Obama Answers Science Policy Questionnaire

thebestsophist writes "A couple months ago, Scientists and Engineers for America, Science Debate 2008, and a bunch of other science organizations sent McCain, Obama, and all the Congressional candidates a bunch of questions on science and technology. Topics included biosecurity, genetics research, and national security, as well as the more common questions on research and education. Well, Senator Obama just answered." Senator McCain has not responded to the questionnaire at this point in time, but the site has a profile of his views and actions relating to science policy, which provides a good basis for comparing the candidates' stances. We've previously discussed the differences between the two candidates' technology platforms. According to a recent NPR story, both candidates intend to keep politics out of science.

Politics out of science? what about religion?

[houbou (1097327)]

So both candidates say they will keep politics out of science, but what about religion?

Stem cell research for example is one of those field of research which is being blocked because of politics.. "well, because of religious groups, which uses politics as a tool to achieve their goals of blocking the research".

I wonder if each candidate is willing to tell the religious groups to grow up and let science be?, especially McCain's party

Re:Politics out of science? what about religion?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Well, McCain bowed to the christian fundamentalist wing of the GOP when he picked Sarah Palin as his VP running mate. If he's willing to do that now, what makes you think he won't cave in the future?

Re:Politics out of science? what about religion?

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

Her views will most likely be of little consequence unless the old man croaks

John McCain is 72 years old and has had several cancerous growths removed.

I'm not an actuarial, but I bet the odds are not good that he'd make it through a full term. Then, I'm afraid, li'l Missy's views are going to be of great consequence.

Re:Politics out of science? what about religion?

[jjohnson (62583)]

The national GOP just approved a plank in their platform that bans all embryonic stem cell research, publicly funded or privately funded. A private lab using discarded implantation embryos would be illegal if McCain and the Congressional GOP pass a law implementing that plank.

Re:Party planks are ridiculous

[dachshund (300733)]

And conversely, on the left, there's a minority of the Democrats that would ban all industrial activity whatsover, because it is bad for mother earth. The point really is that we need to stop framing debates based upon what the radicals of either side of the aisle are telling us to frame them as and to start and think for ourselves. You know, there's enough to go around in both "party planks" to make one want to wretch.

And yet, the Republican party has a history of acting on the whims of its lunatic fringe --- instituting bans on Federally funded stem cell research that have had a massive impact on the research community. Whereas I'm not aware of any Democratic plan to end all industrial activity.

Overall, I'm exhausted by these moronic "slap both parties down" posts. There are huge, meaningful difference between what both parties will accomplish if elected. To analogize, it's as though you have a choice between a full-on uppercut to the chin, or just a gentle tap on the shoulder. I guess both involve blows to your body, so why should you care which one you get?

Re:Party planks are ridiculous

[tjstork (137384)]

If "American pharma company said that they could make 10 billion dollars on stem cell products from embryonic research", then they wouldn't be at the federal teat looking for fundin

Yeah they would. Why spend a billion dollars to make ten billion dollars, and get only 9 billion in profit, when you can have the feds kick in the billion and get ten billion in profit.

American companies are always going to ask for federal funding, whether they "need it", or "not". It's just more profit, if they get it.

They're not from aborted fetuses, theyre from IVF

[by Anonymous Coward]

The stem cells don't come from abortions, they come from the embryos grown in test tubes in fertility clinics. They usually grow upwards of 10 "just in case", and freeze the rest. The majority of these "expire" in the freezer, at least they expire for the purpose for which they are intended. They would otherwise be trashed, and you have fallen for the pro-life propaganda if you think they are from abortions.

Re:Politics out of science? what about religion?

[flyingsquid (813711)]

Considering how hard McCain has been working to pander to the evangelical right, I would have a hard time expecting him to keep religion out of politics. And of course religion wants to regulate science, so feel free to connect the dots. Add to that his new hard-core anti-abortion VP candidate, and it shouldn't be hard to predict his stance on stem cell research.

Sarah Palin has said that she's in favor of teaching creationism in schools alongside evolution, and that she's not convinced that global warming is caused by human activity. So we've now got a VP candidate who wants to teach religion in science class, and who rejects scientific consensus where it is inconvenient or inconsistent with her ideology. McCain, of course, may have his own views, but his VP choice shows that he's more interested in appeasing the religious right and radical conservatives than insisting that his administration's policies are based on the best scientific evidence available.

Re:I think big pharma can afford basic research.

[Hatta (162192)]

My point is that big pharma can afford to pony up for basic research.

They can, but they won't. They'll spend the money on marketing, and making derivitives of existing drugs before they spend much on basic research. Basic research really does need to be publicly funded.

Think about the discovery of GFP, a fluorescent protein that is crucial to a number of revolutionary tools [lanl.gov]. Do you think any Pharma company would ask their research staff to identify that glowing stuff in jellyfish? Of course not.

Long term, investing in basic research is the best investment a society can make. Unfortunately, companies aren't in it for the long term, or for discoveries they can't control. Public funding is crucial for basic research and the healthy progress of science itself.

Politics/Science

[Naughty Bob (1004174)]

According to a recent NPR story, both candidates intend to keep politics out of science....

But only one side intend to keep science out of science... [wired.com]

(Credit to Soulskill for the alley-oop)

Re:Politics/Science

[thermian (1267986)]

You know what? Some countries would be wringing their hands with glee if an American Vice President actually managed to get that one through.

After all, it would stunt the scientific growth of America so much that almost any country with a strong education system and a lot of ambition to overtake them in technology stakes within a few decades.

It would take a few decades to kick in because the generation first subjected to it wouldn't get into the system properly until they hit their mid twenties most likely.

So far the decision to make it more difficult for Chinese students to come and study in America has been a boon for Europe, bringing millions into university coffers, and the insane data snooping rights the US government have adopted have made foreign companies route round the US for their server needs.

What's next? book burning as a means to remove the risk of paper cuts?

Re:Politics/Science

[SpinyNorman (33776)]

Unfortunately McCain/Palin don't intend to keep THEIR religion out of YOUR life...

Evangelical Christians could turn out in droves for Palin, a member of Feminists for Life who opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest, if she maintains her promise.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4641030.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093 [timesonline.co.uk]

Re:Politics/Science

[by Anonymous Coward]

Honest question: What the fuck is there to "debate" about creationism? There's absolutely no evidence for any of it, and it's based entirely on a book(s) written by men thousands of years ago. You either believe it based on blind faith or you don't. It doesn't seem like there's a whole lot to "debate."

Re:Politics/Science

[arth1 (260657)]

I, too, think that creationism should be taught in school, and that debate should be encouraged. But not in any science-related classes, of course. That's what classes in religion are for, obviously.

Sounds good to me. Let us start by teaching them about Tiamat, how she got raped to give birth to the elder gods, and how her head was crushed with a sledghehammer by her son to create the land.
And then other Assyrian/Babylonian myths, including the Judeo-Christian variety.
Let's not neglect the western varieties, like how the frozen milk from the cow Audhumbla created Burr, the father of Burin, the father of Odin, the all-father.

Cause they're all equally valid -- none of them more or less than the others. The important lesson to the kids would be that there is really no limit to people's gullibility.

Re:Politics/Science

[YttriumOxide (837412)]

Last time I looked, public schools did not have religion classes

Really? I'm not from the US, and this comment actually surprised me. I'm what I describe as "staunchly atheist" (I consider religion to be a kind of mental disease), and yet I'm actually in FAVOUR of there being education in schools about religious beliefs. At my school, we were taught the fundamentals of Hinduism, Buddhism, and the Abrahamic Religions (with separate sub topics for Islam, Judaism and Christianity). Some other religions were mentioned for comparison (especially the ancient Greek, Roman and Norse pantheons), but we really only concentrated on the big ones (there's just not enough TIME to study all of them!). That was at the lower level of high school, and it was considered that if you did well at that class and enjoyed it (in conjunction with social science) that you would then move on to advanced social sciences in senior high school, and then things like sociology, psychiatry, teaching, or similar things at the university level.

Religion is a major part of the world, and there NEEDS to be an understanding of it taught at schools so that people understand what it's all about. Not as an "indoctrination", but as an "education". If the schools DON'T teach this, you end up with people not being able to accurately question religious beliefs, or completely misunderstand things about the people around them (e.g. the view that it seems many "lesser educated" people in the US have about Muslims)

Obama's response?

[interstellar_donkey (200782)]

So, Sen Obama's entire science policy can be summed up by "Error establishing a database connection"?

Interesting.

Re:Obama's response?

[sokoban (142301)]

Yeah, and McCain's is summed up by "Error 404: File not found"

Re:Obama's response?

[CaptainPatent (1087643)]

Oh man, his policy changed. Now it's "Server not found"

He's already flip-flopping on the issues!

Yesm but...

[sycodon (149926)]

...will Science stay out of Politics?

Re:His VP want creationism taught in schools...

[mdsolar (1045926)]

Yes, there is more here an Palin's views: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html [boston.com] not a good day for science....

Re:His VP want creationism taught in schools...

[Volante3192 (953645)]

Because scientific theories are based on years of observed data and if something is observed that results in prior theories being wrong, science changes the theories.

There are no datasets for religious beliefs and when things are brought into play that questions the beliefs, they are discarded as opposed to adjusting the beliefs to update them.

In a nutshell, science doesn't mind being wrong.

Re:His VP want creationism taught in schools...

[hkmwbz (531650)]

those climatologists and other proponents of global warming who place death threats upon and question the credentials of those who oppose them

Death threats by scientists? When and where was that?

if science doesn't mind being wrong I'd like to know why evolution isn't allowed to be countered (with whatever theory you want to use as a counter-argument, scientific or not)

Because there are no alternatives or counter-arguments that are not religious, and thus do not belong in research or science class. Just because someone has a crazy idea doesn't mean that it has any merit. Otherwise you must also support teaching Stork Theory [youtube.com] in Sex Education or alchemy in chemistry class. And that God doesn't exist should be preached in church.

Re:His VP want creationism taught in schools...

[Locklin (1074657)]

blind faith and "the best explanation congruent with several centuries of data collection by millions of people encompassing every nation, institution, and field of science" are two entirely different things.

Re:His VP want creationism taught in schools...

[dubl-u (51156)]

Scientists put as much faith into many of their theories as do people of religion. What's wrong with the religious faith that makes you not like it but deem the scientific faith as okay?

What?

The biggest prizes in science are for people who shatter old theories and create new ones. They're called Nobel prizes. Maybe you've heard of them?

It turns out religious people have a special term for people who challenge established notions. They're called heretics. Special prizes for that? Excommunication, exile, burning, torture, and death.

Notice any difference here?

Not many liberals on slashdot...

[damn_registrars (1103043)]

It would be kind of silly for Obama to do much advertising on Slashdot. "Preaching to the choir", I believe it's called.

I'm not sure how accurate that is. There is no shortage of so-called "libertarians" here on slashdot, arguing for the virtues of "the invisible hand of the market". Just look at all the chatter that comes up anytime Ron Paul is mentioned in a story here...

And besides, if the bulk of the slashdot reader population was liberal, why would it be even worthwhile for McCain to run Obama attack ads here? I don't know of many liberals who want to ignore foreign diplomacy opportunities or chastise Obama as "the world's biggest celebrity".

And then if you check the slashdot list of stories tagged "slashkos" [slashdot.org] you'll see how many stories have been assaulted by readers for being too liberal. So clearly there are plenty of conservative / libertarian readers here who feel that slashdot is too liberal. Yet I don't see a "drudgedot" or anything of that nature used to tag stories that are too conservative (as well there ought to be)...