Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (10877)	7/8/2009 12:36:52 PM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

I must admit that I laughed pretty hard after reading that quote.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (10877)	7/8/2009 1:00:04 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

The Rightful Place of Science? Within the Bosom of the Democratic Party In the current Issues in Science and Technology Dan Sarewitz has an essay titled "The Rightful Place of Science" available here in PDF. Dan is a brilliant writer and a creative genius. It is amazing that he is not a major columnist for a leading newspaper or magazine. Here are a few excerpts from his excellent piece on science and politics in the Obama era: On Obama's stem cell policies: . . .there is nothing at all anti-science about restricting the pursuit of scientific knowledge on the basis of moral concerns. Societies do this all the time; for example, with strict rules on human subjects research. The Bush and Obama policies differ only as a matter of degree; they are fundamentally similar in that neither one cedes moral authority to science and scientists. When it comes to embryonic stem cells, the “rightful place of science” remains a place that is located, debated, and governed through democratic political processes. On Obama's decision to terminate Yucca Mountain's site characterization: All of the major Democratic presidential candidates, seeking an edge in the 2008 election, opposed the site; shutting it down was one of Barack Obama’s campaign promises, which he fulfilled by cutting support for the program in the fiscal year 2010 budget, an action accompanied by no fanfare and no public announcement. At this point it is tempting to write: “It’s hard to imagine a case where politics trumped science more decisively than in the case of Yucca Mountain, where 20 years of research were traded for five electoral votes and the support of a powerful senator,” which seems basically correct, but taken out of context it could be viewed as a criticism of President Obama, which it is not. But the point I want to make is only slightly more subtle: Faced with a complex amalgam of scientific and political factors, President Obama chose shortterm political gain over longer-term scientific assessment, and so decided to put an end to research aimed at characterizing the Yucca Mountain site. This decision can easily be portrayed in the same type of language that was used to attack President Bush’s politicization of science. On science as a political carrot: When President Obama was urgently seeking to push his economic stimulus package through Congress in the early days of his administration, he needed the support of several Republican senators to guard against Republican filibuster and to bolster the claim that the stimulus bill was bipartisan. Senator Arlen Specter, who suffers from Hodgkin’s disease, agreed to back the stimulus package on the condition that it includes $10 billion in additional funding for NIH. For this price a vote was bought and a filibuster-proof majority was achieved. Now there is nothing at all wrong with making political deals like this; good politics is all about making deals. What’s interesting in this case is the pivotal political importance of a senator’s support for science. If Senator Specter (who, perhaps coincidentally, underwent a party conversion several months later) had asked for $10 billion for a new weapons system or for abstinence-only counseling programs, would his demand have been met? Bottom line: And so perhaps we have now discovered the rightful place of science: not on a pedestal, not impossibly insulated from politics and disputes about morality, but nestled within the bosom of the Democratic Party. Is this a good place for science to be? For the short term, increased budgets and increased influence for the scientific-technological elite will surely be good for the scientific enterprise itself. .... The Democratic Party’s enthusiastic embrace of science is delivering immediate financial rewards for research, but it raises long-term questions about the politicization of science. ..... Do read the whole thing. Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com

To: RetiredNow who wrote (10877)	7/8/2009 9:46:18 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Are conservatives now against academia and education in general? Is that what you call the drivel that your liberals are brain-washing our children with? Hell, look at the propaganda your "academia" is spewing about GW and human contributions relating to increasing atmospheric CO2. Your "academia" completely ignores the issue of "deforestation" of the oceanic phytoplankton and the impact that has on rising CO2 levels.. Even a uneducated simpleton should be able to understand that correlation. Yet it's missing from all the IPCC data. My sister is an environmental science teacher and we've had untold of discussions/arguments related to CO2. I mention Phytoplankton and CO2 and it's like she's been programmed NOT to incorporate that into her analysis because it's there no "human causation" that is clearly observable. Never forget that before there was an Academia, there was the School of Hard Knocks. Also remember that Common Sense is an oxymoron. "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. Sir Winston Churchill" British politician (1874 - 1965) Hawk