US. Will he bow to others. I am a christain and I believe in science but not some of the dribble thay are teaching our young people today. Benjiman Franklin and Edison were good scientist but not by walking over the bodies of dead babies to do it. The truth is there most people do not want to see it. I pitty this nation where God is being pushed out. One day the real truth is going to hurt

Science in the Obama era

Joe Patterson NJ — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:16:21 GMT

Once again we have attacks on Christians. We need to get our facts straight before attacking.

I quote an earlier massage (Everyone knows Christians don't believe in Science.History has shown it and this past election cycle has shown it. It is time for Christians to start contributing to the American technological effort...by going away and letting the scientists do their job.)

If Christians were to just go away we would not have many of the technological breakthroughs we do today. For instance the MRI machine. (I will not list the vast majority of medical equipment invented by Christian men and women for it would take too long.)

I will paste below from the Armenia Encyclopedia. (Professor Raymond Vahan Damadian (born March 16 1936), is an American pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging. Damadian is a highly devout Christian and a young earth creationist.[6] Some creationists [7] and evolutionary biologists [8] have claimed that he was not awarded a Nobel Prize because of this position.

Also it would do good to look up the history of Newton. I copy from Wikipedia.com. (Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."[4] He spent a great deal of time trying to discover hidden messages within the Bible. After 1690, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.)

To make the comment that Christians do not believe in Science, and that history has shown this, is not correct.

Yours humbly a religious freak

Science in the Obama era

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:34:08 GMT

"I was horrified to read at one point on Obama's own official campaign website, no less, that one of the things under consideration was to slow the growth of NASA's budget to pay for healthcare reform. This seems to be extremely counter to the information here..."

Wayne, Obama did back off on much of that, but there still doesn't seem to be much of a real 'space policy' at this time, either:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/11/an_absence.html

Science in the Obama era

jack, Pittsburgh, PA — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:40:29 GMT

The notion that Bush did not support science is complete urban legend. Look at the facts: Federal spending on R&D increased under Bush more than any time since the Apollo program. Check out these charts and figures--any way you slice it science funding under Bush has been unprecedented: http://ostp.gov/galleries/Budget09/Fy2009R_DFinal.pdf

Science in the Obama era

Robert Donovan — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:45:17 GMT

Let hope some pressure is put on the transition team to ignore any idea considering RFK Jr. and his penchant for psuedo-science (he's anti-vaccination) out of the EPA head position.

Science in the Obama era

Doug Fingles, Warner Robins, GA — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:14:56 GMT

You think Republicans used science for politcal purposes? Just wait, the Democrats will be much worse. As long as your science meets their political goals, you'll be alright. But, if it's not within their world-view, prepare to be mistreated, identified as an "idiot", labeled a "luddite", and railed at as a "religious freak".
There is no tolerance among Democrats for other points of view or vigorous debate, only condescension for the "uneducated" who should be re-educated into the correct way of thinking. President-elect Obama has plans for a "Civilian National Security Force", made up of "corps" like the Green Jobs Corps, the Classroom Corps, the Veterans Corps, and maybe a "Science Corps". Their jobs will be to carry out Obama's vision of the social re-engineering of America. I'm not kidding, it's all in his "Blueprint for Change", and you can find it at:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/
ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Heaven forbid if you stand up and offer an independent thought or viewpoint over the next four years as you will be re-educated into the correct thought-mode. And you thought it was bad for science under President Bush? Me, I'm gonna keep my mouth shut for the next four years and avoid "re-education" until I can vote him out of office.

Science in the Obama era

steve smyth — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:18:18 GMT

I offer this...
http://gaiatwo.blogspot.com
make it happen the ol' fashioned way...talk it up...I'll take care of the rest...no kiddin'

Science in the Obama era

Carol — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:11:53 GMT

Two members of the fifteen-member Texas State Board of Education do not have college degrees. Seven of them are creationists.

We need help!

Science in the Obama era

Marcus Taylor, Castro Valley, California — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:47:45 GMT

There is more than one way for Nuclear Power to be integrated into the National Grid. Using a Nuclear pile to boil water has never been efficient, there is another way...
http://www.heliatomic.com

Science in the Obama era

Andrew Maynard, Washington DC — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:52:40 GMT

Some off-beat (but relevant) thoughts on developing a positive mindset for using science in the service of society:

http://2020science.org/2008/11/05/five-good-books/

The good news is, Obama seems to be on track to approach science and technology with humility, open-mindedness and willingness to change in the light of new information - traits that are common to good science and good science policy (surprisingly enough).

Hopefully this will continue when the rubber hits the road next year.

Science in the Obama era

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:57:48 GMT

I hope that there is renewed integrity given to scientists; they should be allowed to do the research and give honest feedback. Without that, there is no way that we can have an honest outlook to the future and plan accordingly.

We need to develop ways to grow food in non soil or little soil systems. We also need to make sure that we can process the waste we make into fertilizer or something else that is useful so that we can reduce the amount of waste we produce.

Science in the Obama era

Robert, Seattle — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:28:00 GMT

[...] I am a Christian. I support stem cell research because Jesus cares about people, period. I respect evolution science because it is supported by research. Enough religious bigotry (from both sides).

Science in the Obama era

Richard O'Neil East Lynne MO. — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:32:01 GMT

During the time of going to the moon we had a good paying jobs and lots of new ideas comming from Nasa (case in point Softer beds Orange juice and better computers) this is what the country needs. We need to forget the problems of the past and look forward there is a whole lot that needs to be done on this world and beyond we should be able to reach the moon in 5 years and have a base set up in less than 10

Science in the Obama era

Jason Mcmanus Denver Colorado — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:31:58 GMT

Why do you republicans have such a problem with grasping "Reality",,, I see and hear so much absolute non-sense from you people. Obama is the facilitator of change, The Bush " republican agenda " is and has been so damaging and out of touch , and the people of this country have been , lied too, and ripped off. Its not a puzzle Folks !! The republican agenda has been all about , greed , Deciet, and blatant disregard of the truth, and had no care about the people of America. At lest the Democrats Honestly care about the people , and if it reQuires drastic re-structuring to get this country up to speed with the rest of the world , why would you stand in the way, or complain???

Science in the Obama era

Sherry Wheeler, Salem, Oregon — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:43:13 GMT

I agree with you, Chris Rockville. I am a faithful christian who does God's will and I LOVE science. God is the head of all knowledge, for He created all things. I am on the site Twitter and have no human contacts. I correspond with robots. Phoenix, rovers, Cassini and now mars science lab. That was a truly, IGNORANT statement about christians not believing in science. Some people really need to get a clue.

Science in the Obama era

Spongebeebs Squarepants — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:44:16 GMT

For science types, this article should be an embarassment in the sense that if you read it in the context of all the articles out there on "Obama will save us!" you almost want to start laughing. Every group or interest seems to think that an Obama administration is the panacea to all their woes. He's going to save us from, in no particular order: the economy, global warming, africa's litany of woes, mid east tensions, science under appreciation, the arts under appreciation, medicare ills, the 2 wars America is in, rescue the auto industry, and oh yes reduce taxes for most Americans without making drastic or painful cuts.

For scientist types, who like to claim emotional detachment when dealing with problems, the shrill attacks on Bush (whom I do not like, for the record) and the almost religious like faith in Obama as a "messiah like" political figure I find stupifying. I think Obama is charismatic and should make a good leader, but let's not all get carried away.

Science in the Obama era

Bill Hensley, Houston, TX — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:45:20 GMT

Refresh my memory. How has Bush been so anti-science, exactly? I can think of several issues, but he seems hardly to have been as extreme as popular opinion would have it.

1. Evolution
I recall Bush saying, "teach the controversy." You may not agree with that, but on the other hand, what did the Bush administration ever do to advance this position? I can't recall any major programs or initiatives.

2. Global warming
Ok, it was wrong to put any pressure on NASA scientists to change their published statements on this matter. Was that an administration policy, or an over-reaching midlevel bureaucrat? Bush's main argument against Kyoto et al was economic, not scientific. You can disagree with him on policy, but that hardly means he was anti-science.

3. Stem cell research
The question of how stem cells work and whether they can be used therapeutically is a science issue. The question of whether it is right to destroy embryos for scientific research is an ethical issue. It is not science. The Bush administration never questioned the science, but the ethics. Surely the government has a responsibiltiy to consider the ethics of any research it might consider funding.

What else? Help me out here, guys.

Science in the Obama era

JOHN ADAMS WEAVER — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:15:22 GMT

Going to the moon is "OLD STUFF AND AN OLD HAT", I fail to see how "wasting all that fuel" for a "babylonian pride project" helps to feed the starving masses of this planet instead of "putting all that money into Nasa", why not directly applying it to "promote better and more environmentally friendly fertilizers", and organic pesticides, that are working in harmony with the environment instead of against them and finally what about the idea of producing large amounts of food, so that the "POOR PEOPLE OF THIS PLANET CAN BE FED", making fuel with the assistance of this mushroom or fungus better said, by using the corn stalks and the empty cobs instead of all the stuff that human beings like to eat or cows like to eat, may well be a "one way" we can "have our green revolution and eat as well"!

sincerely

John Adams Weaver

Science in the Obama era

Alan Boyle — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:42:51 GMT

Bill, if you need a refresher, Sharon Begley's article in Newsweek is one place to start:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167618

Here are other reminders:

On the other hand, the Bush administration has been a little more receptive to ocean research ... and it was Congress rather than the White House that dealt a heavy blow to high-energy physics last year. Congress is also largely at fault for not sufficiently funding the research required under the America COMPETES Act:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13300363/
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/
archive/2008/01/07/557301.aspx
http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL34328

Science in the Obama era

Bob Carroll, Yorktown, NY — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 02:15:03 GMT

I had the pleasure to listen to Dr. Damadian speak a few years ago. He did invent MRI, and he didn't get recognition for that when a Nobel was granted related to his discovery. (He got really pissed off, and took out a full page ad in the NY Times to air his views.) I doubt that his not getting the Prize had anything to do with his creationism, although in the audience at my college he said something pro-creationist, which left the science faculty, myself included, rather puzzled. (We didn't have an inkling of his views.) At lunch later, he was recounting anecdotes about his research, and pointed out that the original MRI scans were performed on himself, as he was the only one present who was skinny enough to fit in the apparatus then. Another faculty member expressed surprise that he didn't use animals in this early research. I commented, based on his anecdote, "Well, he did try a graduate student!" One of my better lines.

Science in the Obama era

Bill Hensley, Houston, TX — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 02:30:29 GMT

Thanks, Alan. I reviewed all the articles you linked to. I appreciate the refresher. It seems to me that most of them report what amounts to policy disputes, rather than scientific disputes. Since groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists tend to be politically liberal, it is not surprising they would frequently clash with the Bush administration over policy matters. Many of those policy disputes revolve around how to weigh economic goals against environmental goals. Others are basically about funding priorities while a few are ethics issues.

I certainly don't intend to justify every action of the Bush administration. Neither will I dispute the claim that many science issues have become too politicized (on both sides of the aisle, I might add). However, shrill statements about Bush being anti-science seem often more often rooted in a visceral dislike for his politics and religion than in any actual suppression of scientific findings.

Science in the Obama era

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 03:05:35 GMT

Alan Boyle wrote, “The Illinois senator included …” I’m not a big Obama supporter but when can we start calling him the President Elect? Give the man his dues.

Eric wrote (11/7 1012), “The first thing we need to do is ban the teaching of creationism as science or an alternative! It is total nonsense and has no scientific basis whatsoever.” Is there a scientifically based reason not to teach it?

Randy Edwards wrote (11/7 1036), “Obama will lead us down a wrong road when he said "even if the verdict runs counter to his own views." If he can not stand up for what he believes …” Reading comprehension is such a good thing. A verdict is a result. If you want to make sure that all the scientific results support your own views then you stifle any science that *might* have honest results that negate your belief. What he promised here is to let science prove whatever it proves and let the truth stand. From what you wrote I see that you can only respect a man who, if he believed that the grass can talk, would only support science that shows that grass can talk, whether it really can or not. That says something about you.

Science in the Obama era

Grafix Dude, Ft Lauderdale, Fl. — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 19:18:19 GMT

"Going to the moon is "OLD STUFF AND AN OLD HAT",
John Adams Weaver.

Complaining about money spent on NASA is old hat,
and flawed to boot. We have already cut NASA budgets
due to the same complaints in the late 1960s and
apparently have gotten nothing much for it.

NASAs portion of the GDP in the 1960s was from
2 to 5 percent. Today its .6 percent. The record
budget for NASA spending was 1966. Today we spend
less than half the amount spent on NASA in 1966
after adjusting for inflation.

1966:
$5.93 B dollars.
After inflation factored in...$36.49 B dollars 2006.

2006:
$16.22 B dollars.
Equivalent to $2.64 B 1966 dollars or about 45
percent of the $5.93 B dollar figure.

NASAs budget was cut by roughly 50 percent in the
post Apollo era in part because people complained
that NASA manned spaceflight spending could be
better spent on earth.

1966:
$5.93 B dollars.

1976:
$3.67 B dollars ($2.14 B 1966 dollars).

The above data shows the massive budget decline. To
the best of my knowledge, no other federal agency has
ever been cut by this magnitude and lived to tell
about it.

So where are the benefits of that 50 percent cut
today? Why isn't America number one in education
in the world today if NASA budget cuts can solve
all mankinds problems so easily?

What about going after much larger targets such
as deficit spednding decade after decade? Or the
money wasted in Iraq to the tune of at least 6
times NASAs entire annual budget every year
since 2003.

NASA has made their sacrifice budgetwise. Its time
for something new and imaginative such as...wouldn't
money wasted on deficit spending year after year be
better spent on education?

I fail to see how yet another round of NASA cuts
are going to provide anything more than a bandaid
for other programs.

Data sources:
World Almanac And Book Of Facts.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Science in the Obama era

S. Osborne-Rogers Wauwatosa WI — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 19:37:06 GMT

For some of us, the election of Barack Obama was of supreme importance in order to restore the integrity of science. That same issue was why someone who was ignorant enough to choose the backward Sarah Palin as a running mate would never get the vote of science fans. Politicians from all parties need to take note. Our future and yours lies WITH science, not against it.

Science in the Obama era

RJJ M.D., Seattle — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:53:13 GMT

Science is paramount to the "evolution" of humanity. Serious dedication to all branches of the field is key to this end. The NIH's new effort to bring the distal ends back to the center is an incredibly important endeavor, and should be supported by massive funding. We need to "regroup" in order to move effectively into to the next frontier. Science has incredible dreams that should be supported!

Science in the Obama era

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:21:48 GMT

The Rs have mostly themselves to blame for the fact that they have nearly lost relevance now; the senate filibuster is their last refuge, and if they lose that they might just as well pack it in. Starting in 2000 they found themselves in a position of great power, but they allowed the extreme (neocon) wing of their party to drive their policies. Now after a long series of blunders, neocon policies are seen for what they always were: 100% head-in-the-clouds ideology, 0% reality. I and I suspect many others will NOT vote R again until they jettison their ideologues and become much more moderate.

As far as Science and policy goes, Science’s role is fundamentally to inform and guide policy; but this relationship has been entirely broken for 8 years:

Stem cell research -- Alot of damage is already done on this. Many researchers have emigrated and this field is stunted in the US. It will e a long time before we are competitive with labs in Europe, much less a world leader, thanks to the religious radicals. This field gets a double dose of abuse because christian fanatics, like neocons, are perfectly willing to blind themselves to facts that don’t fit their wishes for how the world should be. Both should stay the heck away from Science. To me one of the best things about the election (besides my phone going silent) has been that it spontaneously caused a mass bunching of these extremists panties. Enjoy the next 8 years guys, I’m gonna enjoy watching!

War on Science -- yes, as a scientist I can state absolutely that there HAS been a coordinated assault on all sciences at *every point* where its’ findings have been inconvenient for the Bush extremists. Global warming is just one of these points. Whenever possible, they have gone beyond stifling science, to bending, twisting, and cherry-picking their “science” to suit their ideological agendas. In point of fact I and a vast majority of scientists view Bush et al. as the Anti-Science Administration. The book “The Republican War on Science” does a good job of detailing this organized, systematic effort by the Bushies. FAR from a myth, it is an everyday reality for thousands like me. The fact that so many writers above have bought the Bush lies, hook-line-and-sinker, is one symptom of this war.

However there are some danger signs with Obama, as well. For one, he has allowed his constituency to trump science on his view of ethanol as an alternative fuel. This has several problems that he conveniently avoids mentioning and is ultimately a poor direction to go in. Obama’s view on this is dangerously close to the kind of thing George the Simpleton would pull. And Ds in general are not neccessarily very supportive of Science; but at least they aren’t out to actually stifle or destroy it. How Obama will turn out remains to be seen, but I am glad we’ll soon see the back of Shrub.

Oh, and one can deride Alan’s article as “shrill” ‘til you’re blue in the face, BH. All you demonstrate is your ignorance of what Science fundamentally is. Get a clue before spouting.

And TR: if creationism is taught then Flying Spaghetti Monsterism must be taught as well; there is exactly as much evidence supporting both of these.

Science in the Obama era

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:24:58 GMT

Oh, by the way, scientists in general view involvement in politics as distasteful, at best. The fact that the Bush administration has caused thousands to get together, sign petitions, and form action groups says alot about how the whole community feels about the Bushies.

Science in the Obama era

E cook, Hawaii — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 05:12:16 GMT

We've created too many MBAs all trying to take Bill Gates' place. It's time to put out needed engineers and scientists again so we can create things and clean up the world.

Science in the Obama era

Bill Wagner, New York, NY — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:09:59 GMT

Science is doomed if Obama has any say. He is ignorant of the needs of the science community.

Science in the Obama era

Rod, Henderson, Nevada — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:15:16 GMT

No Child Left Behind means the Boy Scout squad moves forward as fast as the slowest Boy Scout. No Child Left Behind has to be scrapped. Let the brightest student encourage everybody forward, instead of the dullest student weighing everybody down.

Science in the Obama era

Frankk Glover, Rochesterm NY — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:39:47 GMT

To John Adams Weaver:

First, rocket fuel is cheap. That's not even close to where the money goes. Aviation technologies are mature and efficient enough that fuel costs are the driving factor in their operations. Would that everything else about space flight was at the point that it was only 'fuel costs' that could make or break you...

Second: How do you know that all those things you list aren't already being researched? How do you know if they do or don't get more than the total NASA budget already? Do you even know how much that is? Before you want to take that six-tenths of one percent of the total federal budget away (that's what it is), find out how much is already being spent on your pet programs, and ask yourself if it would *really* go much farther or faster on that?

Stealing from the NASA budget does not mean you'll get the kind of high-profile results NASA gets. 'High-profile' (translation: It *looks* terribly big and expensive.) is in the nature of what the agency does. Not necessarily what it spends.

The day we cure cancer or AIDS, end poverty and hunger (if they could come in a one-day climax like a Moon landing, which they won't) will be reached in a will be reached quietly, with no 'one small step' fanfare, and you'll hardly know it. But nevertheless, far more than the NASA budget will have been spent to make them happen.

Until that mythical day, it's still appropriate and worthy of our time and effort to carry out certain kinds of aeronautical and space basic and applied research and engineering, and turn the results over to the public that paid for them. That's essentially what NASA does.

The other things? Find out what the government agencies that would be responsible for them *are* already doing, and how much they're spending (efficiently?). You might be surprised.

Science in the Obama era

RJJ M.D. — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:13:00 GMT

Major energies need to be dedicated to the pursuit of clean renewable energy. The holy grail of energy is harnessed at the atomic level. Massive funding should be directed at solving the "fusion" quest.

Moreover, massive funding should be directed at global health programs that are dedicated to improving the healthcare workforce through building capacity in low income countries. We need to capitalize on the intense enthusiasm coming from US resident physicians to serve clinical, research, and educational roles in low income countries.

Science in the Obama era

Gary S., Salem, IN — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:44:15 GMT

The statement of christians being anti science is just as valid in some ways as it is hogwash in others. Yes, Isaac Newton was a Christian and a cientist, however, I believe the gentleman who proffered the original idea of christians being anti science was referring to people like the Kansas board of education and the Bush administration's policy of making the scientists on their payroll change and omit their writings on global warming to reflect the administration's policies. While there may be many christians who support and love science, there are just as many throughout history that find the concept abhorrent. One has only to look at the comparitively recent past, from the Scopes monkey trial on forward to see this is the case. For those of you christians out there who are pro science, you cannot overlook the problems with your own arguments...oh wait, I suppose you can. Just use that old standby that since the so called christians that hate science were probably not of your denomination so they aren't real christians anyways.

Science in the Obama era

TallDave — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:04:05 GMT

<i>The most immediate policy change will be to put far more emphasis on scientific integrity in the White House, and far less emphasis on political ideology.</i>

Ha. No. We'll just get a different ideology trumping science. Global warming skeptics will be blackballed regardless of how well-founded their arguments are, and any science that goes against Democrat policies will get the ax.

Science in the Obama era

TallDave — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:12:57 GMT

I mean, let's be realistic. For all the talk of Bush repression, Hansen is still at NASA -- and doing horribly unscientific things to the GISS data, such that the GISS trendline no longer matches the UAH temperature tracking.

The Dark Night of Bush Science is largely mythical, and is itself the product of politics.

Saying that limiting embryonic stem cell research was a "political" decision is akin to saying the Mengele experiments were done purely on their scientific merits. There is a real ethical question about whether unborn children should be considered property, to be experimented with and then disposed, or treated as human beings.

Science in the Obama era

Barbara, Pompano Beach, Florida — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:58:27 GMT

"Everyone knows Christians don't believe in science."

I truly pity the ignorant person who believes that statement is factual. A list of Christians involved in science (past and present) would include not only Sir Isaac Newton but also Dr. Frances Collins, head of the Human Genome Project.

Please, in the future, keep your ignorance to yourself.

Science in the Obama era

elizabeth, okc, ok — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:33:18 GMT

First of all, I am a christian and I love science as well as the arts etc. Obama is not a GOD and never will be, he is a man simple as that and so was Bush and the presidents before him.. When you make arrogant, and ignorant statements like for Christians to go away it makes you just as stupid as the people you are condeming. I am not a radical republican or chrisitian, I am a human being with ideas, hopes, dreams and an opinion, just as all of you are. Science will help this world and this planet, but we are the ones who misuse it and we are the ones responsible for keeping the world and our fellow human beings safe form the evils that science can produce. Quit focusing on our differences and start focusing on how we can come together. US the human race is our own worst enemey.

Science in the Obama era

Eric Thorson Coalinga CA — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:00:16 GMT

What do Obama's science plans and enemas have in common? They both leave you with a warm feeling inside!

No thanks! And after all he also wants to spend over 500 million dollars a year supporting faithbased initiatives and use "faith and supersttion" as a bases for all his policies. New Presedent, Same Battles.

2012..it's time for a change!

Science in the Obama era

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:20:49 GMT

JC, Fairbanks, AK wrote (11/8, 2021), “And TR: if creationism is taught then Flying Spaghetti Monsterism must be taught as well; there is exactly as much evidence supporting both of these.” I must congratulate you on getting the point. Except I would replace “Flying Spaghetti Monsterism” with “the Evolutionary Theory currently being taught” as this is more relevant than Spaghetti Monsters. The fact is the fossil evidence currently at hand indicates that man suddenly appeared. Whether that is because he was formed from the mud by God’s hand or evolved through a process not recorded and found in the fossil record is wishful thinking either way.
Rod, Henderson, Nevada (11/9, 1315) I couldn’t agree with you more, except for scrapping it. The program benefits a segment that deserves special help. It is unfortunate that the real world effect is to limit the bright, and in some places the average. If we are to be educationally competitive on a global scale we need to divide our public school classes into bright, average and dull and teach our students accordingly. Some would be in only dull classes, some would be in only bright classes, most would be mixed, but everybody would be able to achieve as best they could as individuals. Of course, this would cost a lot. But skimping on education got us where we are.

Science in the Obama era

Suzanne, Knoxville Tennessee — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:49:50 GMT

Science isn't an exclusively separate issue from the economy and foreign policy. Science is an area where the world holds the US in high regard. Science Diplomacy, through research collaboration, may be able to bridge gaps that no other kind of diplomacy can. Science creates new technologies that generate new industries and jobs.

Science in the Obama era

wat — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:07:16 GMT

"Whether that is because he was formed from the mud by God’s hand or evolved through a process not recorded and found in the fossil record is wishful thinking either way. "

What tests would you use to determine supernatural creation, Tim?

Science in the Obama era

Michael Ludgate — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:36:43 GMT

As a Christian I'm quite distressed to read comments along the lines of 'Christian's don't do science'. This is complete non-sense. Religion provides a framework for 'why' and guidance for living. Science provides us with a 'how'. It's unfortunate to tarnish a whole faith with the brush of extremists; People who believe that parables and metaphors, used to explain to people living in simple times, are somehow 100% correct. Just as we adore the child who discovers how the parent lives, I'm sure a God would look kindly upon those who desire to understand the world they live in.

Science in the Obama era

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:53:58 GMT

Wat,
I don’t know of and haven’t been able to devise any test for supernatural creation. I suppose if I wanted to trick God into it I’d put sterilized dirt into a jar, seal it and dare God to make life. I doubt it would work. So we’re left with a test that could come up with a positive that means something and a negative that means nothing. Another way, if some new complex creature were in the unopened jar the next morning we’d have proof of supernatural creation, if only sterile dirt were in the jar we’d only have proof that God didn’t create life in that jar *that night*. Myself, I think the great work of creation from Genesis is over and this test would be useless from a scientific standpoint and worse than useless from a religious standpoint, so I won’t be doing it.
Further, the same problem exists for the fossil record. Let’s assume that man did evolve from some species we are now aware of. Now it happened but there may be no fossil record of it. In this case not finding a fossil record does not prove that the theory of man through evolution is false. The fossil record is much like the path I’ve walked. You won’t find most of my footprints, that doesn’t mean I didn’t walk there.
So in this “lively debate” we tend to hear the most from anti-religion science fanatics who have absolutely no proof as to how man did come into being but insist they know how man did not come into being or the uber-religious who trust in what some person told them the Bible means but don’t actually know what it does mean who insist on a six calendar day creation despite the wealth of verifiable science to the contrary, and what the Bible actually says. Gotta love ‘em. Darn it.
Bottom line, I could mediate a debate on it. But barring a strange new creature in that jar, I could *never* prove it. Flip side, even a complete fossil record of the evolution of man wouldn’t prove the evolution of man. It might be very satisfying, but not proof. We can now “see” the gradual evolution of many plant and animal species but it still doesn’t really prove anything. It satisfies me. I believe in a creation process that spanned billions of years and evolution as the way change occurs. I can’t *prove* any of it by any test.

Science in the Obama era

Jim Rousch, Littleton, CA — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:44:41 GMT

If Christians do science, explain the Burning Times in Europe.

If Christians do science, explain the ultimatum Galileo recieved from the Catholic Church.

If Christians do science, explain why they renamed creationism and are trying to cram it down the throats of innocent children who need to know about the FACTS regarding Evolution.

Creationism is a myth, God is a myth and most Christians (as history has shown) oppose science.

Science in the Obama era

Paul Jameson — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:33:48 GMT