State of the science

Fred, La Crosse, Wisconsin — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:55:27 GMT

Once again, America cuts off its nose to spite its face: despite the obvious fact that prowess in the physical sciences is a key component of any nation's economic and military strength, our law-school-trained pols decide to cut bone instead of fat. What has sparked this trend toward scientific and technical backwardness, I suspect, is the resurgence of religion and superstition in the U.S.--the best way to counter anti-religionist dissent from scientists is to cut U.S. research budgets to the bone and then work to dumb-down scientific education in U.S. schools. So, at the end of the day, the U.S. comes out looking like one of the scientifically-backward countries of the Middle East; the U.S. will soon be the next Iran.

State of the science

Wendy King, New Orleans LA — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:22:13 GMT

I think these issues are very important. It's unacceptable to have a president who's not only illiterate, but also ignorant, about basic science issues, such as evolution, stem-cell research, and climate change/global warming. Our next president should have the best possible science advisors on his (or her) staff, and should have a firm, non-negotiable rule that scientists, especially those studying climate change and global warming, must be able, and allowed, to write, publish and testify before Congress without having their work "edited", the way President Bush's senior science advisor "edited" out findings in James Hansen's papers, and replaced them with White House-approved language indicating that global warming and climate change research didn't result in findings that man-made emissions, such as from cars and factories, increased the likelihood of stronger hurricanes and rising sea levels.
It's way past time that our government took the "politics" out of scientific research, and gave the scientists at the National Science Foundation, AAAS, and other organizations the respect they deserve, and to ensure that their work is taken seriously.

State of the science

www.actionforspace.com — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:22:29 GMT

I watched the state of the union last night and while it does serve to give scientific initiatives like energy research and space exploration a small boost in momentum, it is readers of blogs like this who make the difference when they contact the politicians. Let us all be more active this election in communicating to the politicians that science is important and our votes will be influenced by scientific policy.

State of the science

Laura, Bethlehem, PA — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:18:56 GMT

What we need is more national media attention on the plight of science research in the US. So many excellent scientists are now going abroad to do their research where they are unfettered by ridiculous restrictions imposed by a government that believes "faith based initiatives" are the future of global well-being. The US used to be a haven for foreign scientists. Now we can't even keep our own here.

State of the science

David Dean — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:25:12 GMT

Hai! I'm david dean, I like space projects. I want to be a astronaut one day! :D

State of the science

Canadian Quinn, Halifax, Nova Scotia — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:25:55 GMT

I think the Science Debate 2008 would be a good idea. How much of the economic growth is going to depend upon scientific innovation? A decent amount, to be sure. It would be fun trying to get politicians to distinguish their positions with regards to science policy.

I'm nervous that we'll just see a group of Presidential Contenders sit around the table and say "Rah rah Science!" and be nothing but vague cheerleaders. I want to see their differences!

State of the science

Kitty Corcoran, Rochester, New York — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:24:55 GMT

The only way we as a species get to continue on this world is by taking care of it well enough that the environment stays viable for us. A commentator I recently heard made the point that the earth will be here for likely another 5 billion years until the sun expands to engulf it. It's not the earth we will be saving if we save the earth - it's us. And science and technology are the only way we'll do it. Cutting our national science budget is suicide.

State of the science

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, WI — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:53:32 GMT

Just some thoughts.
I can't help but be amazed at some of the responses people give and who they blame for all that is wrong with the world.
1. Being President doesn't make one the only entity that can pass a law. We have the congress who is suppose to work with the President. The judges make sure we do it right. We have a Democratically controlled Congress, yet they can't seem to get their act together. Will a Democratic President be any better? Maybe Al Gore should be President so we can all live on Carbon Credits that are being sold on the future's market. Can't afford gas, the Futures market is why the price of oil, gasolene, LP and food is so high. Or we could have a dictatorship. Me thinks Chevez would spend a lot of money on science after he takes over the world. After all he has control over all that oil money coming in.
2. Religion doesn't stop people from discovery. Many of the people who we think of as scientists were very religious people looking for answers from their God. They were looking to heaven (space)with the blessing of the king who was the right arm of the religious order in power at the time.
3. What is important to some is not so important to others.
4. Can we manage a life that is totally dependent on Scientific discovery? Where would that lead us? As individuals we may not survive if we can't make a scientific contribution to society. If we aren't smart enough, will we be terminated for the common good of science? He's a diabetic. Maybe instead of finding a cure, it is easier and less costly to just kill him. We need that money to find the answer to ________ (fill in the blank). We should be like the animals in the forest - No religion, just survival.
5. Nature's law says all animal life has 4 basic needs: food, water, shelter and space. The Earth's population will double in the next few decades. I bought into Zero Population Growth in the 60s, but all that did was give Mexico more room to expand out with their burgeoning population. Of course if they weren't so religious, they would have murdered all their babies too. Thirty-six percent (36%)of abortions are performed on the 6 % that comprises the black population in America. Genocide anyone in the name of science?
Sounds pretty simple to blame religion for a lack of science or to blame Science for a lack of religion. Mankind will someday find both. They just need to keep looking and not worry about how long it takes or how much money we spend. We are the "I want it now" Generation.
It boils on down to - we are a bunch of spoiled brats.

State of the science

Bob, Meridian, Mississippi — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:00:03 GMT

I feel that America should put an end to scientific research and focus on what really matters: The Bible. Let the Godless liberals in Europe worry about research. Everything we need to know was already given to us by God. It's all in the Bible.

State of the science

a p garcia — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:07:07 GMT

Science is now controlled by politicians, activist scientists, the media & large companies all of whose knowledge of science is "alleged".

State of the science

anon, RI — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:33:38 GMT

Can someone check those numbers on the International Fusion Energy Projct? As I read it, renegging on $160 million could cost us $500 million Euros ($738 million dollars per Yahoo's finance converter). What are they thinking!!!

State of the science

Newport News — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:35:42 GMT

The worlds population will reach between 8-9 Billion individuals by 2050. Any species that overconsumes its resources and exploits its environment will undergo a population crash, caused by infectious diseases or lack of food supplies. It is basic science, taught in high-schools of America. It is principles in sociology, anthropology, and psychology.
Al Gore, will have more importance in the years ahead as people read "Earth in The Balance" and "The Inconvienent Truth" and become self-educated and self-directed in their learning and knowledge acquisition.
It would be wise for those in power and coming in power and leadership to listen to "We the People of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect Union" and start addressing those issues. You government official, you are Public Servents--you are elected and appointed to your position of power--by the People.
If you do not start listening to the 306,700,000 Million Americans---then "We the People, will serve you and those subordinates at the State, and local level, as well as those in the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security--your cake!"
In the near future....
The Older Americans are tired of having their pensions wiped away by government spending. The Middle Class, has been nearly eliminated with the loss of productivity and jobs being sent over sea for "cheap" labor. The Mortgage and loan crisis... the soldiers coming home from this Oil War in the Middle East.
Well, whose head will be on the chopping block. The French Revolution occurred because "The People" had suffered and were told "Let them Eat Cake".
America needs about 20 years of Democratic leadership at all levels to eliminate the Washingtonian Bushites and burn them back in Texas!
Well, Let them eat Oil!
The Chinese are experiencing ecological and environmental issues...brush you teeth with Lead America.

State of the science

Dallas Texas — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:52:46 GMT

Yes. The religious right has done so well with America these last 8 years pushing their righteous hate, bigotry, and intolerance on everyone else. I for one am glad we are sliding back towards the middle. I don't think I could stomach another 4 years of this.

To the folks that seem to think that the Democratic controlled congress is doing nothing, look no farther than your own party. They have effectively blocked the democrats at every turn simply because the Democrats, although they may control the agenda, they do not control a majority. Hopefully that's something we can fix in the next election ;)

State of the science

anon — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:06:59 GMT

I believe that scientific discovery and technology advancement is a great thing, as long as it does not push into the arcane where things could go very bad.

However profiteers will use any means to gain power and wealth. Even now our food, water and air supply is poisoned in order to cause us to have symptoms which causes high demand for medications. More people are becoming mentally and physically ill while the profiteers are profiting from it.

Perhaps if the diabetics, those who are type 2 that is from being obese, should not be treated. If enough fat people die from complications of being spoiled with plenty, then people would be scared into consuming less and maybe share more among the poor. It may sound like a terrible thing, but if civil war or catastrophe broke out, only the healthy and fit would survive. You and your kids sit around living a spoiled life style, getting fat, while all the immigrants do all the work. I would suggest change your life style, stop feeding the profiteers, and do what is right for the survival of the true American people, instead of being politically correct, greedy and wicked.

[...] The Bible does not hold all the answers, it holds most common ones dealing with humanity at the time it was written. The religious need the scientists as the scientists need the religious.

[...]

I do not consider myself a strong religious person but I do hope that God will have mercy and grace for a bit longer.

State of the science

jeff, nyc, new york — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:16:19 GMT

Science rhetoric. That's all it was last night. Anyone can get on stage, look impressive by citing some of today's fancy keywords like "carbon emissions", and then announcing we will reverse carbon emissions, as if it were fact and just around the corner.

This is not just a question for Bush, but for the other candidates, as well...How? How will you cut and reverse CO2 emissions? How will society replace crude oil for its energy resources? They're all talk and no game, as far as I'm concerned. What about China and India's increased consumption of oil, how will we cope? We don't need a lameduck 35mpg solution by 2020; cars today consume only 18% of America's yearly crude oil needs. We need a solution right now.

The Earth is getting hotter and already scientists are projecting a 4ft water level increase by the year 2100 or earlier, not to mention what will our society resemble a 100 years from now? Well, if America doesn't do their part and get the rest of the world involved, and I mean right now, I honestly believe the luxuries which we take for granted in this country may not only burn up, but will be fighting for the very survival of the human species.

But I think we can avoid certain disaster. I wish I had the answers, but I also wish world leaders wouldn't sugarcoat the truth like last night, as if everything will be okay; business will continue as usual. How about the UN meet with the world's greatest scientific minds and formulate a plan to switch from global warming crude oil, because this stuff won't last forever and the Earth is getting hotter as each day goes on. It's grim but it's the truth.

State of the science

CM, Modesto, CA — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:43:31 GMT

On the one hand, Pres. Bush calls for more funding for basic research, on the other, Bush threatens to veto any bill with too many "pork barrel" appropriations. But every "essential research" is someone else's "pork barrel" project.

Bush has been known to make promises he didn't keep, and a 9 trillion dollar deficit will soon trigger a financial crisis rforcing the elimination of any spending not considered absolutely essential - and a tax increase. I'm afraid that Bush would rather cancel all scientific research than give up his precious tax cuts!

State of the science

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:21:10 GMT

Bob of Meridian -- God may have given us the Bible, but He also for sure gave us brains and He expects us to use them. Read the whole story and contemplate the fate of Cain who said "Am I my brother's keeper?" (God said, "Yes! You got it!") And check out the Good Samaritan, who didn't have the Bible but still shelled out his own money to help that wayfaring stranger.

Research is what gives us all the things that make life worth more than the tinker's dam (even that little thing was made with science) and it is what unites us more than a flag, more than a language, more than an origin.

And if those godless Europeans found a cure for cancer, would you reject it?

State of the science

Brian Fraser, Scottsdale, Arizona — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:42:54 GMT

Religious people can still find the physical universe fascinating. For example, see "Scriptural Physics" at:
http://www.geocities.com/scripturalphysics/ .

Or read a short student paper, "One Christian's Perspective on Quantum Mechanics" at:
http://www.geocities.com/thirdgenerationphysics/

(There is a more detailed presentation on this topic at:
http://www.geocities.com/scripturalphysics/qm/qmconcpt.htm#OriginOfIntrinsicSpin )

Perhaps something can be done locally to encourage innovative research, but I have my doubts. Arizona State University's SkySong technology innovation center in Scottdale, Arizona is just down the street from me. But its focus is on "business and innovation" (i.e., commercialization of new technology) not fundamental innovative research. And that is a typical problem with politician supported programs. They do not want to be seen as too adventurous or too far from the reigning paradigm. You will not find any classes in third-generation physics, for example, at such an "innovative" institution. Nor will they take on topics such as antigravity (see http://www.geocities.com/scripturalphysics/4v4a/ADVPROP.html ) or destruction of radioactive waste by a safe, simple, economical process (see http://www.geocities.com/scripturalphysics/qm/adven.html ) . Possibly, this is because citizens themselves don't know enough about science to support such programs.

State of the science

Judy Tinley Park, IL — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:57:33 GMT

I feel that not only at issue here is money but the future of our youth is at stake. If we are not able to educate teachers on the fundamental basics of science and math - how will future generations be educated? Basic math is not even being grasped at schools - how many of you have gone to the store and received incorrect change because the cashier couldn't do the MATH? I shudder to think that we will not be competitive on the international level in years to come. It really is a shame that the people WE elected can't seem to see the forest for the trees. They applaud when science is discussed, they make reassurances that budgets will be covered; they enjoy the benefits of science, they call on the sciences to solve the energy crisis, global warming and develop better weapons. But at the end of the day it is all rhetoric and no action. Basic science IS important to all of us - it is what puts so many gadgets and gizmos in your home - it is what make you feel better when you are sick and imagine - yes, even science brought about the golden age of the INTERNET.

Just a little thought - if we don't do it, someone else will. Is that the future you want for your children and grandchildren?

And yes, the media does for once, bring the plight of the national science crisis to the American people, but is any one listening?

State of the science

Bob, Norfolk, VA — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:21:02 GMT

[...] Until we stop requiring our politicians to be "God fearing" and start requiring them to be intelligent, free-thinking, men and women of reason, we will continue to lose ground in the most critical areas of science and medicine.

Mike Huckabee believes that the earth is 6000 years old. Mitt Romney believes that Native Americans are a lost tribe from Israel who were given red skin as punishment from God.

I'm not particularly excited about any of the choices in front of me this November; but, I do know who we can't afford to elect.

State of the science

Bangcock — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:09:19 GMT

Delmar Fairchild said...

"Can't afford gas, the Futures market is why the price of oil, gasolene, LP and food is so high."

He is flatly wrong. The price of oil is based on a multitude of factors, primarily those related to supply and demand of oil. The price of gasoline is (naturally) positively correlated with the price of oil. I don't know what "LP" is, but I do know that fluctuations in the price of food have no relationshiop whatsoever with the futures market.

By that feeble argument, one can say:

"The reason we can't afford stock is because the stock market is too high".

Brilliant.

State of the science

John W, Malvern, PA — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:23:17 GMT

Addressing Delmar’s Comment…

1. “Being President doesn't make one the only entity that can pass a law.”
-This is true, but it does mean he has final say over what can pass, and what his “say” has been in the past has been regarded as devastating to scientific development.
“Will a Democratic President be any better?”
-It seems probable, because they usually appear to be more knowledgeable of scientific issues. If this weren’t the case, scientists would be backing another party.
2. “Religion doesn't stop people from discovery.”
-This is another true statement, it doesn’t stop people from discovery, it just convinces you that there’s no need to discover.
3. “What is important to some is not so important to others.”
-Clearly.
4. “Can we manage a life that is totally dependent on scientific discovery? Where would that lead us? He's a diabetic. Maybe instead of finding a cure, it is easier and less costly to just kill him.”
-I’d like to point out that science is what leads to treatment and cures, and comprises what the bulk of scientists spend their time researching.
5. “Thirty-six percent (36%) of abortions are performed on the 6 % that comprises the black population in America. Genocide anyone in the name of science?”
-I don’t know if those percentages are accurate, but assuming they are, science is what leads to treatment. How a republic chooses to use it should reflect the societies’ wishes. I’d also like to add, if we didn’t have a scientific way to administer abortions, women that desired one would simply throw themselves down the stairs.
“They just need to…not worry about how long it takes or how much money we spend.”
-If you don’t recognize the importance of funding science, it’s likely that you don’t clearly understand the issues involved.

State of the science

Harry Thompson, Melbourne, Fl. — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:29:51 GMT

Many of the comments submitted demeaning religion and praising science seem to be from scientist who don't realize their science has become their religion. No thinking individual, scientist or not, can truly believe the anecdotal evidence presented thus far presents a scientifically supportable case for humans causing global warming. Venus, Earth, and Mars are all warming and there is strong evidence that humans don't have any effect on Venus or Mars. Scientifically supportable evidence of the history of the earth's climate changes reveals one truth...the earth's climate is not stable over the long term. Between ice ages and periods of global warming reaching back hundreds of millions of years, the earth's climate has changed for reasons we do not fully understand. That is the case today. People who belive in global warming need to understand that belief is an act of faith and faith is the basis of religion, not science. As a scientist, I try to keep science and religion in their proper places and I am not stupid for not believing in global warming. I accept scientific theory and scientific fact and the facts don't support the theory that humans and George Bush are causing global warming. Somebody needs to get a real job using real science.

State of the science

Mike Roberts — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:36:55 GMT

As a geologist, I have a different world view than many who I read on some of the topics discussed here. I applaud the President's words on science, whether he understands what he said or not [giggle]. While it is obvious that we need to protect our water and air, food supplies, and so on, some perspective should be gained about the earth and earth systems. Global warming and fossil fuels, for example, are common topics here that call out for a geologic perspective. Although human population has exploded in recent decades, our ability to reek havoc or affect change on the earth pales by comparison to terrestrial and extraterrestrial processes. The earth has gone through much more extreme climatic changes than we are "witnessing" now; most long before humans existed and could have any possible causal relationship to. Uncounted species have lived and gone extinct long before humans appeared. Are we to be any different? Those pols that promise energy independence from foriegn oil are lying to you, or are self-deluded. We will remain dependent on foriegn oil for the foreseeable future. It is a geopolitical/geological/technological fact of life. The world has burned up ~ a trillion barrels of oil so far [~100 yrs]and we have ~that much left. But the rest of the world is now using oil at a much accelerated pace. It won't take 100 years to burn up the rest. Unfortunately, we have burned up most of the US supply and the rest is largely overseas, largely in countries that are not our friends. Should we give up? No. Research promises the raw materials for solutions to our problems as well as the honorable "simple" additions of knowledge about ourselves and the universe. Too many in Congress [and the public at large] don't understand the desire for basic additions to knowledge; compounded by the activist fundamentalists who think all knowledge is found in the Bible. Science education is at an apparent all-time low in the US--or at least it has failed to produce any kind of "common" understanding of science or appreciation of science. Kinda scary.

State of the science

Steven F Durst Bayard,WV — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:46:39 GMT

Reading these responses are very interesting. They go from the very enlightended to the very silly. Which makes governing such people very difficult. To please one upsets the other. A leader in this matter as well as all others can only expect to be half right in any decision he or she may make.
Yes we as a nation are a bunch of spoiled brats. As I have statted before we are like Samson of the Bible, full of strength and power but too immature and self absorbed to know how to use it.
As a nation we should be doing lots of scoicial activities that enhance, enlighten and build us as a nation of people who are concerned about people, as well as the environment we live in. However there is an ugly spirit afoot in our world that influences people to be selfish, greedy, narrow minded self absorbed grinches. They spoil and end up in control of every good endevour we attempt as a people.
Until we think of ourselves in terms of how we effect others and truly concern ourselves with the need of others, this ugly selfish spirit will get it's way.

State of the science

Doug Fingles, Warner Robins, GA — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:22:09 GMT

It amazes me that the scientific community wants money from the people, but aren't willing to listen to the people on how it should be spent. "Give me your money and I promise to spend it on what's really important to me." Then, when someone has the courage to step up and challenge such thinking, the slander of "ignorant", "superstitious", etc starts up as if the only intelligent beings have the letters "PhD" behind their name.

Why does the scientific community feel they are above all moral and ethical guidelines besides plagiarism? We have national and international agreements on types of weapons that can be researched and produced, but to suggest we guide scientific research in the same way is "ignorant" and "superstitious"?

Do you really want someone patenting human life or "owning" a human being used to harvest organs from or conduct medical research on? Haven't we been fighting the idea of slavery around the world? Yet in our own backyard we are looking to recreate this abhorrent idea through scientific research. If you scoff at such notions and say that's not where medical science is going, then join us in making it immoral, unethical, and illegal to do so.

Is it really smart to create black holes? Smash particles with outrageously high energies together just to see what happens? Clone human beings for research and profit? There are consequences for every action and some of them will be unforeseen, even by the best and brightest minds. To go about conducting research willy-nilly, just because you have an itch you want to scratch is not the best way to approach how and what we want science to do for us.

If you want public money, be prepared to take your case to the public, all of the public, not just those with lots of letters after their names. Be willing to make your arguments in public and show how your research is going to benefit somebody, somehow. If don't want that or aren't willing to undergo the public scrutiny the rest of us face, find a private donor and spend their money.

State of the science

TheGeek, Cincinnati OH — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:49:08 GMT

Yikes, Delmar. I don't think anyone in the scientific community has endorsed killing people as a means to further research initiatives. And for the record, no one is mandating abortions--that's still by a woman's choice, last time I checked, regardless of her race.

At the risk of coming off as horribly cliche, can't we all just get along? It's through cooperation and tolerance for each other that we'll be able to influence our government to support advancements that are vital for our survival. Bickering only promotes the same partisan quagmire and championing of narrow, profiteering interests that are holding us back as a nation. I say we should congratulate the president for his token step forward, to encourage the sentiment. "Fake it till you make it," you know? If enough politicians give lip-service to science because it's what makes them look good, they'll eventually have to make good on their promises, or else damage their reputations and lose face in the eyes of voters. So give the president a little pat on the back for this, and let's be happy something was finally said in such a visible manner.

State of the science

Ed, Ft Laud, FL. — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:54:10 GMT

Your article is very good Mr. Boyle. The problem you expose here is that you cant be a conservative and also support science. The conservatives must stop the populaces access to knowledge, logic and reasoning because the conservatives theist god continues to shrink and becomes more impotent as science proves their scriptures to be false. Facts such as the earth being 4.5 billions years old or the factual science of evolution are only the tip of the science iceberg that is sinking the false gods of the conservatives anti-science Titanic.

State of the science

Rich Horn, McKinney TX — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:21:16 GMT

I think we should cut funding for research altogether and not put a single penny into any sort of fandangled whatchamacallit techno-flim-flam nonsense ... because you know what will happen if we do cut all the funding, right?

Mad scientists in secret laboratories inside volcanoes building atomic supermen to enslave the human race .. that's what will happen.

Now, while I wouldn't mind this (we could use a good struggle between good and evil again, it's been a while since it hasn't been nerfed down ... I mean we can't even play dodgeball anymore), I think less people would suffer if as a global society we make a concerted effort to expand our scientific horizons infinitely.

Or we can follow the lead of religious nuts and when armies of robot monkeys built by psychos funded by nutcase governments pour into our suburban playpens we can throw Bibles at them and say "You're not real!"

Thank you.

State of the science

Richard, Baltimore — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:58:45 GMT

Bush and the "Religous Right" are the strongest argument against "Intelligent Design". This is the first President who agressively subverted the voice of science to promote his agenda.

I, and much of the world, are counting the days until he is gone.

State of the science

Philip — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:22:08 GMT

I agree with Delmar, partially agree with Bob, and certainly agree with A P Garcia. I only partially agree with Bob because I feel science is a vital discipline. Regardless of what ill-conceived conclusions may be drawn from sparse "evidence" on certain issues, the most famous of our world's historical scientists were God-fearing men whose way of worshipping our Creator was through trying to understand His design of our universe.

(and if you don't believe me that conclusions drawn on the "evidence" for evolution are ill-conceived, look no further than philosophy through-out history and transcultural which asserts that we do not live in a closed system. everyone has their biases and preconcieved notions about things which heavily influence their assumptions coloring their hypotheses, experiments and findings. EVERYONE. even the religious.)

State of the science

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:20:32 GMT

All I can say is that this president doesn't really believe that science is worth anything. His policies have been pro business as usual. That doesn't work. It also doesn't work when policy drives science. If I were president, then I would do my best to convince Congress that we need about another $100 billion for NASA and other science agencies to work with businesses and universities to develop new electrical generating devices and sources that the Federal government could get some money back for that sponsorship. If we could get a station on the Moon and Mars, we could develop the Moon into a launching pad for further exploration to the system; Mars could be developed into a new place for people to go and live. Granted, some of these dreams are going into the next century I think.

State of the science

DB, ITER Project, Aix-en-Provence, France — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:20:32 GMT

Well, certainly there are some good comments in this blog. Thanks, especially, Delmar Fairchild.

Here's the deal, politicians are concerned with swaying the largest groups of todays voters, not providing for the future of the nation. This means that social programs will always be more important than anything that deals with the future, like energy policy or basic research, both of which are impacted by the items mentioned in the article.

Next, the budget process is totally inadequate to accommodate any long term project. This is why the US is viewed as an unreliable partner in science and is quickly falling behind the rest of the world in the technology that we need to maintain a healthy economy and a satisfactory standard of living. We need a budget process that will approve funding for the life of a project.

For those who don't know, the US pulled out of the ITER project in 1998, but the rest of the world persevered without us, and the US came crawling back about two years ago. Now our Democratically controlled congress has pulled the plug on funding again.

And, yes, anon, RI, there is a huge penalty if the US fails to meet its commitment - but of course, who could get us to pay? After all, we haven't met our treaty commitment to the UN for years. More to the point, if we do choose to continue with ITER, we will have to spend more money in order to get back on schedule.

State of the science

Kimm, Dallas TX — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:27:10 GMT

As an educated Republican I'd like to note that the President is not totally to blame for the scientific backwardness of the entire US population. Last time I checked most of the population is more worried about having the cell phone that can remote start your car, start your coffee maker and start the steam shower with the touch of a button; which you can view in HD on your 115 inch plasma TV. Not many young adults care about any scientific study that does not immediately benefit them. These are the reasons why we won't colonize Mars anytime soon, not becasue the President is a bit slow.

State of the science

Bob, Meridian, Mississippi — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:20:52 GMT

Des Emery: It wouldn't matter if the Europeans find a cure for cancer; we're in the last days and the Rapture is coming. Our remaining time is better spent preparing for the Ascension than in secular research.

State of the science

Rodney Sibert, Trussville, AL — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:41:06 GMT

I'm glad we have the broad range of opinions here.
It's is a testament to how different we all are.
Everyone has an answer, and everyone has a question.
And no matter how you do what you do,
there will always be ones that disagree.
When you think about it:
We all have to co-exist.
We all have to eat.
We all have to breath.
And, we all have to pay taxes.
It's funny how much we are all alike.

State of the science

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:43:06 GMT

Science will outlast this idiot, like it has others. Who's next?

State of the science

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:52:06 GMT

To David Dean: Want to be an Astronaut? Study your Math and Science young man! Oh, and don't grow over 5 foot 10 inches tall . . . .

State of the science

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:03:34 GMT

"No thinking individual, scientist or not, can truly believe the anecdotal evidence presented thus far presents a scientifically supportable case for humans causing global warming."

The total opposite of this is true, Harry Thompson. It's virtually universally accepted in the scientific community that warming is happening. And it's physically impossible to put CO2 into the atmosphere and NOT have some effect. Learn it or shaddup.

State of the science

Karla, Downey, CA — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:15:49 GMT

I am a political junkie who loves watching and reading the news 24-7, but for some reason I can't shake off my fascination with science. My perfect vacation: road trip to Fermi and perhaps (if allowed) see scientists in action; ask them "What's going on?"
I hoped that perhaps science could play a role in saving this country's failing foreign relations... that it would demonstrate to the rest of the world that we could still cooperate with others and contribute to something that is greater than politics, borders, or skin color.
But alas! Where's the funding for ITER?
Thank you Washington, you have crushed my hopes.
Maybe I should work in science policy...

State of the science

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:44:34 GMT

You left out the last 'we all have to....' Rodney.

State of the science

Chris Mclaughlin, Bloomfield Hills, MI — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:05:13 GMT

The candidates have been falling all over each other to tell us about what they think about God. It would be nice to know what they think about something more relevant to their prospective job, like science and technology. As our constitution says, there should be no religious test for office, but there should very well be a science and technology test. The President is responsible for the distribution of billions of dollars that go to various scientific endeavors (like NASA). It is easy to believe that a President who is ignorant of basic science and technology might distribute our tax money in such a way that we get very little in return.

State of the science

Jarrod , Pittsburgh, PA — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:36:25 GMT

A perfect storm of dumbed down media, lack of intrest, poor education, and religion. I remember as a kid being so proud of my country for NASA and the shuttle. I thrilled at the hubble images. But media no longer stresses science and kids dont seem to care. Who cares if we found a new galaxy, or fossil, or species, or evolutionary link. Britney is in rehab, weee! And half this new generation doesnt even understand evolution, as they have parents telling them the planet is 6000 years old. Hell, Niagra Falls is older than that. We are in trouble when your average schoolkid doesnt understand BASIC science. How much dumber can we get, and yet still try to run the world?

State of the science

Jarrod , Pittsburgh, PA — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:09:56 GMT

Bob: I thought your post was a joke at first, then it became clear you are serious. Read the good book all you like, Its fine with me. But dont stop me from learning about the world around me. If you believe you are surrounded by gods creation, why wouldnt you want to understand things you believe are divinely designed? The universe is an amazing place.. your faith should encourage you to learn about it. Im afraid my country is turning into a Christian version of Iran. I always felt America was better becuase while 3rd world countries were throwing rocks at a stone to get rid of 'satan', we were traveling in space, and learning about the body and mind in great strides. Well, it now seems we are becoming the very society I was mocking. How sad. If you believe God gave us a brain, dont you think he wants you to use it?

State of the science

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:56:31 GMT

"We have the congress who is suppose to work with the President. "
This version of democracy is very curious. The purpose of division of powers is to balance powers in case one branch goes off the deep end.

Religion doesn't necessarily stop people form discovery, but it CAN stop people from discovery. "The great obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstein.

NOBODY maintains that everyone has to be a scientist. THAT is a straw man. Elected officials don't need to be scientists, but they should not be abjectly ignorant of it either.

Science does not need religion.

State of the science

db, Aix, France — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:37:25 GMT

Jarrod. Good stuff. Hang in there. The media tend to overhype this religious right thing in an effort to scare decent folk into voting Demo. Truth is that very few people buy into Bob's biblical babling. Most religious people read the bible and find (or believe or hope) that God is much bigger than anything that could be contained in the human mind. Only a few wackos believe that they can actually understand God, have everything figured out, and need to search no more.

For me, a God small enough to be contained in a man's head would be no God at all.

State of the science

Roger, Kentucky — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 21:57:27 GMT

The real solution to all is term limits for congress, just like presidents and governors, so no one power gets intrenched long enough to change american ideals.Seperation of church and state.Until all people learn to agree religion is necessary to help people have the big stick that says get along, and science is necessary to cure problems. again "CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG