Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
14 Science Questions the Next President Should Answer
blog.wired.com — What exactly do John McCain and Barack Obama know about science? That's what the folks behind Science Debate 2008 want to know, and to find out, they've developed 14 questions they sent to the candidates and hope to discuss with them at a science-only debate.
jaybol- 1095 diggs
- digg it
- SheilaNoya, on 07/03/2008, -17/+73It's also important to know who their technical and scientific advisors are.
Bush put Evangelical Christians in charge of science programs instead of using qualified scientists. Bush's advisors on technology related issues consisted of a lot of old men who didn't know crap about technology. Unfortunately, McCain has surrounded himself with the same incompetent "advisors" who worked for Bush and even Bush's father.
Obama has already built up a team of well qualified supporters in the fields of technology and science. This is a huge difference between the two candidates.- jcm267, on 07/03/2008, -5/+12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marburger
Are you talking about this guy?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush. ...
"Mr. Marburger said in a telephone interview that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Mr. Marburger also said that Mr. Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes."- oldgal, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5I don't remember "social context" being a part of my science classes. Put it in history or philosophy classes along with the creationist ideas of other religions.
- tech42er, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1@oldgal, i'm sure your science classes included Lamarckism to give context to Darwinism and spntaneous generation to give context to Pasteur, right?
- superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -22/+8Because of course, no one with any religion can ever be a "real" scientist.
I hate bigots.- pilot3033, on 07/03/2008, -5/+10"I hate bigots"
Any witty remark from me is not needed. - superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -10/+3Nor possible, apparently. Note that bigots are the one category of people, it is categorically acceptable to dislike.
- gsadamb, on 07/03/2008, -2/+13No one is saying that religious people can't be good scientists. But when they put their beliefs ahead of established science (science of course, being testable and not based on faith) when doing their job, then there's a conflict.
There's no way to test "intelligent design," but there are ways of testing and refining evolution. - belebih, on 07/03/2008, -2/+9Being against religious nuts who know nothing about science giving advice on scientific issues is not bigotry, just common sense.
- CryRightardCry, on 07/03/2008, -4/+5I hate dumbass rightards who can't tell fairy tales from real science.
- pilot3033, on 07/03/2008, -5/+10"I hate bigots"
- LeeSoong, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7#1a.
Life develops through :
a.) Evolution, or
b.) Sky boogie man ?
Take your time, think it over before you answer 'a' or 'b'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o- jcm267, on 07/04/2008, -5/+1Does evolution explain the origin of life? I don't think it does. And I'm not a creationist.
- LeeSoong, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2jcm267 - no, for the origins of life, you're going to have to visit the physics and chemistry departments.
But to discuss the development of living organisms, just visit any researcher trying to develop new antibiotics against drug resistant infectious diseases...
- cashman57, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2Given the fact Obama thinks global warming is real and thus volcanoes do not exist any answer from him would be a punchline to a joke.
There are no computer models that show global warming without omitting all data from volcanic activity.
I think it's funny that someone allegedly born in Hawaii would not believe volcanoes exist.
- jcm267, on 07/03/2008, -5/+12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marburger
- fireashes, on 07/03/2008, -16/+5I will bet if either one of them will be answered by McCain.
- jotate, on 07/03/2008, -0/+20English hard.
- doctechnical, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10?SN ERROR
- ryleyleckie, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4use your words...
- rationalbeats, on 07/03/2008, -14/+45"Barack Obama's early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent an increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years"
There is your answer to Obama's commitment to space.
***** *****.- sgiffy, on 07/03/2008, -2/+5I like his plan to encourage science in schools, but hopefully he will come up with a different funding mechanism.
- bxblox, on 07/03/2008, -6/+24Of all places to cut money, NASA should be at the bottom of the list.
- InfiniteNothing, on 07/03/2008, -4/+7I love NASA but I question the urgency of that program.
- FeartheKnighted, on 07/03/2008, -1/+20Delaying Constellation 5 years!?! What the ***** are we supposed to do until then? The shuttle gets retired in 1.5 years people. Do the math. That is *****.
PS here's the link about Obama's plans for NASA: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/obama-p ...- rationalbeats, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4It means he wants to kill NASA. He does not care what NASA will do.
- bhavinp, on 07/03/2008, -12/+7Ok I am all for science and technology but seriously, people like you are idiots. There are a lot bigger issues then space exploration right now.
The astronomical deficit
The Environment
Ending the War- rationalbeats, on 07/03/2008, -1/+13Yay you know in the 1960's the world was a peaceful place and that is why we decided to endeavor to go to the moon. There was nothing else going on in 1969.
- FeartheKnighted, on 07/03/2008, -3/+6There were a lot more important things going on in Spain in the 1490s, but nobody gives a ***** about them now. A lot of people care about what CC did though.
People like you make me sick. - axis, on 07/03/2008, -4/+2My thought exactly. I can think of a lot of things that would need money other than space exploration. There are also a lot of other things that can be squashed too, but I don't think taking from NASA is such a big deal. Maybe some increased alternative fuel funding. I believe NASA could even benefit from something like that, which they could use on research instead of fuel to get them where they want to go.
But as the article goes...
I don't expect the President to know and answer every question, especially about science. That isn't most of their specialties, gifted minds are scientists. - superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6The deficit in astronomical operations are exactly why the space budget needs to be increased, and not shrunk.
People will always have problems. As a species we are better off always at least spending some resources furthering understanding, so that we can better help future generations instead of a relative handful of people live a little more comfortably today. - treas, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6Who knows what technologies NASA might develop with their space programs. The data NASA collects could some day provide a completely renewable energy source, just as an example.
- chukd, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6You seem to forget the advances in technology and industry that came with NASA in the 60's. A lot of current technology and material science came from that program. By placing money in NASA, they are investing in science and technology advances. This goes towards medical research, green energy, developement of technologies that can save our planet from say an asteroid, etc... . NASA is not a money drain. If anything, NASA has given more back to this country in form of advancement, then we have given them in the form of money.
- rationalbeats, on 07/03/2008, -1/+13Yay you know in the 1960's the world was a peaceful place and that is why we decided to endeavor to go to the moon. There was nothing else going on in 1969.
- a1cd, on 07/03/2008, -3/+21Education is one of the biggest blackholes of government money there is, there are places where people can get a education in a small shack, 1 teacher and no textbooks... and yet here in NA, we give our kids laptops and they still fail.
There is something wrong with the school system in America.. but money is not it.
The things N.A.S.A has done with next to zero funds, is amazing.. just think what they could do with the war budget! - zwaldowski, on 07/03/2008, -4/+6Honestly. Our education system, economy, foreign policy, and world relations are in the *****. I'm all for space exploration and such, but we really need to fix this *****. And education is where the fixes start. Stop whining, we're not getting anywhere in space anytime soon anyways.
- LeeSoong, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1It would be nice to expand the Origins program,
and actually locate nearby Earth type planets.
Then NASA could send some long range interplanetary probes to those planets with water and look for life.
Ultimately start the plans for colonizing new planets with humans.
Who is brave enough to volunteer on a one way trip ?
The beginnings of such a great human achievement would be worth seeing in this lifetime.
- LeeSoong, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1It would be nice to expand the Origins program,
- Nietz1950, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5That's an odd perspective. Usually, those in academia are highly critical of programs like manned-space because it provides little scientific value per dollar compared to other fields. I usually see people defend the space program on emotional grounds... it inspires the youth to become engineers or gives Americans something to be proud of.
- LeeSoong, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3That $18 Billion could go towards soldiers body armor and ammo for their up coming deployment to Iran.
- lornali, on 07/03/2008, -7/+2Interesting.
- mentallyinhell, on 07/03/2008, -5/+26The only thing that really bugs me is that politicians have a say in these issues at all. These are questions for scientists and people that understand these issues and the ethics involved. How many politicians know more than a slideshow about half of these issues?
- rewinn, on 07/03/2008, -5/+11Well, I disagree. Read the questions carefully.
They aren't questions like "Is evolution real?" or "How old is the earth?" which are scientific matters, not to be decided by politicians (...although it would be amusing to see McCain struggle with them...). The questions are "How would you prioritize...." which, in an era of limited resources (...resources are ALWAYS limited...) is the right question in a hiring interview for an executive.- SpykerSpeed, on 07/03/2008, -3/+4Prioritization should be determined by the markets, not politicians.
- Nietz1950, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Well, scientific research is not really market-driven. It's a field in which all information is freely given for everyone to build on. Private markets only focus on technologies you can patent or keep secret, shying away from general research that anyone can copy.
It's regulated by academies of peers. You're right, it shouldn't be controlled by politicians, but it shouldn't be kept wrapped up by markets either. Other respected scientists need to manage priorities and politicians should accept their scientific judgments.
- warhol15, on 07/03/2008, -4/+3I completely agree with you "mentallyinhell"... it's like, "lets elect the guy who is best at trivial pursuit." What do you mean McCain doesn't know the Defense Minister of Randomastan?!?!
I don't want a god-like-I-have-an-answer-for-everything-guru president. Please. Just run the government efficiently. Can we start with that, or is that too much to ask for? - oldgal, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2But the reality is that they do, and therefore it becomes part of the consideration in who we elect.
- rewinn, on 07/03/2008, -5/+11Well, I disagree. Read the questions carefully.
- Mokole, on 07/03/2008, -4/+34I would take all the money being spent on the war and use it to support all 14 of these areas.
- jcm267, on 07/03/2008, -5/+5I think we should be using far less money on education, for one. School choice is one of my top issues.
- doctechnical, on 07/03/2008, -6/+7Why is the federal government involved in education at all? That's a local issue, let the states deal with it as they like.
- Hortnon, on 07/03/2008, -7/+11@doctechnical
Then you have xxxxx state teaching kids God is why science exists, and California handing out free Marijuana to all its students. And none of the people that went to either of these systems will be able to work together in adulthood.
Standardization is important. Choice is fine, as long as they all get some degree of equivelant education. - vault, on 07/03/2008, -3/+3@doc
The federal government has to be setting some minimum standards and basic curriculum, but beyond that it's up to the schools themselves- not state or local governments- to improve themselves
The current public school system gives substandard education to inner city kids and has an 'unofficial' segregation policy because the neighborhood you live in determines which school you're sent to. Yet if we had a voucher system, inner city parents who can't afford a private school could send their kids to a better school.
Right now the only way to do that is with a limited number of scholarships, or the limited number of magnet schools with a limited number of spots. And that's assuming the kid can get into the magnet school, whereas with vouchers even kids of average intelligence could go to a better school.
It would go such a long way in improving race relations, urban quality of life, productivity, graduation rates, etc.
And with public schools, a good teacher who really works hard and inspires students isn't going to get paid more, just like a bad teacher isn't going to get paid less and it's even far less likely for him or her to get fired over that. Yet in a private school that can and does happen. With public schools, there's no real incentive to get better because you make the same money either way. It's idealistic and naive to think the majority of teachers (not all) will work harder for any other reason. - WasabiBomb, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4In my opinion, education is the single most important issue... or, at least, it SHOULD be. It doesn't matter what social, economic, or militaristic plans a President has for a country... if the country's children aren't getting a proper education, those plans will ultimately fail.
I've always felt that the highest-paid position in any field should be that of a teacher in that field. We should have professionals fighting to get teaching jobs, so we can get the best possible teachers. Instead, education pays so poorly that we've even got a saying describing the situation: "Those what can't do, teach."
That's just sad. - jcm267, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Teachers don't get paid poorly in most areas. In my State teachers are overpaid. The last time I checked the average pay for a teacher in the nearby city's district is in the $60,000s. This is for a job where you get summers off, long holiday breaks, snow days off (and now, god kids are being pampered, "hot" days off), excellent health benefits, and a generous pension.
You shouldn't have to be paid a CEO's salary to teach a room full of 3rd graders. You should LIKE your job as a teacher and not do it for the money. That being said, I don't think teachers should be paid squat.
We need to stop just throwing more money at our schools whenever we think there's a problem. For the good of our country's future we need school vouchers and NOT higher teachers salaries. - vault, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Vouchers can only work if they pay good teachers more money and fire bad teachers. No one would want to work at a voucher-funded private for less money than they could make in corporate America. There are not many people in this world who love teaching so much they'll accept substantially less money than they could make elsewhere, and that's a big part of why we have the problem we do.
But just paying public school teachers more money isn't going to do it because the current system makes it hard to fire a bad teacher, makes it nearly impossible to pay based on merit, and the schools themselves have little incentive to improve.
The average teacher's salary nationwide is in the high 40's. That's not a lot of money for a competent private sector worker. The salary and benefits package tends to attract people who want a job where it's hard to get fired, people who were unsuccessful in the business world, and idiots. - tech42er, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1@Hortnon
Yeah, how about people who go t private schools? Some people will go to really liberal ones and others to really conservative ones. They still have to work together. Look, private schooling works beautifully, so you can't say it wouldn't work when applied to the public school system!
- superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -4/+1Except Obama is not going to be supporting withdrawl for much longer so he can't use those funds:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_rewrites_I ... - InfiniteNothing, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Withdrawing costs money too.
- Daedalus17, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1How about you take all the money being spent on the war and GIVE IT BACK TO THE PEOPLE YOU TOOK IT FROM! That way the people can support scientific endeavors they want to support with their own money. What a novel concept.
- jcm267, on 07/03/2008, -5/+5I think we should be using far less money on education, for one. School choice is one of my top issues.
- onetimer, on 07/03/2008, -7/+25Without a doubt, scientific research is the most important thing that man-kind can do to ensure a continued and pro-long existence. No matter how vital it is, some people (including digg's former crush, R. Paul, as well as the libertarians) will still question the role of government in scientific research. I always thought that NSF said it best:
"Vannevar Bush clearly recognized that applications of research results often appear many years after the work is started and that there is no certainty as to which of the many national needs will benefit from this work. He also observed that "…basic research is essentially non- commercial in nature. It will not receive the attention it requires if left to industry."10 Today this concept is recognized as a lack of "appropriability." Because of the long-term nature of research and the uncertainties in predicting its practical applications, a company cannot be certain that investment in research will result in a competitive advantage in the worldwide marketplace. Indeed, the increase in global competition has exacerbated the "appropriability" issue. It consequently has increased the need for government support of research.
The Bush vision encouraged the mission agencies to support research universities in fields that were deemed to have probable long-term relevance to their missions. It also led to the establishment of the National Science Foundation and the gradual building of its budget to the point that it has become a major source of support for science and engineering in our universities. The National Science Board was created with its dual mission of overseeing the activities of NSF and monitoring the health of science in the Nation.
As a result of implementing the Bush vision, our research universities have become the envy of the world. The application of new knowledge and talent in science has indeed created handsome benefits in the three areas Bush identified. We will cite just one example in each area. The understanding of the structure and properties of DNA opened up totally new opportunities to address health issues and provided the basis for the vibrant new biotechnology industry. Polymer and photochemical research led to the creation of photoresists that are key to the success of the microelectronics industry, which accounts for well over a quarter of a million jobs in the U. S. today. The atomic clock, which was based on research in atomic physics and was stimulated by needs in astronomy, provided a foundation for the development of the Global Positioning System to satisfy a critical defense need. More recently, it is creating a large commercial marketplace for everything from ships to backpackers."
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1997/nsb97186/nsb ...
(read section II for the full text)
The continued funding of scientific research is near the top as an issue for me. I know this view isn't shared by most americans, but hopefully one day people will stop and think about the things they are using (computers, the internet, plastics, advanced medicine) and realize just how important it is...- peterpeterpan, on 07/03/2008, -12/+1tl; dr
- doctechnical, on 07/03/2008, -3/+6I think you underestimate the value of commercial research, after all it gave us nice things like the transister, the LED, lasers, graphical user interface, fun stuff like that.
As long as you have politicians involved in funding research you'll get moslty the research the politicians want to see.
And keep in mind that a good amount of the research paid for by the government is sponsored by the defense departments. Large-scale-integrated chips (critical for the development of micro-computers) were created for missile guidence systems. The Internet was a DARPA project itself. Even the moonshot was essentially a defense project, it was a cold-war propaganda win.
To the degree taxpayer money is going to be spent to fund research and technologies I'd like to see it done in the way of prizes, like McCain has suggested. Offer a prize for a reusable orbital payload carrier, or a solar power satellite, or a colony on the moon - if someone can claim the prize than the world has a wonderful new technology to make it a better place, and the taxpayer money spent can foster a new industry (==more taxes, more employment). If the prize isn't claimed, you've spent no more money than the cost of the ink and paper the rules were written on.- onetimer, on 07/03/2008, -3/+15"As long as you have politicians involved in funding research you'll get moslty the research the politicians want to see"
Luckily organizations that allocate funding like the NSF and NIH are run by scientists, so this point is not nearly as valid as those who have not as much understanding of the system think it is.
"And keep in mind that a good amount of the research paid for by the government is sponsored by the defense departments."
Well i'm not sure exactly what percentage of government sponsored research goes through the DoD, it is just one segment along with those like NASA and the NIH, which some politicians view as expendable, sadly.
I'm with you on those "x-prizes" though. But they aren't perfect. Some kinds of research needs enormous amounts of capitol even just to began, where in such situations these "money later" situations just aren't ideal. - Nietz1950, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5But even those "commercial research" discoveries you listed were primarily funded from government grants. Bell Labs or IBM wouldn't even have existed with the government funding. Such basic research is really not common in today's competitive environment though, as most research is now applied and needs bottom-line justifications.
- onetimer, on 07/03/2008, -3/+15"As long as you have politicians involved in funding research you'll get moslty the research the politicians want to see"
- PeppermintPig, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6onetimer: "No matter how vital it is, some people (including digg's former crush, R. Paul, as well as the libertarians) will still question the role of government in scientific research."
Of course they will, because that's a completely absurd notion. No matter how good the intention is, it's not government's role to do any and everything it can think of. The market drives a healthy growth and development of technology. Government regulation, including privileged monopoly, has stifled advancement. For example, government's claiming dominance over radio spectrum to regulate its use.
The more you forcefully take from people to fund these things, the less freedom of choice people have for all things, including scientific development. Uninformed politicians begin to dictate what is studied, or not studied. By condoning government's involvement in these things, you tacitly approve Bush's agenda, however grossly negligent it may be.
Central planning is inadequate for the task of integrating technological developments and resisting its abuse (and it seems we've had quite enough abuse of technology by the state lately, no??). Science through government funding is parasitic, and its results are generally not as utilitarian in nature as people like yourself, who support government funding for science, imagine them to be. Rather, government funds programs strongly in the interest of the state, and not the people, including reinforcing the pharmaceutical industry, and the vast military industrial complex.
By deviating from a respect for the individual, and for property, the funding of science, as well as the nature of the science studied is similarly deviant in nature. If it is your intention to have a society that enjoys the fruits of technological discovery that they are funding, while minimizing the hazards and abuses of the technology, why the hell would you let government make all decisions here??- onetimer, on 07/04/2008, -6/+2Peppermint, I respect your opinion, but please don't act like you opinion of "not the governments role to fund research" is some kind of fact.
As for the rest of your libertarian "all taxes are evil" talking points, well, as long as you hold that opinion there is no point in further discussion. - PeppermintPig, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5Government taints the things it touches by enabling unaccountability (this would be an argument, and you're welcome to refute it). It's more than opinion, it's observation, study, and what passes for 'factual' knowledge. I mean, we can have a discussion about things happening in the real world, judging the activities of people in government, can't we?
"As for the rest of your libertarian "all taxes are evil" talking points, well, as long as you hold that opinion there is no point in further discussion."
When I argue a point, I at least back it up, illustrating the economic or moral blind spots people may have in asserting a belief or plan of action.
You can't do one aggressive act to prevent another without initiating violence (this is another argument, which you're welcome to refute if you can).
If you don't want to face these issues, that's fine, but at least know what you're talking about. The attack you make against libertarianism is an amusing way of avoiding the discussion.
You shouldn't be surprised by the opposition when you advocate the slavery of others. Here, again, you can laugh and set it aside by ignoring the context within which the statement is made, but that's how you typically act. You might make an argument, but I doubt it. - vault, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4You know I'm all for smaller government but there are realistic limits. I wouldn't want us to stop funding cancer research, for example. You have to figure research accounts for a very tiny portion of the taxes we pay and the benefits are so much more.
And as far as the 'military industrial complex' goes, you do realize they created the internet, so clearly government-funded research has its upside. - Nietz1950, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Markets are influenced by competition and Governments are influenced by democratic participation. There are certainly instances where some are better in particular circumstances.
It's true the current administration has tried to manipulate scientific reports more than any prior, but I always saw a large outcry from the public and academic community every time it was tried. This was democracy working and that is accountability.
Do private firms ever try to manipulate studies that may harm their profitability? Most write directly into their grants that such information cannot be published.
- onetimer, on 07/04/2008, -6/+2Peppermint, I respect your opinion, but please don't act like you opinion of "not the governments role to fund research" is some kind of fact.
- DarkReign16, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2You're actually wrong. I am not against the government spending money on research that would benefit everyone, and I'm a pretty extreme libertarian. I just think that a private organization can do a better job, especially if there are multiple organizations competing for some kind of grant money or something. But that doesn't mean the government can't do a good job, NASA has done pretty good.
Please don't try and make us look bad, especially when Obama is the one who is going to cut NASA's budget.- Nietz1950, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1The first problem I see is that of empirical value: No country developed a large educated workforce without the government providing most of the cost. Those countries with exceptionally high government influence (Scandinavians especially) generally do the best. General research has always been done by the government, simply because you cannot keep basic discoveries from your competitors.
But the second is most explanatory: The private industry needs secrecy and patents in order to keep research profitable. Academia has always been open, allowing everything to be published for peer-review and to be built on by others. This system seems very effective for science. - PeppermintPig, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5Not to say that this is besides the point, but what's so special about what government is doing as opposed to what individuals can do on their own in terms of education?
"No country developed a large educated workforce without the government providing most of the cost."
Are you suggesting it's impossible?
"General research has always been done by the government, simply because you cannot keep basic discoveries from your competitors."
Do people in government become somehow infallible? I read many stories of government agents misplacing laptops.
Private industry does not in fact need patents, though many want a system like that. That doesn't mean government needs to provide an IP infrastructure and judicial system to protect these things.
Academia and science are not open. They are insulated communities. - Nietz1950, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Academia is open in that all research is published for review into the community. Other researchers are then free to cite, learn from, and add to prior research.
The private industry needs to keep their research secret to extract profit. Nobody will spend large sums of money on basic research when competitors will simply avoid the costs and take the findings. Private corporations are not interested in scientific growth of the society - they need to be concerned with their individual growth.
The government funds such research because they can collect more revenues if the entire population grows faster. - PeppermintPig, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4"Private corporations are not interested in scientific growth of the society - they need to be concerned with their individual growth."
Self-interest to grow the company is not mutually exclusive with an interest in scientific research. Just because they intend to profit doesn't mean they are not interested in society. Their means of funding advancement correlates directly in their ability to profit, and by creating a product for public consumption, how is it therefore a dishonest venture? Do you have a right to free knowledge?
"The government funds such research because they can collect more revenues if the entire population grows faster."
I fail to see the appeal or reason behind government funding, and by suggesting government has an interest in seeing population growth, it provides an incentive for government to manipulate individuals into making choices that are probably not in their best interest.
Democrats do more, inadvertently or not, to grow a population of welfare users, who tend to vote Democratic and maintain their status of power over government.
Therefore, as I argued before, government is not working in as utilitarian a mode as you think concerning the fruits of scientific research benefiting the average individual.
Not only do jobs become unsustainable, vanish, and show up in foreign markets, but the skill level of workers in the US is sinking, so the idea that the government wants to fund science, or do it well needs to be disambiguated:
There are people in government who would certainly prefer to promote a religious agenda over science, so it's important to recognize the conflict of interests within the government itself.
But more importantly, the Science they do want to promote is less efficient than that which private industry can achieve. In essence, some scientific research requires more funding, but that shouldn't lead one to assume that the government is the only one capable of providing that funding, as government will still require more money to study the same thing as the private organization because of bureaucratic overhead involved in general tax collection.
Just because an organization is 'private' doesn't mean their research will automatically be private, either. There doesn't have to be a product tie-in on the end of the research for an organization in the market to do a better job either: It's simply to recognize that there is less room for waste and squandering of resources, which motivates innovation and efficiency. Government, having a virtually limitless, but nevertheless morally corrupt means of funding research, will virtually always be less efficient. - Nietz1950, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1I don't see any evil or generosity in governments or private corporations. A government can function by funding basic research and giving away the technology, as we see in microwaves, internet, GPS, etc. Private firms cannot profit in this way and must stick to application research, which must be kept away from competitors or patented to justify the cost.
When it comes to science, history has just shown the open model of distributed information grows much faster. I don't see open information as a "right", but if you want faster general science then OPEN is the better model.
It doesn't really make sense to suggest the US is somehow falling behind in science and the government's inefficiency is the cause. Those nations that have moved ahead of the US have much larger government research spending programs, and tend to have the highest tax rates in the world (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, etc). The OECD education at a glance report attributed the early US lead in science to the massive government spending on education and the GI Bill. Other nations saw this advantage and copied the model in the 70s and beyond.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/13/35341210.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/20/37392850.pdf
The US has not performed worse - the reports show continued improvement everywhere - Europe and some Asian countries have just grown even faster as their government spending has grown. Nearly all provide free university, larger % GDP on education, and a larger public share of research.
From a practical standpoint, there's nothing preventing private corporations from doing all the research they want today (they even get a 20% tax credit). The government just adds even more (about half of total research and nearly all general research) to keep us in the game... if we cut this funding, we would still be left with less scientific research and Europe would still attract / produce more scientists as they have done since the 90s.
Nor do I see much more than blind faith to the argument that government = inefficiency in science. Overhead and administration costs are always far lower than private industry counterparts and GAO studies have always shown this out, even under terrible administrations. Spending is primarily allocated by other scientists (not politicians) from the largest academies. Public universities and private firms compete for the funding, and their results are public and have to be disclosed as such.
You'll notice I'm not arguing the government is more efficient (although I doubt the government can be too wasteful on handing out grants as NAS advises). I'm pointing out most research just never gets done by the private sector because nobody is willing to pay for it. Those countries we want to compete with spend a lot on science, and the government just happens to be the mechanism they use. - Nietz1950, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1"Democrats do more, inadvertently or not, to grow a population of welfare users, who tend to vote Democratic and maintain their status of power over government."
I'm addressing this on its own. When I look at the data, I see the US has the highest poverty rates in the developed world, but the lowest proportion of social spending. The sharpest decline in poverty was during the New Deal and the second-fastest decline in poverty was during the Great Society program.
Prior to the Great Society, 25% of the population lived in poverty, while it dropped to 12% during the program and stayed there even after funding was cut due to Vietnam and later Reagan. Poverty is about 14% today (slightly higher due to a small rise between 2001-2008), so the people taken out of poverty have generally not fallen back. Still, this is an incredibly high poverty rate compared to European countries - especially the Scandinavian nations with only 5% poverty, and median incomes higher than the US. These countries of course have the highest proportion of social spending in the world and are far more extreme than US Democrats.
When I'm forced to look at the statistics, I really don't see any statistical evidence to suggest Democrats favor policies that increase poverty. The evidence all goes the other way.
- Nietz1950, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1The first problem I see is that of empirical value: No country developed a large educated workforce without the government providing most of the cost. Those countries with exceptionally high government influence (Scandinavians especially) generally do the best. General research has always been done by the government, simply because you cannot keep basic discoveries from your competitors.
- cashman57, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3Once again onetimer pulls some crap out of his shorts and throws it at the supporters of the candidate who has the most education in science.
Once again he decides what we are to believe and then knocks us with his stupid thoughts.
If only onetimer had read the Constitution he would know that scientific research was important to the founders. If only he actually read what Ron Paul is about he would know that Ron Paul supports the Constitution. Yet again this poser shows his ignorance and arrogance and allows us to see what a true piece of crap he is by slamming people who really want the best for America.
When you look at McSame you see he is really no different than the current resident of 1600 Penn. Ave. Like onetimer he is ignorant and arrogant and would not know a fact if it slapped him.
McSame should not be asked these 14 questions for the same reason OBushma should not be asked, they will lie. They have both proved to the American people that they have no integrity at all.
The candidate with integrity is the one that onetimer hates so much he would denigrate any American who supported him and supports common sense. Under president Paul we would see a continuation of research but on a smaller scale until the danger of an economic collapse has passed but under McSame and OBushma we will see more borrowing of trillions of dollars without a thought as to the havoc it will wreak upon the next generation and the one that follows.
Thanks to ignorance from McSame and OBushma we have seen deficit budgets passed and spending on off-budget things increase which puts a bigger strain on those who will have to pay for the ignorance of OBushma and McSame and those who support these two despite the concrete proof neither can be trusted.
As a Libertarian who was one of the first people in America to register as a Libertarian I understand what the Constitution says and means and also what the proper role of government is.
That's why I laugh at dolts like onetimer who make stupid claims and then try to assert that the intelligent people who supported the most qualified candidate hols such opinions.
I am happy to support science but there were more scientific advances outside of government than funded by government.
I would not support any expenditure which would endanger the Americans who will follow us, unlike McSame and OBushma, I care about the people who will try to make a life here in this country long after OBushma and McSame are footnotes in history.
- jotate, on 07/03/2008, -4/+12No asking how they feel about intelligence design in schools? You can put forth as many programs to increase scientific production as you see fit. If you let kids be taught that "evolution is just a theory" and ID is an equally reputable scientific theory, you're short changing the very base of their ability to process scientific, logical thought.
- doctechnical, on 07/03/2008, -12/+5Why should the federal government be involved in education? That's a local matter, let the states and municipalities run their own systems.
- rationalbeats, on 07/03/2008, -3/+11Because education is a matter of national security.
- SQLDigger, on 07/03/2008, -5/+3Like douchy said, because thought control is a matter of "protecteeng the national interrrest" . . .
I'm with you, doc . . . no more stupid hoops to jump through for federal funding. - pintomp3, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3states and municipalities get to decide what facts are? can they start teaching the intelligent falling too? no wonder our country is falling behind in the scientists.
- KLBP, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1The idea of independent control at the local level seems like a utopia ideal, but it is failing our students. One reason the United States is falling behind rest of the world is because of too much local control. Local school boards can run totally a muck and create highly ineffective curriculums. Also some communities can not afford decent schools. This is not to say Bush's grand "No Child Left Behind" was any better, but a lot of what is taught in schools and when it is taught should not be left to elected officials. It needs to be planned and structured by highly qualified educational professionals and not be so susceptible to the whims of an elected school board (e.g. Kansas board of education removing evolution from the curriculum). With this said, standardized testing isn't necessarily the answer either.
My wife is Russian and she has spent time volunteering in schools here in the U.S. (we have no children yet) to get a feel for our schools. She was totally appalled by what she saw. There is a complete lack of discipline in classrooms. Students talk back to teachers, teachers are strictly limited as to how they can discipline students, students are more worried about what they are wearing than what they are studying, etc. By the fifth grade U.S. students are at least two years behind what a Russian child would be.
If we are going to compete on a world stage, our children need better educations and we must expect more out of our children. That means more federal involvement and money in the educational system to help bring some level of consistency with schools throughout the country. Children in poor communities have the same right to a good education as children in wealthier communities and this can not happen if local schools must rely solely on local taxes.
We must also expect more out of our children. Grade inflation does not serve our children very well. On the world stage, getting straight A's for watered down subjects will not make our children competitive. From kindergarten on our classrooms must become more rigorous and children shouldn't be promoted if they haven't learned what they are supposed to learn in a given grade. It is kinder to a child to hold them back a year if they are not performing up to standards than it is to let them slide through school and get dumped into the real world as an adult without the education they need to compete.
Maybe local school boards should keep the lead role in our schools, but there certainly needs to be more uniformity across the nation in regards to what is taught and when. Teachers also need to better paid with this better pay being tied to their continuing education and qualifications to teach given topics. Teachers should have college degrees related to the subjects they are teaching rather than just having teaching certificates. Someone who majored in athletics should not be teaching math. - Daedalus17, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2"Because education is a matter of national security."
If that is the case then why do we entrust the federal government with educating people? They do a horrible job at it. Shouldn't we take it out of their hands if it is "vital to national security"?
- dshPls, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2"No asking how they feel about intelligence design in schools?"
I think you need this design course.
- doctechnical, on 07/03/2008, -12/+5Why should the federal government be involved in education? That's a local matter, let the states and municipalities run their own systems.
- LonewackoDotCom, on 07/03/2008, -1/+18The questions are idiotic, and I'm sure most of them have already been answered on the candidates' sites or in past speeches. In any case, all of them would be answered in the same way: with stock speeches designed to say as little as possible.
What Wired needs to do is come up with much more specific questions based on things the candidates have already said.
For instance, "you said this, but evidence shows this other thing is true. Do you have evidence to support your assertion?"
If anyone wants to see real debates about various issues, help push this plan:
http://nomoreblather.com/policy-debates - mooseontheloose, on 07/03/2008, -10/+16Obama will be all over the second one. "Climate change? Yes, I'm for it! Change! I'm for change! Everyone look at me. Did you hear I'm for change yet?!"
- ReligionIsBad, on 07/03/2008, -8/+3Let's mix two topics that are sure to get dugg. Politics and science...LAME
- Leomarth, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7I'd be more interested in hearing them answer economics questions.
- PainToad, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4And illegal invasions
- PeppermintPig, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3Who, the politicians or the scientists? I don't think you can expect anything of value from the politicians, or the scientists who take gov funding.
/where does government cheese come from?
- verycheeky, on 07/03/2008, -13/+7What exactly do John McCain and Barack Obama know about science?
NOTHING.. they both believe in the religion of global warming.. END- pintomp3, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7same goes for those idiots and NASA and IPCC. clearly the armchair climatologists on digg know better.
- PeppermintPig, on 07/03/2008, -7/+13Scientist: 'Question, will you fund our experiments and programs, no matter how crazy they may sound?'
Politician: 'Sure.'
Scientist: 'You're qualified!'- OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 07/03/2008, -3/+6You may think that finding the "quantization of ionic hadron bursts" may have no practical applications, but I beg to differ. I will be able to build the next generation SSD for your Iphone, knowing this "impractical" stuff.
- PeppermintPig, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3They may, but why force the people to fund it? I'm not arguing against technological development.
The comment I made can be applied to virtually any other LOBBY group which ASKS GOVERNMENT FOR MONEY.
- PeppermintPig, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3They may, but why force the people to fund it? I'm not arguing against technological development.
- OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 07/03/2008, -3/+6You may think that finding the "quantization of ionic hadron bursts" may have no practical applications, but I beg to differ. I will be able to build the next generation SSD for your Iphone, knowing this "impractical" stuff.
- Hetman, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Those questions will never be answered by any politician. Politicians only answer vague questions as to not upset one of there lobbyists.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 07/03/2008, -5/+4Nice, very politically infused questions, by whoever the author is. How about, what role do you think the (a) teacher's union and (b) the department of education has had in the decline of American science/math education, seeing how Americans were near the top of the world before those two institutions were created? or.... explain how the government's inclusion political correct doctrine has led to the dilution of critical thinking and decline of overall student competency standards?
- nastronomical, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1shh liberals dont wanna hear this..
- scubajim, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Yes, the teacher's Union is for teachers not for furthering education.
- InfiniteNothing, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2You might as well ask "Does your mom know you're gay?"
- Nietz1950, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4The Department of Education has been around for more than a century - it was just a cabinet with the same responsibilities as those of the DOE. The US has the highest proportion of private education of any country outside the 3rd world, a trend that didn't even start until the the 80s. Prior to this, education was more than 95% public.
The OECD's education at a Glance report even cites the reason for the US' early lead in education was the huge government spending and the GI Bill, which created the highest graduation rates in the world.
In the 70s and 80s, the rest of the industrialized world saw the US' success and copied the national education systems. Those considered to "surpass" the US have much larger relative public education programs and even offer free university-education.
The OECD also points out the US didn't get worse - the countries that invested more in education simply grew faster. Do these seem like small-government countries to you? Most have public spending that accounts for half of the economy.
"The contrast is even more pronounced when comparing the current output of high schools: The proportion of the typical age cohort graduating from upper secondary education in 2004 was 90% or more in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Japan, France and Norway. At 75%, the graduation rate for the United States was below the OECD average of 81%"
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/13/35341210.pdf
You're trying to suggest the US education became worse, when no objective measure says this. The US is no longer the leader because some countries created huge government-funded education systems and grew faster.
- Nidy1, on 07/03/2008, -1/+515. Net Neutrality.
- alvarezg, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1515. Educational integrity: What policies would you implement to guarantee that the teaching of science is not subverted by political and religious influences?
- pintomp3, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5both are courting the evangelical vote, i doubt either would commit to that.
- Barackalypse, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2You can't expect anything the government funds and runs not to be subverted by political influences.
- jhelmer, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1Good question. What policies should be implemented to limit the retarded amount of influence the church of global warming has in our schools?
(BTW, the young earth crowd is equally annoying.)
- OSuX, on 07/03/2008, -2/+8I agree, please please please, no more "6000 year old earth" bubba presidents!
- msimeth, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2Who was the last one? Bush doesn't believe that. Neither is McCain. He was asked that question during the primary.
- shauntacular, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6This would've been a lot funnier if it read "14 Science Quetions the Current President Should Answer"
- MnMs, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2If it was 'could' it would be 0.
- wilhoitm, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6My question for the Presidential nominees is - "What is your web site written in?"
- tykwondingo, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Presidential Nominee: "A series of tubes."
- nastronomical, on 07/03/2008, -5/+6Obama on questions 1 - 14.
Answer = Change, Hope Change we will change it for the better by hoping to changeeeee. - Kikinou, on 07/03/2008, -2/+5Obama has stated he plans to cut NASA's funding... unforgivable.
- Barackalypse, on 07/03/2008, -5/+3I looked through the powers the federal government was granted in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and I can't see anything that would allow the government to be funding NASA legally in the first place. However, this isn't Obama's beef with it, he simply needs the money for his unConstitutional social entitlements.
- Nietz1950, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Manned space is actually unpopular with most academics. It just doesn't offer much scientific value for the cost, relative to other fields of research. Of course, some might argue that the space program motivates people into science in the first place, so it has other benefits beyond strict science.
- GoldenPearl, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0How is delaying funding for a program that doesn't even exist so "unforgivable?" I think Obama has lost everything that made him unique and has swallowed his morals for the far left.
- mohsenxp, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Wow and I thought these would be about actual science.
This is just media-science wrapped up in political style questions.
So the whole point is to make them aware of the questions? Give them ample time to be told the answers by their advisors, then listen to them talk and lie as if their word was actually coming from their mind?
Ah welcome to politics. - Shuelin, on 07/03/2008, -5/+0Questions 2 and 10 are my favorite.
http://thegooglehouse.blogspot.com - Brassbud, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1None of those are science questions, they are policy questions regarding issues that affect the scientific community.
A science question would be like: An ice cube with the volume x^3 floats in a cylindrical glass of water with an area of 3x^2. In terms of x, how much does the water level rise when the ice melts?
I want to the candidates answer science questions like that, not some talking points BS. - Barackalypse, on 07/03/2008, -4/+6The only correct answer is the only answer you won't hear: "The federal government doesn't have the authority to fund anything related to this, nor does it have the authority to regulate most of this, nor does it have the intention to get involved, proceed as the market sees fit."
- pintomp3, on 07/03/2008, -3/+4still waiting for that great free market interstate highway system.
- Barackalypse, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2You'll have to wait for the governments highways system to fall apart first, only then would you find private enterprise willing to step in and build an alternative.
- rhodydog, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4I've never understood this argument, people like you are happy to use the fruits of our investments in the future but are unwilling to pay for it. You realize that the very foundation of the technology you're using to voice your opinion is because of longterm funding by our collective funding of R&D be it military, NASA, NSF, NIH or DOE. As part of the community called the US I am more than happy for some pf my earned money money to be collectively spent on future opportunities which individual citizens or corporations would be unable or unwilling to do. Note also that my ability to make money in this country and all other western countries is because collectively we provide enabling infrastructure. The education that we give people in this country also gives me an educated consumer base to sell stuff to. The investments we make pay back huge returns.
- Barackalypse, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2First, I'm fine with the military funding since the government is actually authorized to build and maintain an army and a navy, and a part of that is the necessary technology to keep it modern and capable of defending the country. Its the rest of it that I have an issue with. It doesn't matter if some of what the government spends your money is benefits you, what matters is if the government has the authority to spend it in that way. Any expansion of the government's power beyond what it is legally granted is the single most dangerous thing to your continued freedom
If you want to fund scientific research, great, get out your checkbook and send some money to a startup company researching something that interests you. If you want the government to spend it when it isn't allowed, don't come complaining to me when the government decides to overstep its authority in a way that violates your rights, because I'll be laughing and saying "wouldn't it be great if the Constitution was able to protect you?"
- Barackalypse, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2First, I'm fine with the military funding since the government is actually authorized to build and maintain an army and a navy, and a part of that is the necessary technology to keep it modern and capable of defending the country. Its the rest of it that I have an issue with. It doesn't matter if some of what the government spends your money is benefits you, what matters is if the government has the authority to spend it in that way. Any expansion of the government's power beyond what it is legally granted is the single most dangerous thing to your continued freedom
- pintomp3, on 07/03/2008, -3/+4still waiting for that great free market interstate highway system.
- NelsonR, on 07/03/2008, -2/+0Both candidates, Obama and McCain have chosen the path of hypocrisy while changing positions to garner the most votes. Reminds me of blowing in the wind Hillary. Face it, we Americans will continue our backward slide for decades to come while listening and believing what a candidate has to promise. The current rhetoric of both candidates want me to puke. Obama will now never see my vote since his true color came out of late and it isn't black it's yellow like the cowardly politicians who only say what appeases the illiterate. Americans deserve to become third world citizens.
Go ahead and stay in that winning war of Iraq and waste more men and money, stay forever I could give a crap anymore. Politicians are sickening. - tufftugg, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1 What have any of these questions to do with Politics? People really don't understand Politics.
- OC73, on 07/03/2008, -4/+1I would disregard the question about global warming. The rest are legit.
- Nietz1950, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Of the 20-or so academic academies I can think of, they all have stated an acceptance of the basic facts of global warming (CO2 is the primary driver, mostly due to fossil fuels). There aren't any academies that deny this. As academies are where policy-makers are supposed to get their science, I don't see how GW should be dismissed.
- pintomp3, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8 Daily Star: Should intelligent design be taught in schools?
McCain: I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they’ve got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one line of thinking I don’t think is - or one belief on how people and the world was created - I think there’s nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought.
Daily Star: Does it belong in science?
McCain: There’s enough scientists that believe it does. I’m not a scientist. This is something that I think all points of view should be presented.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/opinion/90521 - AbsurdParadox, on 07/03/2008, -3/+5Hmm, I'm going over the Constitution here, and I don't see anything about any of this sort of stuff...
None of this is the responsibility of the federal government. Though one could make a case for number 10, since water delivery systems are often government monopolies.
We need to get the government out of our lives. The presidents stance on things like stem cell research, space, etc should not matter, because the federal government doesn't have any powers in these departments, what so ever. Most of the major problems in our country are caused by the federal government... why would you turn to it to fix the problems they've created? Would you go back to the same doctor over and over, even after he made you sick?- FreshCliches, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0If the "President's stance on things like stem cell research" don't matter, and if "the federal government doesn't have any powers in these departments", why was our current President making policy regarding stem cell research on August 9th, 2001?
- Yage2006, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Honestly this is a bad idea. Since more then 69% of Americans dont believe in evolution and probably have a negative view on science in general this could only serve to hurt obama and possibly gain votes for the republican candidate.
- PeppermintPig, on 07/04/2008, -3/+61. Innovation.
"Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII."
And??
"What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?"
End corporate welfare. Eliminate every tax I can within my authority.
2. Climate Change.
Captain trade? Isn't that a cereal? Have you noticed the economy is a flaming wreck, and you suggest we make it worse by setting regulations which destroy productivity? The question I would pose is this: Why aren't people able to buy more fuel efficient cars? Why are companies not working hard enough to give people what they want? Perhaps it costs more to be more environmentally friendly? That's not always the case, but I will remove barriers to innovation so that companies and people can connect in the marketplace with environmentally conscious solutions. The way things currently are, we're looking to lose footing as a producer nation, as manufacturing and engineering jobs are no longer cost effective.
3. Energy. "Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?"
We've spent more money starting wars that have increased the cost of energy than focused on improving the environment to allow for more energy choices. Choice lowers costs. Mandating ethanol in gasoline is not only corrupt, but asinine. Ethanol as it is produced from corn costs more to make than one can earn from it. Why are we seeing it in our fuel? Because this government is subsidizing it, at the expense of everyone else. I strongly encourage alternate fuels, but delivery of Ethanol is simply not cost effective. Farming communities may benefit by producing fuel locally, but I believe this is a choice for individuals to make.
4. Education. "What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?"
None. Next question?
5. National Security. "Science and technology are at the core of national security like never before. What is your view of how science and technology can best be used to ensure national security and where should we put our focus?"
We shouldn't use technology to rape individuals of their rights. Science didn't solely get us into the trouble we're in politically, and science will not be the solution... unless you worship the bomb, which I do not.
6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. "In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?"
For one, we should stop forcing government solutions, such as mandatory drugs and antibiotic use: Diseases continue to become increasingly resistant to our drugs because there is no consistent application of these drugs. I support the preservation of ecological diversity and will work with environmental organizations interested in purchasing land for preservation and scientific use.
7. Genetics research. "The field of genetics has the potential to improve human health and nutrition, but many people are concerned about the effects of genetic modification both in humans and in agriculture. What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?"
The right policy is no policy. Do people actually want to live in a Gattaca world with extreme genetic discrimination?
8. Stem cells. "Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?"
I was under the impression that stem cell research was legal. If you want to study it, go to it. Again, I support measures to reduce all spending and eliminate taxes so that research support may come from individuals, who will have more money to do so by choosing how their wealth is used.
9. Ocean Health. "Scientists estimate that some 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are in serious decline and habitats around the world like coral reefs are seriously threatened. What steps, if any, should the United States take during your presidency to protect ocean health?"
Destruction of ocean habitat is a tragedy. I'm afraid the situation will get worse before it gets better. Will I solve the issue in my time as president? I would like to believe I can get the ball rolling. Sea law must be changed: I'm open to recognizing property law for the oceans, establishing protected areas of sensitive or damaged ocean space, to be purchased by environmental organizations which can provide active programs to maintain and improve aquatic ecosystems. Until interest to maintain the ocean catches up with the interest to gather its resources, it will be a difficult period of transition, but the end results shall be worthwhile.
10. Water. "Thirty-nine states expect some level of water shortage over the next decade, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of our water resources are at risk. What policies would you support to meet demand for water resources?"
I detest the implication that we need policies to solve our problems. Most problems are caused by government. I do not seek to dictate scientific study in the US. Technological innovation is promising in the area of water resourcing. I have faith that the market will solve this.
11. Space. The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?
To hell with studying earth from space: Let's advance the study of the earth by going to other planets and solar systems. I strongly believe in space exploration, but I cannot endorse government involvement as such activity can be twisted to undesirable ends. NASA will be scrapped, and make way to private exploration of space. I strongly advise the growth of un-manned space mining to facilitate the development of orbital stations and bases on the moon and mars to prepare for colonization.
12. "Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?"
If you would never hire such politically motivated people to work with you on your scientific team, why would you tolerate government officials doing the same things?
We should never give people money without strings attached. This is a violation of principle. If you want to get government out of your science, get your science out of government funding. Stop panhandling for money.
13. "Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?"
***** nationalism? I will invest a great deal of time in basic research, to determine the best course of action in decimating the budget.
14. "Health. Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality and availability of health care. How do you see science, research and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life? "
I see science, research, and technology contributing to the improvement of health and quality of life. :P
Despite the advance of innovation, government continues to increase taxes and regulations... many people are just barely surviving, heads above the water. I will remove these bonds and allow people to realize the fruits of their labor, and appreciate just how advanced our society is when we have time to be with our families, living more healthy lives in the pursuit of our dreams.
I'm not really running for president, but if you'd vote for me, just let me know. :P - VinnieDaMac, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Wow, talk about booooring. I'm more interested in why Barack Obama never wears a flagpin and how he's a secret muslim.
- diemunkiesdie, on 07/04/2008, -0/+18. Stem cells. "Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?"
Isn't this question's impact kind of moot now? Embryos no longer have to be used as a source of stem cells. An article about it was on digg a while ago. Here is a link http://digg.com/health/Stem_Cell_Breakthrough_Uses ... . Also here is a link to another article from the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... . - WhiteRaven, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3My answers to the questions...
1. Innovation, Answer: None
It is neither the responsibility nor within the power of the President or any other segment of the federal government to foster innovation or to maintain a "lead" in science. It is true that developments in science and technology are vital to the growth an continued prosperity of the nation: this does not make it the purview of the federal government. If the benefits of innovation aren't incentive enough to motivate individuals citizens to participate in discovery and development then we will simply have to accept the outcome.
It is *wrong* for government to designate goals and manipulate situations to meet those goals.
2. Climate Change, Answer: None
Making decisions such as whether or not to accept and react to changing climate or to try to take action to prevent such changes are not the government's to make. Any measures designed to forestall climate change necessarily represent a demand on individual citizens that neither the government nor "society" has the right to make. It is appropriate to try to *persuade* people to take measures; passing laws to mandate changes is tyrannical and contrary to the ideal of liberty which the constitution was designed to preserve.
3. Energy, Answer: None
Interfering with the free market in the name of some kind of energy management/policy is unacceptable. If and when shortages occur, that is a natural result of cause and effect. Fear of such events can not be allowed to justify a loss of liberty.
4. Education, Answer: None
Education is logically and practically a local matter. Any states or districts that fail to educate their populace will reap what they sow. The notion that any national bureaucracy could do a better job is naive at best. While some locals may prove to not be up to the challenge, that does no justify either saddling the rest of the country with an unwieldy centralized system or to confiscate the wealth of one area to aid another.
5. National Security, Answer: As always, determine our needs and contract with industry to meet them.
They ways in which science and technology contribute to national security are countless... from "cyber warfare" to MREs. We have never had much difficulty in finding ways to meet our needs.
6. Pandemics and Biosecurity, Answer: monitor, research and prepare.
We must continue to research possible sources of future breakouts, prepare vaccines for known dangers and develop containment plans. All these things are currently being done to a fair extent. Any more detailed response would require more detailed information.
7. Genetics research, Answer: None
There is no role for the federal government (nor by my preference any other government) in genetic research. This is an endeavor that belongs squarely in the private sector. Only laws limiting research on living persons on the grounds that it can cause direct bodily harm and also the containment of potentially dangerous organisms are relevant.
In other words, the federal government has neither the duty nor authority to fund medical research beyond simple "public health" issues such as the spread of communicable diseases.
8. Stem cells, Answer: Do nothing to hinder research, nor to fund or encourage research.
This is just a sub-set of genetic research and all the above applies. It is a matter for the private sector.
9. Ocean Health, Answer: Managing fisheries and policing toxic dumping are appropriate
No significant changes from the policies of the last 10-15 years seem to be needed.
10. Water, Answer: This is a local issue
As has always been the case, it is the governments jobs to mediate disputes between states. Beyond this, it is up to individual citizens and local governments to do as they see fit. Any problems that are likely to result does not justify interference in the exercise of liberty or states-rights.
11. Space, Answer: Leave space to the private sector
Beyond the use of satellites for security and intelligence, space should be left to the private sector. "Exploration" is not a mandate of the constitution.
12. Scientific Integrity, Answer: Wooh, this is a big one.
One of the main reason NOT to involve the government in science is because that makes science political. THAT IS STUPID. By taking the government out of science we prevent this from ever becoming an issue. Allow individual scientists and private institutions to make mistakes or promote their biases... or excel... without bringing in the twisted warping that the carrot-and-stick of politically motivated funding brings. It is *impossible* to divorce federal funding of research from politics except by divorcing the government from science.
13. Research, Answer: One way to address "budget constraints" is to eliminate research grants
The government should not be involved in the first place. There is no constitutional basis for funding research not directly tied to defense. (I am aware that scientific research occupies a very very small portion of the budget. Doesn't change that fact that we should get rid of it.)
14. Health, Answer: This is a very abstract question
First, health care is not the responsibility of the government but this question seems to actually be about the general subject of human knowledge rather than governmental policy. science, research and technology is going to be enormously important in health care as well as just about every other aspect of happiness and well being. But why ask this of a would-be president when that office should logically have absolutely no impact on any of that?
Finally, I *like* science. That's kind of why I'm so adamant about keeping politics out of it. Well... the politics of national policy at least; the politics of social interaction is unavoidable. - cashman57, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Question: Do you believe in volcanoes?
Followup- Do you believe in climate studies which omit all data from volcanic activity?
That should be first because both OBushma and McSame are of the belief that the IPCC computer models which show global warming by omitting all data from volcanic activity are accurate and evidence we need to do something about it.
OBushma would stick us with a global tax so the united nations could be funded without any oversight or questions. McSame would do that also if the polls tell him he will be popular if he does so.
I noticed that they only ask McSame and OBushma and not the third party candidates, even though there is a groundswell of support for voting outside of the D&R gang choices.
So far NOTA seems to be more popular than McSame and OBushma put together. - nypix, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1This will be refreshing, since the one and only answer the last 8 years has be creationism.
- jackieaxe, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1First off this article does not mention Bob Barr because a president Bob Barr would not fund the big government programs this author would like. Anyway, my answers:
1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?
I would support a low tax policy to allow private enterprise, where technical innovation comes from to prosper. Also I think we need to review the government grant system and assure we are not tilting the marketplace by rewarding lobbying rather than innovation.
2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change—a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?
Don't accept your premise. PhDs differ on climate change. Just because Al gore says it doesn't make it true.
3. Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?
Unlike the last question, you don't have to be a scientist to know energy security is an issue. I would unleash the federal road blocks to nuclear power, building refineries, oil drilling, the use of coal and shale deposits. I would end all energy subsides such as corn, and looks at our tariffs. Ultimately, the marketplace will decide. When gas and heating oil is $5 a gallon it brings into play more viable alternatives, many at the top of their innovation curve with potential to achieve cheaper energy.
4. Education. A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th. What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?
None. The federal government is too far away from your high school to be an active player.
5. National Security. Science and technology are at the core of national security like never before. What is your view of how science and technology can best be used to ensure national security and where should we put our focus?
DARPA and the DoD have organizations responsible for tracking critical materials and processes. For example, the DoD once decided to stretch out a submarine build to assure critical industries supporting sub builds were not lost. I know microcircuits are a current concern. There are already federal government processes in place to address to question.
6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. Some estimates suggest that if H5N1 Avian Flu becomes a pandemic it could kill more than 300 million people. In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?
The federal Center of Disease Control has processes in place to address Pandemics, etc. I view this as a vital federal function.
7. Genetics research. The field of genetics has the potential to improve human health and nutrition, but many people are concerned about the effects of genetic modification both in humans and in agriculture. What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?
I would be concerned about genetically engineering humans or that the natural order would be upset such as Kudzu in the south, but I don't see a big role for the federal government.
8. Stem cells. Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?
The same as George Bush's. You know the private sector is free right now to perform embryonic stem cell research. It's not against the law. I don't see it as a government role to perform this research.
9. Ocean Health. Scientists estimate that some 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are in serious decline and habitats around the world like coral reefs are seriously threatened. What steps, if any, should the United States take during your presidency to protect ocean health?
We should enforce our 200 mile limit and exclude all foreign fishing unless there are recipicle agreements. I don't see additional spending from where we are now. There IS a federal agency for oceans and fisheries.
10. Water. Thirty-nine states expect some level of water shortage over the next decade, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of our water resources are at risk. What policies would you support to meet demand for water resources?
Except for immigration, our population has been stable. I would fully enforce current immigration laws and freeze new immigration except for critical commodities. The time is now to end such things as a "diversity" visa, a lottery system where you are rewarded by skin color in a lottery is now. Never mind you can't write in your native non-English language. Immigration has been neglected and this problem has metastasized over many administrations of neglect, at best to screwing American citizens who play by the rules at worst. Also, I except the marketplace will address filtration, desalination, etc. if and as these water problems grow.
11. Space. The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?
My priority would be space systems and issues pertaining to defense. It's time for private industry to carry forward anything else. I don't think it's critical we go to Mars or the Moon.
12. Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?
Except for DoD and CDC, the federal government should not be in research. And for the CDC, their research should be restricted to potential pandemics and how to defend them. The current CDC and FDA is over bloated and over reaching.
13. Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?
In these research grants, this is where lobbyists, big universities and private interests win and the play by the rules american taxpayer looses. Where the federal government does fund research, it would be restricted to to DoD and CDC. Offices like the ONDCP would not longer exist nor fund their questionable value research.
14. Health. Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality and availability of health care. How do you see science, research and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?
Uninsured and uninsured ileagal immigrants have tremendously impacted the cost of health insurance to the american who plays by the rules and has health insurance. I would look at cutting back at what federal mandates are in place for un paid required care which is ultimately paid for by the people who pay for insurance. Also, the FDA would be eliminated. It would be up to drug companies to conduct their own responsible research, maybe the private sector would establish a "UL" kind of organization. The FDA slows innovation and is costly to the drug companies, therefore excluding competition because a new drug cost $2-5 million just to get approval. To those worried about no FDA, there is and will be the American tort system in place. If a drug company develops a drug, finds it is bad for 1% of the population and discloses this, they should be able to enter the marketplace.
- AvangionQ, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Ah, the complexities of politics and science being interwoven ... as our society becomes more technologically developed, integrated and dependent, we have to make sure that our politicians can keep up ...
- dcouchotvore, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0McCain: "What's science? I don't think we had that when I went to school."
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by