Posted on 01/04/2008 9:14:50 PM PST by WFTR
You're wading knee-deep in science if you're following the presidential primaries this year, but in some cases, the candidates' positions are as clear as mud.
Stem-cell research, climate change, alternative fuels and creationism versus evolution in public education are acknowledged by even some of the most marginalized candidates.
More broadly, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain and Barack Obama have directly criticized the current Bush Administration for its science policies, with accusations — based on numerous media reports — ranging from data distortion to research censorship.
"I respect scientists and the scientific method, so I believe that policy should be science driven and that science shouldn't be politics driven," Edwards told LiveScience, in response to a question about federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research, which he supports.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
1. The article talks about embrionic stem-cell research, but the article doesn't mention the fact that recent advances have made embrionic stem cells obsolete. They have found ways to make stem cells from other cells more efficiently than they can make embrionic stem cells. This technique doesn't involve the creation of an embryo, so the technique should give all of the benefits without the question of whether killing an embryo is the same as killing a person. Undoubtedly, some liberals would enjoy killing embryos simply because many conservatives see embryos as people, but the scientist who developed the process to get embrionic stem cells has said that his technique is now obsolete. This development goes a long way to validate further the stand that President Bush took against establishing more embrionic stem cell lines.
2. The article says that John McCain puts environmentalism on an equal footing with national defense. If true, we have another example of John McCain representing the media more than any other group.
3. There's an interesting quote at the end. I'll copy the quote here.
Nonetheless, Rep. Vernon Ehlers, a former physicist and current Republican member of the House Science Committee, told Science that Romney is the "best choice for any scientist or engineer," because the candidate "appreciates the benefits of science."
I'm largely supporting Mitt Romney unless Duncan Hunter makes a huge advance in the next two weeks, and I'm an engineer. I'm not sure that I see him as being that much better a candidate from the perspective of engineers and scientists. As a doctor, Ron Paul should have a pretty good grip on technical issues. Did John McCain graduate from the Naval Academy? If so, he should have a strong engineering background. Otherwise, I don't see any of the other candidates as having strong technical backgrounds. However, I can see Mitt understanding the need for good technical teams to be behind the products of some companies that he's managed.
What do others in technical fields think about this idea?
Bill
Mike Huckabee slept in a Holiday Inn last night.
“I respect scientists and the scientific method, so I believe that policy should be science driven and that science shouldn’t be politics driven,” ~ John Edwards
LOL. Just say “science is good”, John, and save some trees.
However, it is important that any one that is elected president have somewhat of a grasp on science or at least believe in the scientific method.
I do not get the feeling that the guy who won the GOP Iowa Caucus last night has any grasp or science whatsoever.
I am not sure Huck could pass a 6th Grade science class.
I saw that Edward’s quote too. I guess he is quite sensitive to criticism on this subject since he used junk science to make his fortune.
I saw that Edward’s quote too. I guess he is quite sensitive to criticism on this subject since he used junk science to make his fortune.
and Channelling for Bucks!
"What is 1 + 1?"
Scientist: 2
Economist: Ceteris paribus, it's 2.
Lawyer: What do you want it to be?
LOL
Considering some of the ways that Edwards likely twisted technical facts as a trial lawyer, his talking about the scientific method reeks of hypocrisy.
I agree that we don’t need a president who is that strong technically, but we need a president who understands that physical laws are not subject to change or compromise just because someone wants them to change or calls a meeting to talk about them changing.
Well scientific method to John is If A, then C, then I get a million bucks.
I sure wouldn’t take the bet.
I sure wouldn’t take the bet.
We know that Huck could not pass an 8th Grade Geography test thus, I feel confident that he could not pass a science class.
BTW-Where in Louisiana are you?
I have an engineering degree and while I wouldn’t call myself an engineer by trade, I do some amount of engineering for work and I work with engineers on a daily basis.
Frankly, I don’t care what a candidate’s views on stem cells, creationism, or other such technical issues are, as long as he or she recognizes that those issues are none of the business of the federal government and will leave himself and his administration out of them.
While I agree with you on stem cells and creationism, some issues require that politicians have a little bit of technical understanding. I would have a hard time voting for someone who seemed incapable of understanding the basic science around some issues. For instance, the federal government has always been involved in infrastructure. The Founding Fathers recognized that the post roads that they built to deliver the mail would have tremendous commercial benefits for the whole country. The question of aging bridges is a very technical question, and I would not feel good about a president who couldn't understand the concepts for some of the solutions that might be proposed.
Bill
I agree with you in that I wouldn’t feel good voting for a candidate who didn’t grasp basic science. But I would feel better voting for a candidate who acknowledged that he was not scientifically adept but would keep the government out of science than I would voting for someone like Jimmy Carter who was objectively a well-educated scientific mind but who wanted to use the federal government to control issues not in its Constitutional purview.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.