Posted on 10/26/2012 11:20:22 PM PDT by emax
This inquiry ideally meant for anyone here who is a research scientist or engineer in the STEM disciplines and who has a Master's or a PhD or a Doctor or current graduate student and/or anyone who has genuine knowledge of Democrat and Republican, in particular Obama and Tea Party Republican, policies of research and development.
The main question is this : How do we address those within and outside the scientific community who insist we must have Obama and fellow militant leftist Democrats in power otherwise STEM research and development and cancer and other medical research in this country will decay and that with TEA Party leaders in charge, science in America will die ? I raise this question because I interact with members of the science and research community fairly regularly and I hear this rather often. I hear about how the Conservative Republicans plan to eliminate support for medical and cancer research labs, physics labs like Oakridge National Lab or Jefferson Lab and chemistry labs as well. Physics and Chemistry professors have actually said that the Tea Party plans to eliminate and gut their funding so they can't get any research done. And the thing is, this is issue that Conservative Republican leaders often loss critical votes over since this is one of the most important issues for a nontrivial segment of the American population. For the Conservative community, insisting this issue is unimportant is not going to do any good.
So the key questions are as follows : What is an accurate description of the Conservative/Republican and or Tea Party plans when it comes to support for public labs in cancer research, nuclear and particle physics, chemistry and other sciences ? Are they for simply slashing budgets for any science research in these or any other STEM discipline ?
And also, if you are in the science research community and you are told by liberal coworkers that an important reason to reelect Obama is because we need to keep public support of science research alive - and if you work in science research fields, chances are you will hear this being said - what you you say in order to effectively counter this point ? What would be your counterargument ?
Thank you for any support and useful advice you can provide.
This STEM business even carries vague overtones of the old account of taking from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It ended up in death. Finite man was overwhelmed by the infinite.
I feel in theory you are correct, we should have faith in people of the hard science community. I suppose I have simply been around a few too many who remain in academia and so, just like anyone else who remains in academia for extended periods of time, they have fallen influence to academia’s militant leftist statis quo. And that is why I have heard a few of them say that if the Tea Party gets its way, university researchers won’t be able to conduct cancer research that saves lives. They will just let people die because people who want to do cancer research won’t be able to. Like I noted before, in academia I have met researchers who genuinely believe that. So while in principle I think you are right, sometimes I wish Conservative Republicans could get their message to these people across more effectively.
Answer;
1) The deficit goes down when you reduce spending some....
2) The deficit completely disappears when you reduce spending a lot..
3) When you spend more than you take in you have a deficit..
4) Deficit spending is not moral..
5) America is broke..
Not in my experience! (35 years within the State University of New York)
pretty much, except you will not find a happy scientist/researcher that thinks their work is fluff... even those performing studies that are common sense will state it is worthwhile because no one has performed the study before. How much of the current climatology research is toward our prosperity, security or safety? Probably a fair amount, but nowhere near all of it... much of it is politically motivated. But, the scientists conducting the research truly believe their work is not rooted in politics. For them, the proper question would be, if the question has been answered, why are we still trying to answer it rather than trying to form solutions to the problem? If we truly understand the mechanisms involved, the solutions would be apparent... instead we are being told the science is settled, the challenge is on the scale of the Apollo program, and as a first step we need to strap a few model rocket motors to the Wright Flyer as a first step (albeit it at the cost of liberty and economic prosperity). How can such a field of study be considered anything but political? If any scientist tells you a problem is settled science, and they are still studying that problem? Chances are the work is A) not settled, and B) politically motivated. Not in all cases (see Gravity Probe B), but in most.
Romney will continue funding and even advance basic research but eliminate government funding of some start up companies.
But government funding of start ups will continue as they have for decades under aegis of DARPA and other highly successful funding agencies. The Obama funding agencies for start ups will be scaled back.
Staunch conservatives are for free enterprise, i.e., business.
Business is all about science and technology - just look at the past few hundred years of technological progress.
Anyone who actually believes that conservatives are somehow “against science” has been deceived, either by others or themselves.
There is no way that a reasonably intelligent engineer, scientist, etc., can not know this, other than they don’t go to Church any more and have fallen for the liberal deception that all Christians are ignorant hillbillies.
Of course, the modern hillbilly is anything but ignorant, and many very intelligent and successful people are Christian.
The Church of Secular Humanism is a little tricky, but it’s lies can easily be seen if one truly is objective and logical.
Anyone who thinks the government is somehow required in order for science to progress is, again, just kidding themselves.
Oh, and, no offence intended, but you do realize that your post comes across completely as that of a troll ?
“A nontrivial number of people may look to re-elect Obama predominantly, or even solely, because they feel that is necessary to make sure public support of science research does not get slashed.”
Or they may not.
I have an idea, why don’t you write an NSF grant proposal and find out?
Engineers, even in academia are pretty conservative. Physicists and chemists are about 50-50. Comp Sci; libertarian either left (like Hentoff) or right (like Ron Paul) but not in my experience many Comp Sci people in either major party. Technology people who aren't scientists are very conservative. Economists: flat out pedal to the metal either right-wing or left-wing. Other people in the College of Business at a typical university are conservative, Republican at the least. Everybody else: Humanities, Arts, Liberal Arts, Languages, Public/Biz Admin are all flaming leftards and there is nothing you can possibly say to them.
Outside of academia, STEM people are swimming in different waters and even among the groups I just talked about you will find they're still about the same but in ALL categories and disciplines they're further to the right.
But here's one thing to know: most STEM people are NOT "people" people. Many are functional illiterates. Many have no social skills or even have predominantly negative social interactions. So you aren't going to hear from them about their political opinions for the most part even on the blogs (Comp Sci is an exception.)
Lefties are disproportionately representative in the vocal group. Probably because most of them aren't very good at what they do, so they spend all day politicking and schmoozing and otherwise jerking off.
Believe me, even in academia -- and even among some lefties -- they see what education in STEM is doing to our competitiveness as a nation, and are thoroughly appalled. And they know whose fault it is.
OK, thanks, that's what I thought, but wanted to be sure.
My observations are that engineers tend to be more conservative, and mathematicians tend to be more liberal. However a person's political views seem to have little impact on how good their work is; I've met very dedicated and efficacious liberal scientists, and also some very lazy and ineffectual conservative engineers!
There is a definite bias against conservatives & the TEA party in much of academia. I believe it is the left-wing media that creates the impression that conservatives are a bunch of anti-science fundamentalists. For example, Pete Domenici, the former senior senator from New Mexico, was a big proponent of STEM type funding in New Mexico, but because he supported nuclear power & domestic oil drilling, he is reviled by the left! The reality is that conservatives do support STEM funding, but not unicorn projects, like wind & solar & green energy, that are the darlings of the left.
I can understand how it would be interpreted that way, but I was merely saying that Conservative Republicans need to be able to communicate exactly where they are coming from on issues that actually do cause them to lose voters. It is about making sure that American Conservative Republicans know how to directly address the issues that are used to take critical votes away from them and to ensure that Conservative Republicans are able to express these ideas to common voters. And that last part about the need to explain their positions clearly is fairly universal - look at how certain Republican leaders have been slimed over their errors in communicating their positions, which doubtlessly led to Republicans losing critical votes. I simply do not think these issues should be simply swept under the rug and forgotten.
As a TEA Partier, I would say that cutting important research is not high on anybody’s list. But if spending isn’t cut, and the economy collapses, there will be no money for any research at all.
And under Obamacare, the last great medical innovation has already been invented. There will be no more.
I’m not a scientist but from a budget perspective I can assure you that if we continue to spend more money than we take in, there won’t be any money for ANY research.
This is easy.
I have a PhD in stem cell research at a highly ranked public school( no not berkeley, that was my undergrad). I work as a research associate.
Almost all of my colleagues are liberal. It is part of academia. Just the way things are in higher ed.
What you say is simple. Which party will grow the economy more? The more tax revenue the govt has, the more money it will give to science. Since the historical difference in science funding under each party is >5% to dems, if you increase economic growth by 50% and have a 50% increase in revenue, science funding goes up accordingly, well over any party difference. Its ALL the economy, stupid.
If they cant answer this question after the last 4 years, they are not worth your time.
Many of my co-workers are brilliant PhDs in math and physics. They express themselves nicely in MATLAB. Unfortunately, MATLAB doesn't process very quickly. It falls to me to put that theoretical set of algorithms into C/C++/assembly code that runs fast enough to be useful in the real world. The bad news is that these guys are getting old. They need to train a next generation with the skill sets that allow them to get in on the "ground floor" and continue carrying the banner in advanced research fields. It won't be much longer before much of the "art" that needs to be conveyed will go to the grave and be lost.
If we are to keep science worthy of public funding, the conflict of interest must be removed from the equation. Either we are out to understand what is, or we are trying to bend that to achieve some other, political, goal.
The latter should be removed from ties to the public coffers. Otherwise, my tax dollar will go to fund 'research' I will then have to fight out of pocket with other scientists.
The entire claim of consensus over AGW was bogus, refuted by the Petition Project, where over 30,000 scientists were signatories to a petition stating the US should not sign onto the Kyoto accords nor anything like them.
It is the responsibility of scientists to NOT put forth alarmist conclusions as the basis for public policy which can be devastating to civilization, and when their results cannot be duplicated, their data are made unavailable, and, as it turns out at best cherry-picked, at worst falsified, they should be rendered ineligible for any further public funding and stripped of any academic tenure.
Just my $0.02
for a conservative, science or the scientific method of inquiry is a special case of conservative philosophy, that is, a form of invention, an illumination God’s creation. a true scientist is driven by a desire to illuminate an aspect of God, or if an athiest, he/she is at least a seeker of relative “truth.” that is why, historically, most great scientists and inventors were indeed conservatives—that is, believers and motivated by faith in their endevours.
you’re never going to convince anyone to vote for a conservative who doesn’t have this calling to discover, know and understand creation apart from a paycheck. they are simply engaged in the show of junk science merely for government payola. a person corrupted by the gov’t payola is probably lost, too.
perhaps, someone sincere about inquiry who is entraped in the current system (STEM?) or what i call “science” by bureaucrat, may be convinced if still young and perhaps just naieve.
i would start by asking questions: for example,
why are government bureaucrats in charge of directing the scientific effort of medical doctors, scientists and engineers? was this always true? if not when and what started all of this?
as a tea partier, engineer and conservative, believe me. there is no one who loves truth, reason and scientific inquiry more than a conservative. inquiry and invention are a way to better know our God and also a primary means by which wealth is created for the civil society. without wealth creation, the civil society and all inventive endeavours including art and science must wither and die.
truely, given the argument i’ve outlined, i would be astonished to find a statist or leftist with a real understanding of science.
It seems as though every evil known to man can be traced to that single event. But then again I am not qualified to post on this thread, as I have no post baccalaureate education. Are the kittys sleeping in the windowsill?
“What would be your counterargument ? “
University Researchers are almost singularly focused on government grants.
Government Labs are huge money-wasters, with some small fraction of research being useful.
Much “research” isn’t research at all.
Not all “research” is good.
Government Grants and government-backed student loans are two legs of the liberal ivory-tower. It must be cast as being crucial - and if it’s cut or not increased exponentially the conveyor of non-functioning liberal minds out into government and the body politic collapses.
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.