How Will Science Evolve After the Bush Administration?

  • News
  • Thread starter LightbulbSun
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Science
In summary, scientists across the country are eager for change and trust in science after years of clashes with the Bush administration over issues such as climate change, stem cell research, and health care. The politicization of science has sparked outrage among the scientific community and has been denounced by Nobel Prize winner Martin Chalfie and 75 other Nobel Laureates. Concerns about the impact of politics on science range from hindered development to illegal activities and potential exile for those involved in controversial research. The lack of government funding for certain types of research, such as embryonic stem cell research, has also raised concerns about the future of science in the United States and the potential for breakthroughs in critical areas like disease treatment.
  • #1
LightbulbSun
65
2
After eight years of brawls with the Bush administration on issues including climate change, stem cell research and health care, scientists across the country aren't just hungry for change they can believe in, but science they can trust.

While many a scientist has picked apart a science-based policy of President Bush, the underlying issue that has sparked outrage from across the scientific community is the politicization of the discipline.

"The idea of putting ideology into decisions about science -- that has really denigrated the role of science," said Martin Chalfie, a Columbia University geneticist who was awarded a Nobel Prize in chemistry in early October.

Along with 75 other Nobel Laureates, he endorsed now-President-elect Barack Obama in an open letter that also blasted the Bush administration.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=6193389&page=1
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
And the left (not the democrats are left) haven't let ideology effect science?
 
  • #3
I think the purpose of politics is to hinder the development of science. After all, the majority of politicians are bible thumping nazi's.
 
  • #4
i think the purpose of politics is to get free stuff. if embryonic stem cell research is really the golden goose people say it is, then people will fund it from their own pockets or go offshore to do it. climate change is also a scam.
 
  • #5
Proton Soup said:
i think the purpose of politics is to get free stuff. if embryonic stem cell research is really the golden goose people say it is, then people will fund it from their own pockets or go offshore to do it.

Not if it's deemed illegal and forcing someone to leave the country, essentially exiling them, so that they can develop cures for diseases is a bit harsh, don't you think? All because someone doesn't understand what an embryo is.

Of course, if it were me and I somehow developed the cure for cancer in a foreign country because I couldn't do it at home in the US, then I would say "America never gets the cure for cancer" and then you'd see lots of people leave the country.
 
  • #6
Governmental influence in science is driven by money. Look at NASA. We can plan and execute modest unmanned missions (and more complex and expensive ones, of course) that DO NOT require us to put fragile human beings outside the Earth's protective magnetic field, where they can be fried by a Solar tantrum. Why did Bush say that we ought to be trying to put men on Mars? Well, you might look to Norton-Thiokol, Lockheed-Martin, and other big companies to see who would benefit.

Apart from the cool big-picture/vision sound of the plan, it's a proposal to shake down the US taxpayer and starve real experimental/observational science. We've got to get out of a pattern that places huge values on putting human bodies in space to the detriment of valuable science. If (incredibly) some breakthrough in propulsion efficiency combined with effective shielding makes flinging humans around through interplanetary space practical, then fine. Until then, let's concentrate on real Earth-bound science.
 
  • #7
It has a more far reaching effect than that.
If you are a drug company building a research lab where do you put it?
In the US you can't do stem cell research, you can't get visas for overseas staff and visitors are going to be subject to the joys of homeland security.
In software security research people have been arresed for presenting at conferences material which was legal in their own country - should I be nervous if I worked on stem cells and was going to a US conference?

Or you are a assistant professor looking for a post, if all the industrial research is in singapore or Europe where are the hot departments going to be. Especially for a country where universities rely on industry for new buildings - I would be worried.
 
  • #8
WarPhalange said:
Not if it's deemed illegal and forcing someone to leave the country, essentially exiling them, so that they can develop cures for diseases is a bit harsh, don't you think? All because someone doesn't understand what an embryo is.

Of course, if it were me and I somehow developed the cure for cancer in a foreign country because I couldn't do it at home in the US, then I would say "America never gets the cure for cancer" and then you'd see lots of people leave the country.

Not that I think it's a great state of affairs, but you do know that embryonic stem cell research goes on in the U.S., right? It's just that it can't / couldn't under Bush receive government funding.
 
  • #9
WarPhalange said:
Not if it's deemed illegal and forcing someone to leave the country, essentially exiling them, so that they can develop cures for diseases is a bit harsh, don't you think? All because someone doesn't understand what an embryo is.

Of course, if it were me and I somehow developed the cure for cancer in a foreign country because I couldn't do it at home in the US, then I would say "America never gets the cure for cancer" and then you'd see lots of people leave the country.

is it even illegal? my memory is that it is against the law to use federal funds. so go spend your money on it. but has embryonic stem cell research made any progress anywhere? i don't think so. it would be a huge money sink. it's nothing but a con.
 
  • #10
CaptainQuasar said:
Not that I think it's a great state of affairs, but you do know that embryonic stem cell research goes on in the U.S., right? It's just that it can't / couldn't under Bush receive government funding.

Yes, but not if the Fundies really had their way. Bush is driven by money, not ideology, so he couldn't care less. You have particle physics experiments being funded by the DOE all the time, which won't maybe even ever have any actual application, but that doesn't stop them. Curing diseases is a bit more important than that, and yet it can't get funding? I wonder what would happen if it turned out that you needed large amounts of oil to do stem cell research. Care to take a guess?

Proton Soup said:
but has embryonic stem cell research made any progress anywhere? i don't think so. it would be a huge money sink. it's nothing but a con.

Right. Embryonic stem cell research is a con, global warming is a scam. Mind telling me what else is false? Is it the whole "Higgs Boson" thing? Or should I just go right ahead and say F = ma is a hoax?

Do you have any idea how hard it would be to have a "scam" on that kind of scale? On a global scale?
 
  • #11
WarPhalange said:
Right. Embryonic stem cell research is a con, global warming is a scam. Mind telling me what else is false? Is it the whole "Higgs Boson" thing? Or should I just go right ahead and say F = ma is a hoax?

Do you have any idea how hard it would be to have a "scam" on that kind of scale? On a global scale?

it's pretty easy, apparently.
 
  • #12
WarPhalange said:
Yes, but not if the Fundies really had their way. Bush is driven by money, not ideology, so he couldn't care less.

My point was more that, in a thread about people rewriting scientific truth, you're hyperbolically talking about scientists being essentially exiled and forced to leave the country.

It makes it look like you're just as avid about distorting the truth as many of them are.
 
  • #13
Proton Soup said:
it's pretty easy, apparently.

Not really.
 

Related to How Will Science Evolve After the Bush Administration?

What is the impact of the Bush administration on science?

The Bush administration had a significant impact on science, particularly in the areas of environmental policy and the funding of scientific research. Many scientists and environmentalists criticized the administration for its rejection of scientific evidence and its policies that favored industry over environmental protection. Additionally, funding for scientific research was often limited or redirected to support specific political agendas.

How has science changed in the post-Bush era?

In the post-Bush era, there has been a renewed focus on evidence-based policymaking and support for scientific research. The Obama administration, for example, implemented policies that prioritized environmental protection and invested in scientific research. There has also been an increased emphasis on transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making.

What are the current challenges facing science in a post-Bush world?

Some of the challenges facing science in a post-Bush world include rebuilding trust in scientific institutions and addressing the impacts of past policies on the environment and scientific research. There is also a need for continued efforts to promote evidence-based policymaking and protect the integrity of scientific research.

How can scientists and policymakers work together to address these challenges?

Scientists and policymakers can work together by fostering open communication and collaboration. Scientists can provide policymakers with evidence-based information and recommendations, while policymakers can ensure that scientific research is adequately funded and incorporated into decision-making processes. Additionally, transparency and accountability measures can help strengthen the relationship between science and policy.

What is the role of the public in shaping science in a post-Bush world?

The public plays a crucial role in shaping science in a post-Bush world. By staying informed and educated about scientific issues, the public can demand evidence-based policies and support for scientific research. Additionally, public engagement and participation in scientific decision-making can help ensure that policies and research align with the needs and values of society.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
5K
Replies
13
Views
11K
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top