A good rant!

I love a good rant. This one is nearly a year old, but it's still VERY timely and appropriate for today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mEEjX6j_f4

The Politics of Science

With all the problems this country is facing, the presidential candidates are heavily focused on issues of change, the economy, and the war in Iraq. It is difficult to discern their positions on many issues that are important to the scientific community. Even if the other issues are more important, some small part of my vote is still going to be based on a candidate's support for the sciences, and I would like to know where they stand.

I have made my own modest effort to read and research to try and find out what candidates have said and done in regards to many of these issues.

Of course, all politicians are good at saying what they think people want to hear. Whether or not any of these candidates are willing and/or able to actually follow through with their promises is questionable at best. And I make no claim to even remotely have the research skills our resources of a true journalist. So, take my ratings with a *big* grain of salt.

Here is my scale of 1 to 5 atoms:

- Excellent support for and understanding of the sciences
- Reasonable support for multiple branches of science
- Not especially focused on science, but not threatened by science either.
- Confuses science with politics and subjective beliefs
- Here comes the 2nd Dark Age

The Rankings:

Hillary Clinton -

• Vocal supporter of stem cell research
• Opposes teaching Intelligent Design in science class
• Vocal supporter of Internet Neutrality
• Vocal supporter of investments into alternative energies
• Vocal supporter of NASA and space exploration
• Supports 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050
• Focus on technology and innovation to drive economic growth, and reversing what she calls the Bush Administration's "assault on science".
• Establish a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund to invest in technologies to promote conservation, combat global warming and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
• Speed the development of a vehicle to replace the aging space shuttle fleet, and "fully fund NASA's Earth Sciences program and initiate a Space-based Climate Change Initiative" to better study global warming.
• Increase the budget of the National Institutes of Health by 50 percent over 5 years.
  Direct all federal department and agency heads to safeguard against political pressure on scientific issues.
• Re-establish the position of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology.
• Ban political appointees from unduly interfering with scientific conclusions and publications.

"For six and half years under this president, it's been open season on open inquiry, and by ignoring or manipulating science, the Bush administration is letting our economic competitors get an edge in the global economy." -- Clinton at the 50th anniversary of Sputnik

Barack Obama -

• Supports doubling federal funding for basic research, thereby "changing the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology."
• Opposes teaching Intelligent Design in science classes
• Supports Internet Neutrality
• Supports more equitable distribution of wireless bandwidth ranges to bring wireless internet access to rural areas.
• Voiced very strong and continuing opposition to recent congressional budget cuts for major science projects such as the International Linear Collider and the ITER fusion-power experiment. I would rate Obama 5 atoms for this stance alone were it not for the fact that this is likely mostly a policitical move on his part, because Senator Obama represents the state (Illinois) where Fermilab (one of the major targets of the budget cuts) is located.
• Generally, Obama has a somewhat narrow focus on immediate practical applications of science in the fields of health care. He is more interested in what science can do to help people now rather than what we should be investing in science to help people in the future.
• Proposes greatly increased spending on science education, but would pay for it with cuts in NASA's budget.

John Edwards -

• Overall John Edwards is not as vocal about scientific issues as Clinton or Obama, and he focuses on a pretty narrow set of topics.
• When questioned on scientific issue positions, he sometimes offers up vague and non-committal answers. For example, when asked about funding for NASA his answers have been something along the lines of "Space Exploration is great and we need to do it." But he hasn't put together a detailed policy.
• Supports stem-cell research
• Opposes teaching Intelligent Design in science class
• Supports Internet Neutrality
• Strong supporter of active policy to control emissions
• Strong supporter of increased science education in schools.
• In the Senate, he has a consistent record of supporting environmental improvement measures
• Believes that careers in science are vital for America's future and not something we should offshore.
• Proposes to eliminate political litmus tests for government scientists.
• Proposes to protect the integrity of government science by prohibiting political appointees from overriding agencies' scientific findings unless the chief White House science advisor concludes they are erroneous.
• Proposes to reverse the demotion of the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and restore the office to a central role as an assistant to the president, a rank held in previous administrations.
• Has an unfortunate record of occasionally using "junk science" as a trial lawyer prosecuting medial malpractice lawsuits.

"The disregard of science by the Bush administration -- the censorship of data and analysis of global warming, the treatment of stem cell research, mercury emissions and other subjects - has been shameful. As president, I will ensure that government professionals charged with the collection and analysis of scientific data--from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to the EPA--are insulated from political influence. Period." -- John Edwards

John McCain -

• Strong supporter of environmental issues. John McCain has stated that global warming is “the most urgent issue facing the world”. He hasn't always seen global warming as a serious issue, but better late than never.
• He has an unclear position on teaching Intelligent design. Has supported Intelligent Design on and off in the past.
• Opposes Internet Neutrality
• Overall, McCain is a pragmatist and has show a willingness to listen to scientific opinion and change his mind take action when needed, even when it contradicts a position taken by the Republican Party.

Rudy Guiliani -

• Rudy has virtually no record on scientific issues, positive or negative. He seems to care very little for science, but he also makes no effort to impede the progress of science. He is likely to take advice on scientific matters from the experts.
• Although he is a Republican, he has made little effort to bow to the desires of the Evangelistic branch of his party. He seems somewhat resistant to their anti-science message.
• The danger with Rudy is that the President has the ability to influence what issues the congress and the country focuses on. And Rudy is the type who will never focus on scientific issues. When pressed with questions about global warming, he will begrudgingly admit it's an issue, but then turn the subject into our reliance on foreign oil.

Mitt Romney -

• On record as opposing teaching Intelligent Design
• Opposed Internet Neutrality
• Much like Juliani, Mitt has virtually no record on scientific issues, and doesn't seem to care. If you go to his website, http://www.mittromney.com/, he doesn't list any positions on any scientific issues...not even global warming.
• His big weakness is his desire to please the evangelists in his party. He sees himself as a personal representative and defender of the Mormon religion, and he obviously feels he has something to prove to the Christian Evangelicals. This is what could cause him to side with Evangelicals rather than scientists on key issues where they tend to disagree.

Mike Huckabee -

• Supports Internet Neutrality
• Believes that Evolution is a farce (YIKES!)
• Unclear record on environmental issues
• As with Romney, the issues he chooses to advocate only center around the central Republican themes of God, Family, and America.
• He has a reasonable and practical aspect to his personality, and this is the only thing keeping me from giving him a 1 atom rating. He is the embodiment of all the risks that come from mixing Church and State. However, he has also demonstrated some ability to listen to others and to build concensus as much as possible. He is the "compassionate" conservative that Bush never was.

Fred Thompson -

• Straight-line ideologic conservative from top to bottom. (Or maybe he's just acting, but he's a good actor!)
• He values his political positions absolutely everything else, and is unwilling to listen to people who disagree with him. He is very much like George Bush in this regard. If any of his ideological positions are shown to be un-scientific, then science itself must be fallible, because his ideas are not.

As I'm writing this, I just heard that Fred has dropped out of the race. This is good news! He was my only 1-atom rating besides current president George Bush.

This means that ANY president we get from these remaining candidates will be an improvement over our current president. (At least in the area of support for the sciences.)