as science and science policy is too important to be left to scientists alone

Interesting last sentence there. What exactly do you mean by this? That scientists should not be allowed determine whet they research on or dictate what areas of science should get funding, or that there should be some form of moral overview of what scientists do?

Paul.

Bush and the Nobel Prize Scientists By: Bahu Virupaksha Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 on Discussion on History and Politics Message Board: Politics Never before in American electoral history have Noble Prize winning scientists come out in the open against an incumbent President as they have against George Bush II. They have in a statement signed by 48 Lauretes critisized Bush for politicising science research as never before. Allowing fundamentalist Christian doctrines influence public policy is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State advocated in the Constitution.The important issue of stem cell research which had powerful backes like Christopher Reeves has been pushed into the background and Bush bas allowed American leadership in this vital area to fall into the hands of Europeans and the Japanese who are not inhibited by such adverse political doctrines. Of course, it is likely the George Bush is only playing to the gallery and if by that off chance return to power may revise his position. During the Clinton years the USA was in the forefront of the debate on energy and environment. Now virtually nothing is heard about these issues. Even the NASA is not spared the rather skewed priorities of this Administration. Will Kerry have a more comprehensive vision about science. So far he has not shown much evidence of having thought about these issues, but he would have to address these matters, as science and science policy is too important to be left to scientists alone.

That the problem with Kerry. He has no comprehensive vision about anything.

There was this guy. he figured out that if you take an icepick, shove it between someone's eyeball and eyesocket, give it a sharp tap with a mallet, and then wiggle it around, mentally ill people became more docile, easier to manage. Work in that field got a Nobel Prize, too...

Oh, Arafat won a Nobel Prize, too. I wonder how much of the money went to buy bomb vests for the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade...

BakerStreet , don't you think it's a little disingenuous to compare the U.S.'s and the world's top scientists with Arafat? I mean c'mon...there are obviously some stupid mistakes with handing out Nobel Prizes...but you can't say they are ALL unworthy of it and I think you would be hard pressed to say that even a MAJORITY of them didn't deserve their award, earned their credentials, or know what they are talking about.

Bahu, I think Kerry would be in a better "position" to go foreward with Stem Cell research because he has a different base to worry about and a majority of the public supports it. Bush's optoins are too limited because of who his base is so I wouldn't look for any big moves on the issue if he is re-elected. Although he can't run for a third term...somone else does and they can't do things to piss off their base. I believe in a strong division between church and state...it is simply the best way to protect ALL of our religious beleifs or our right not to espouse any at all. Religion should not be influencing science either...after all....Copernicus swept away Aristotle's doctrine that the Earth was the center of the universe...in spite of the Church fighting him tooth-and-nail every step of the way. Eventually, the Church could no longer deny Copernicus and his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. It's amazing to think how much things change...and yet stay the same.

T_Bone4Justice , don't you think it's a little disingenuous to deem anyone with a Nobel prize as worthy to dictate to society what the checks and balances of their work should be? Do you think anyone with a Nobel Prize should be above the judgement of society as a whole, and allowed to do what they like with untested science?

No, and the Egas Moniz reference in Reply #3 is apt. We don't allow scientists to dictate to us the safety or credibility of their work. We don't allow them to tell us how to accept their findings, and we most certainly shouldn't allow biologists and other niche scientists to influence us politically. In that realm they have no authoritative say, nor should they be granted it by people like the author here.

It is ignorant, to the extreme, to pretend that the science community has earned some sort of moral autonomy. If anything, they have earned the stongest oversight. Go read about Dr. Freeman again, T-Bone, I think you skipped the link.

BakerStreet, I didn't SAY that Nobel prize winning scientists should dictate anything to society or that they are or should be above public scrutiny. I simply asked you if was fair to summarily dismiss ALL of them and compare them with Arafat? Don't you think ANY of them have ANY level of expertise at all? "It is ignorant, to the extreme, to pretend that the science community has earned some sort of moral autonomy." Well, first of all I didn't say this nor did I suggest this. So, don't you think it was wrong of you to imply I said something that I didn't? It is one thing to be critical and to ask probing questions of scientists, it is quite another to be obstructionist. That was all I was saying.

T-Bone: I'm not dismissing them, or their opinions. I am dismissing the supposed authority gratned to them bytheir accolades. In fact, I am saying that they should be looked upon MORE dubiously, since many have a vested interest in a more "open-minded" Presidency.

If someone from an oil company supports Bush, you'd laugh it off. When people who rely upon government grants and the pay from private industry favor a President that will be more beneficial to their work, we are to pretend that they are somehow more objective? Hardly.

They can vote, they can lobby, but when they do it with a Nobel Prize hanging around their neck they shouldn't be given an ounce more credence.

" During the Clinton years the USA was in the forefront of the debate on energy and environment. "

That's an utter falsehood, btw. We were just as villified then as ever. "The Golden Age of Clinton" is an imaginary world invented by anti-Bush propagandists.

Reply #9 By: BakerStreet - 10/21/2004 9:29:52 AM " During the Clinton years the USA was in the forefront of the debate on energy and environment. " That's an utter falsehood, btw. We were just as villified then as ever. "The Golden Age of Clinton" is an imaginary world invented by anti-Bush pro

You got that exactly right!!!

Science Policy should serve s p[ublic purpose and the objectives of public funding on science should be based on societal prIiorities not on the basis of cliques of patronage within the White House.I think it is wrong to say that Kerry has not developed a vision: I only say that due to the kind of personalised, vicious campaign of the Bushmen Kerry has not been able to focus on this issue.
As for Clinton I do not say that his was a GOLDEN AGE, We can neverforget Ken Starr and thee way he hounded yhis poor man. What I said related to the Kyoto Pact and the l.eadership shown by Clintonb. In fact, Clinton completely misuderstood the Iraq issue and paved the way for the Bushmen to attack and the insurgency the presently ensues.

"Science Policy should serve s p[ublic purpose and the objectives of public funding on science should be based on societal prIiorities"

That's unrealistic. Science for science sake is maybe 5% of the work that is done. All the rest, much of it done in behind the walls of educational institutions, is done for the sake of enterprise. You can't pretend like there is some huge, selfless human effort to know things just because we want to know them.

You'll get cliques and patronage with Kerry, or with Bush. Let's not pretend that a career Senator isn't as for sale as a Texas governer. Kerry was hanging out his shingle for any lobbyist that walked past long before Bush gained any kind of office...

Frankly, a significant part of Bush's base is dedicated to the view that inspired revelation is more true than factual observation. This is most obviously true when it comes to the existence of fossils, evolution of species, etc. There simply isn't an equivalent group that's part of Kerry's base. There is no significant part of Kerry's coalition that sees the scientifc method, or the observations that come from that method, as a fundamental challenge to its values.