E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jeff Miller / UW-Madison file
An instructur holds up a culture dish containing human embryonic stem cells during a lab course at the University of Wisconsin.
Political shifts will produce a fresh set of skirmishes over science issues ranging from stem cells to spaceflight. And when it comes to climate change, the skirmishes could well escalate into a war over science.
"I'm not looking forward to seeing that," said Chris Mooney, who wrote "The Republican War on Science" in 2005. But based on some of the comments made during the campaign, House Republicans might well go on the offensive on climate policy.
Here's a quick rundown on the top issues:
Climate change and energy policy
In the wake of his Election Day "shellacking," even President Barack Obama acknowledged that his controversial plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions through a carbon trading system would have to be put on hold. "Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat," Obama told reporters. "It's not the only way. I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem."
Another way to skin the climate-change cat would be for the Environmental Protection Agency to take a more active role in regulating carbon emissions -- and back in June, the Senate turned back an effort to clamp down on the EPA's efforts in that area. A new, more conservative Congress could revive the anti-regulation campaign and raise fresh questions about the science behind climate claims. That's exactly what Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said he would do during the campaign. (It's not yet clear, however, whether the new House leadership will let him do it.)
Mooney thinks this is how a new war in science will start: "The way in which it will be most manifest is through House members grandstanding and holding hearings and investigations over climate scientists and their e-mails. But in fact, this has already been looked at, and the scientists have been exonerated. There's no 'there' there."
Roger Pielke Jr., a science policy analyst who criticizes the international response to climate change in a new book titled "The Climate Fix," said it's "perfectly fine to ask questions about the integrity of the science."
"But if that is a tactic in a larger battle over energy policy, it politicizes science, and it also detracts attention from developing energy policy," he told me. "After all this talk about 'the Republican war on science,' I would fully expect that turnabout is fair play, and we're going to see the House playing the same sorts of political strategies with the Obama administration. Whatever side is doing it, the leadership has to try to rise above that and not get sucked into some kind of left-vs.-right battle."
Mooney said lawmakers should forgo the finger-pointing over Climategate and instead work out new policies for breaking America's addiction to fossil fuels. "While they dawdle and refuse to do anything on climate, they're also dawdling and refusing to do anything about clean energy, and when they do that, they're setting the U.S. up for a big fall," Mooney said.
Pielke agreed: "With China spending hundreds of billions of dollars on energy innovation, and with Germany, India and others making investments as well, it'd be a real shame to see Congress lose itself in a petty battle over politicized science," he told me.
In an ideal world, the power shift could provide an opening for fresh policy approaches. "Perhaps this is an opportunity to think about how to design an energy and climate policy that can survive over many, many Congresses," Pielke said. "We ought to be talking about science policy, not science politics."
Stem cells
When Obama took office, he hoped to ease federal limits on funding for embryonic stem cell research, but that policy change has been tied up for months due to a restraining order issued by a federal judge. Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, expects the stem-cell standoff to continue, in part because of Congress' new composition.
Caplan said "the key challenge was whether Congress would finally not enact the Dickey-Wicker Amendment," which provides the legislative basis for the funding limits. House GOP leaders have been strongly supportive of the amendment, first passed in 1995.
"The Dickey Amendment keeps coming back, so I think this is very bad news for embryonic stem cell researchers," Caplan told me. "If the Dickey Amendment comes back, [opponents of the research] can tie it up some more. To me, this is really a sign that stem cell funding from the federal government for the next two years is not reliable. Given state deficits, people are going to move on to other areas of stem cell research not involving embryonic cells or cloning."
The issue received extra attention in Wisconsin, where human embryonic stem cells were first isolated and cultured in 1998. Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker said he supported a ban on human embryonic stem cell research, and his Democratic opponent, Tom Barrett, ran a TV ad claiming that Walker's stand would stymie cures for juvenile diabetes and other illnesses. Walker won, and with the GOP in charge of the governor's mansion as well as the legislature, a ban on stem cell research or cloning could conceivably come up for legislative action, as it did in 2005.
The big difference this time around is that stem cells are seen as an important part of the biotech industry, with states vying for private investment. Proponents of stem cell research say cracking down in one state would merely send companies to another state -- for instance, California, which elected Democrat Jerry Brown as governor. "I like stem cells," Brown said during the campaign.
Caplan said the Republican tsunami could bode well for another biotech frontier: synthetic biology, which involves re-engineering existing genomes to create new strains of organisms. The controversial technology is currently being studied by a presidential commission. "A technology that can create not only medicine and fuel, but also jobs, is likely to get a better reception in the newly constituted Congress," he said.
Human spaceflight
Congress already rewrote Obama's space policy before the election. The NASA authorization bill -- signed into law by the president just as lawmakers went into their pre-election recess -- calls for an extra shuttle flight to be flown next summer, makes a modest commitment to develop commercial space transports for the International Space Station and fast-tracks development efforts for a new heavy-lift rocket.
The only problem is that NASA still lacks the official congressional go-ahead to spend funds for the shuttle flight and other programs covered by NASA's $19 billion budget. That go-ahead has to come in a separate appropriations bill that Congress is expected to take up before the end of the year during a lame-duck session.
Space policy analyst John Logsdon said there would likely be pressure over the next few weeks to trim back NASA's budget, but he suspected that the extra shuttle flight would still get funded. "The argument for doing it, given the intention to keep the International Space Station going, is stronger than the fiscal constraints," he told me.
But something else might have to give. One of the possible targets is the $1.3 billion authorized over the next three years for a commercial crew initiative. But two of the Republicans likely to be part of the new House leadership -- Virginia's Eric Cantor and California's Kevin McCarthy -- come from districts that play a big role in the commercial space industry. Another potential target is the "21st Century Space Launch Complex" program, aimed at modernizing NASA's Kennedy Space Center at a cost of about $400 million a year.
One cause for celebration among commercial space advocates was the defeat of Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., who raised objections to legislation setting safety standards for private-sector spaceships. Oberstar said the provisions were too lax and would encourage a "tombstone mentality" for commercial spaceflight. With Oberstar no longer in the House, prospects have brightened for extending the current regulatory regime.
Research funding
Basic research has occasionally been used as a punching bag by Republicans seeking to call attention to scientific excesses. For example, the controversial GOP candidate for Delaware's Senate seat, Christine O'Donnell, got into trouble over a 2007 quote decrying the development of "mice with fully functioning human brains." (She appeared to be referring to experiments involving human brain cells that were grown in mice for stem cell research.) During the 2008 campaign, vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin went after fruit-fly research.
With the GOP in charge of the House, will funny-sounding research projects become an endangered species? David Goldston, who was chief of staff for the House Science Committee from 2001 to 2006 when it was under Republican control, doesn't think so. But he does expect science spending to come under closer scrutiny, just as other spending programs will.
"Most Republicans have beeen supportive of basic research, but I think there's going to be an internal battle over how the budget is shaped," he told me. "You could see some of these new Tea Party advocates coming in with a new attitude. ... A lot of these science issues are going to split the Republican Party, and it's going to take some time to see how those splits play out."
Even in a budget-cutting era, Pielke believes that basic research will survive largely intact. He recalled that the late Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis., often ridiculed federally funded research by giving out Golden Fleece Awards.
"While there is bipartisan willingness to make fun of silly government expenditures, history also shows that there's tremendous bipartisan support for research and development," he said. "In the U.K. they just went through this enormous round of budget cuts, and one of the only areas that was protected was R&D."
What do you think? Will science survive the next two years relatively unscathed, or are we in for an escalating war on science? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
Update for 2 p.m. ET Nov. 4: Space News notes that two of the House Republicans likely to take key roles in NASA's future budgets have been strong critics of Obama's space policy. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who is likely to head the House Appropriations Committee, has said Obama's plan would cede space supremacy to other countries such as China -- and he's also had some reservations about the move toward spaceflight commercialization (although one of the companies involved in that move, Orbital Sciences, is headquartered in his district). Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, who is in line to head the House Science and Technology Committee, has said that NASA was "floundering" due to the White House's change in direction. Both lawmakers, however, voted for the NASA authorization bill that was pushed through Congress last month.
It's also important to note that federal research funding is coming off a $31 billion boost that was provided by Obama's economic stimulus package, and with House Republicans in a budget-cutting mood, that kind of largesse won't be seen again. Last month, Nature reported that researchers are concerned about a "cliff effect," in which projects funded by stimulus money fall off a cliff when the money runs out. Among the potential targets are the long-suffering America COMPETES Act and research projects that may now seem politically incorrect, such as the FutureGen carbon capture and storage initiative.
Goldston now serves as director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, but for this report, he was speaking only as a former Republican aide and not as an NRDC representative.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," Alan's book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
The US is well on its way to becoming a Third World nation. Our days in the forefront of science are coming to an end. A large portion of our population don't even believe in evolution. Fundamentalists rule.
The slide began with Nixon and Ford, cutting back NASA, attacking education, and playing down the importance of science. The role of the religious rigfht was emphasized beginning with Reagan.
For an interesting look at the background, dig out a copy of the late Michael Harrington's book, The Politics at God's Funeral.
Both of you are doomsayers. We may not have all the exciting big-picture developments going on that we had in the space era, but the US is far from loosing it's place as a technology leader.
It's LOSING!!! (ONE "o").
This is one of the reasons we're on our way... A large majority of our population can barely read or write their NATIVE LANGUAGE, let alone any other languages... And forget about math and/or science.
Reminds me of a joke:
What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
Bilingual.
What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
Trilingual.
What do you call someone who speaks one language?
An American.
Don't you people have jobs? - thanks for the post. Other common errors seen here often are "your" for the contraction. "you're," there" for either of its homonyms, "their" or "they're," and of course, the ever-so-frequent "its" for either "it's" (from "it is") or "it's" again (but this time for the possessive case of "it").
However, we might remember that while many people were taught the meaning homonyms, and possibly learned about the possessive case, that sort of language instruction tends to slide right by. In all events, very few Americans get much of an in-depth eduction about language and grammatical structure. We never discuss the subjunctive, for example.
And ultimately, that lack is a very, very good argument for teaching other languages at the elementary school level. I started lerning Latin before first grade, taught at a Catholic school in those ancient old days of the Latin Mass. By fifth grade, we were all ready to begin learning Spanish, too. Now I am facile in 7 languages and able to understand and read 5 more. But best of all, the idea of "language" is so familiar and interesting! Folks are missing out.
More importantly, understanding the detailed structures of other tongues made English far more accessible and usable.
I've all but given up on your/you're, it's/it/it's and their/there/they're...Including the people who think every word with an "s" at the end gets an apostrophe...
It's not even worth the keystrokes anymore.
Maybe if Reading & Writing, and perhaps Math & Science were to sponsor a NASCAR driver, or a UFC fighter, more Americans would bother to learn something beside who has enough points to get into the next race (or however they figure that crap out)
These climate change deniers are the most ignorant, stupid people on the planet. I wish the rest of us didn't have to suffer the consequences of their immense stupidity, but we're all in this together. If the stupidest members of the human race have the final say they will ruin things for everyone. They know nothing of science, have utterly incurious minds--if they have minds at all, and are just basically shallow fools. The planet doesn't belong to them. What gives them the right to destroy it for all of us and for all of the other living things on earth?
BillyD, No one is denying Climate Change, we are denying the fact that it's man made.
Actually, Billy, I know quite a bit of science, including climate science, and especially computational simulation science. The 'proof' isn't proof. The 'consensus' isn't a consensus. The 'evidence' is guesswork. The 'science' belongs in third grade, not controlling multinational policy.
That's why the argument needs to shift from climate change (man made or not) to green tech and energy independance. Other countries are far outspending it the realms of renewable resource technology. For example China is set to become one of the world leaders in Solar Panel exports, which means more jobs for them and more money for those companies. Do we wnat to keep sending billions of $ a year to the middle east to buy their oil or do we want to be energy independant. On the other hand I think everyone can agree that pumping millions of tons of pollutants into the air and the water supply can't be a good thing.
As a conservative Republican, I stand firmly AGAINST clean air and clean water. And energy independence. I also, by definition, stand firmly FOR climate change. Science--bad. More power to the new majority!
I'm all for letting companies do business, make money and employ people. But I draw the line when their right to do business interferes with my right to breathe clean air and drink clean water.
Some republicans go way too far in cutting regulations and waste standards. If you want to see what comes from unrestrained Capitalism go to China. They have companies cutting milk with deadly chemicals so the powder will go farther. They have factories and plants dumping chemicals into their rivers. When they hosted the Summer Olympics the only way they could clean the air in Beijing is by forcing industry to shut down.
I don't want that model for America.
More people will die needlessly because of the funding restrictions if imposed by the republicans it might kill someone they care about.
You mean for embryonic stem cell research? Actually, it's quite the opposite. Funding embryonic stem cell research will kill people. And not just unborn people. Adults, too. Other stem cell research has already surpassed embryonic stem cell research, shows more potential now, is safer, more reliable, and closer to being production-ready. Plus, it's free of all those nasty ethical dilemmas. Funding embryonic research would take funding away from these fields, stalling them and keeping life-saving solutions out of the hands of doctors.
Actually, trials for embryonic stem cell research are just beginning, after years of being held back due to the uncertainties over legality and funding. When you say that other stem cell research has surpassed HESC in terms of results, that's one of the big reasons why. I think most researchers will agree all the avenues should be pursued, ranging from adult stem cells to cord-blood cells, parthenotes, IPS (induced pluripotent stem) cells and embryonic cells. Eventually, doctors will be able to convert your skin cells into heart cells for therapy ... or at least for drug testing ... through the IPS method. But most researchers would say the embryonic cell lines are needed for now in order to provide a standard for the IPS research.
Here's an article about the first embryonic stem cell medical trial:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38856330/
 What horse dung and whining about policy! Everyone wants clean air and water; anyone who believes otherwise is a fool or kidding himself, just because someone else won't go about it his way. If you accept God is ultimately in control, you simply do the best you can, don't waste or abuse the resources we're given, and SOMEHOW the planet will survive, as it has, by God's grace, along the normal up-and-down cycles it naturally runs through in the course of thousands of years. People need to get over themselves and the notion that we, as piddly, small humans can do everlasting damage to this planet.
That's half the problem. People are leaving it "in God's hands". If there is no God, then why are they "leaving anything anywhere". Stop leaving things in "other hands" and we'll finally accomplish something!
A coupule of thoughts Coomoje:
This comment reminds me of a joke:
http://www.coolfunnyjokes.com/Funny-Jokes/Religious-Jokes/The-Big-Flood.html
lol!!! Great Joke!! Thanks for the link Alan! :)
Now we can lobby for a couple more shuttle flights....see what happens when you mess up a good space program?...we toss ya out....
SCIENCE, NOT RELIGION!
All the arguments pro and con miss the only point that matters: embryonic stem cells have never worked, do not work now, and will not help any patient alive today.
For some of the reasons why, http://repairstemcells.org/Community/Dons-Corner/A-Grim-Fairy-Tale.aspx
Starting 1/1/04, Pharma-controlled politicians, medical scientists, major newspapers in every major city, CBS News, medical journals and doctors do exactly what Pharma tells them to do: Pretend embryonics will actually someday help a human being and DENY that thousands of patients, 1700 scientific papers and 1300 clinical trials prove that adult stem cells work NOW. “Adult stem cells are unproven,” they scream, and you and your fellow writers never write a word about that outrageous lie while complaining about religious reactions.
Writers will not say a word about the embryonic hoax, that the faux-scientists have slaughtered tens of thousands of lab rats trying to pretend they don’t cause cancer and ignoring the fact that the patient’s immune system will start a war the minute those deadly cells are implanted into a human. You will never say a word about six years of hoax clinical trials by Geron, but extol them for a meaningless trial, that if successful, will prove that embryonics are merely 20 years behind adult stem cells rather then 25.
That is how Pharma keep the suffering patients from complaining they can't get treatments. “Adult Stem Cells are snake oil” lies are spewed out by every crooked medical scientist in North America (90% of them) while extolling the “future” of embryonic science-fiction. And, sadly, you writers pitch in, hopefully in ignorance, rather than for bribes.
Coomojoe,
We can't do everlasting damage to the planet because of god's grace? Tell that to the dodo bird or any other species that has been brought to the brink of extinction because of us.
A recent ruling that Genes can not be patented because they are natural will probably bring a new perspective to embryonic stem cell research. They to are natural. Therefore they also will not be able to be patented. No huge profits.
What hasn't been said. Embryonic stem cells can be researched with Federal money. It's restricted to current embryonic stem cells in storage. You just can't impregnate someone for the purpose of obtaining an embryo for this purpose. Beside, patents are probably no longer legal. Also it's been learned that you can obtain embryonic stem cells from the placenta after a live birth. Taken to court this could probably be legal as you didn't destroy an embryo to obtain them.
The ban has no effect on Embryonic stem cells researched with private funds. This covers the majority of research funds anyway. It also has no effect outside the U.S. Yet most of the research outside the U.S. has focused around Adult stem cell.
If your more about the Science then politics & patent (Money) arguments you would be aware that adult stem cell research is already being used. They are already growing skin for transplants. Arteries for surgical purposes. The biggest hold up is learning how to scaffold the structures to grow them on. This would have been a problem with embryonic stem cells as well. You don't just throw cells in a dish and grow a body part. They just left it to your imagination which leads you to think that. It's not that simple. There's multiple types of cells in every organ. The BIG thing about adult stem cells are they are taken from you. Unless you have a special illness there is no rejection. You don't have to take thousands of dollars of drugs for the rest of your life. You don't have to worry about a cold killing you because they suppresses your immune system.
As stated before. The scaffolding is the big hold up. New 3-D printing technology being developed may eliminate much of this problem. It's primitive according to the scale, but in 10 years who knows. It may be just what the researchers ordered. Print you a new heart in 48 hours.
They are already able to print living tissue with a printer.
Stem cells are for growing tissue or body parts.
If you want to cure diseases you study genetics.
That's found in your DNA. You don't need embryonic stem cells to do that.
The scaffolding problem has been solved in many cases by taking similarly-shaped animal organs, 'washing' all the cells off the natural scaffolding, and seeding human stem cells to replace them. It works wonderfully. As long as you can find a similar shaped natural organ in an animal, it's no problem. Printing would be nice for the animal rights activists, not to mention all the other nice things we could do with it, but it's not a critical technology any more.
Apparently we've read some of the same sites.
Cadavers have been considered.
I think the 3-D printing has great potential. All in one process & more controlled. The videos I watched we're pre 3-D printer availability. Hopefully Their aware of them now & start to look at there use. Sadly researchers can be out of the loop. (Left hand not aware of what the right hand is doing.)
Science is the Key to the future. Anyone who believes different is an idiot. Without science and research we are just a simple society taking orders from the few people with power. Where do you think this country would be without the science breakthroughs of the 19th and 20th centuries. Back in the Middle Ages, having witch hunts. the world will leave us behind.
Republicans aren't anti-science. Anyone who believes different is an idiot. Science isn't the issue. It's the politics that has become interwoven into certain fields (thanks to both sides) that's the issue.
I don't see where Jonboy stated Reps are anti-science, Smith, do you? This is a great example of some of the trouble that has been found trying to gain a common ground to progress from- too many aren't willing to see that they agree with someone else who may have a different leaning.
Why? Is it just too frustrating to read what was actually said and agree? What is so much easier about taking an argumentative stance based on what you BELIEVE was said?
Something to keep in mind.
We live in an over populated world. It's going to become more so.
If I were to discover a Scientific Breakthrough tomorrow that would keep you biologically 25 years of age until the age of 200 chronologically and keep all illnesses & diseases at bay until your 200 years old.
It would never see the light of day.
Perhaps, but it would be used for only those few who could afford it, or got ahold of it and control its use and distribution. Sounds like a good sci-fi novel of various genres.
Ideally, there's money to be made on the suffering of people, and there's money to be made alleviating the suffering of people. There's money in advancing technology, and in refusing to advance technology.
In all those gray areas are where morality, politics, ethics, and humanity lie...where do you the American stand, and where do those whom you've voted into office, regardless of political affiliation, stand?
I believe science will be greatly damaged by this election. How could it not when the wave of Republican/Tea Party candidates elected openly attack science and even refuse to acknowledge that climate change is real? But it is not just this election- it goes back to the Bush administration's attack on science, and these past two years were just not enough to catch up to where we should be.
Our elected leaders are in the business of setting policy, not trying to pretend they are scientists themselves. When climatologists around the world say that human activity is warming the planet and that this is a problem, politicians (most of whom have no scientific training) have no business arguing with them.
It would be like having a bunch of lawyers and businessmen that have never set foot in a medical school standing around arguing with highly trained neurosurgeons about the right way to do brain surgery.
It's not the politicians arguing with them. It's the other scientists.
OK, sometimes it's like having dermatologists argue with highly trained neurosurgeons about the right way to do brain surgery. ;-)
# of times Alan has taken C. Smith to school = 2
C. makes some good points, though, and I'm glad he's weighing in. Keeps us honest.
In general I don't believe that taxpayer funds should be used for scientific research. It is an inappropriate and likely unconstitutional use of the coercive power of government. Taking money from people at the point of a gun, and that's what taxation is, should be an absolute last resort. Only when something absolutely must be done (such as national defense), and there is no other way of funding it, should government force be used.
Most scientific research should be funded by the private companies likely to commercially benefit from it. That's the way it worked until the latter half of the 20th century when the explosion of big government altered the climate for scientific research to one of political dependency.
With respect to an energy policy, it should be US policy, as it has been in the past, that the most economical energy solutions should be favored. To do that, the free market in energy should be left to operate unfettered. The Invisible Hand will choose the winners and the losers. Today, by a large margin, the winners are oil and coal. Nothing else comes close, though nuclear could if a more favorable political environment existed for it.
I consider "global warming" alarmism more ideological politics than science. Change is the natural order of the living world. I expect to see temperatures rise and temperatures fall. I don't claim the arrogance to dictate what the temperature should be. But on a personal note, if we are altering the climate, and I'm willing to believe we are, I like warm better than cold.
There's one problem with your idea. Most of the big developments in technology in the past century wouldn't have happened without the kind of consistent, major funding that only a powerful government can provide. We wouldn't have gone to the Moon. We wouldn't have satellites. We probably wouldn't have the internet. We wouldn't have nuclear power. Not to mention that we'd probably use fossil fuels until there weren't any and then be screwed because no replacements had been developed. Private projects are usually only funded if profits can be seen within 3-5 years. For true vision, you need a government.
Making corporations the sole proprietors of science would result in nothing new except what makes money for corporations. Corporations don't make the kind of basic scientific progress that you get from publicly funded academic labs. Here's an example: There is no money in antibiotics. There is money in fat loss pills. We haven't had a useful new class of antibiotics in over a decade and antibiotic resistance is on the rise. We are chock full of fat loss pills. What good does this model do for us? This model is not nimble and cannot respond to threats. Thinking that we will put together emergency scientific research when a threat rises is silly. Just who is going to work those projects? There won't be any scientists in the country who don't work for corporations and they won't do it unless it is profitable.
Clean energy: You say that the government should be hands off, but you forget the government involvement in starting the oil industry and many of the other grants and subsidies that went into creating the 20th century. Oil and gas are big and profitable because they have a monopoly. No clean energy company just starting out could possibly compete with these goliaths. This has nothing to do with the product they are selling. If we went back to the end of the 19th century and put a modern clean energy company in competition with the nascant oil industry - then we would have a fair competition. We absolutely need a form of assistance to create a new market and the new competition that clean energy would provide. This is a jobs creator that provides for the future in a way that oil does not.
As for your take on AGW - you are woefully uninformed and your viewpoint is a product of the republican politicizing of science to protect their friends in the oil industry. It won't just get "warmer." There are real economic implications to allowing AGW to continue unabated. The only ones with nothing to gain in this debate are the scientists themselves. They get paid regardless of their conclusions. I would trust what they have to say if I were you.
JohnCarter- I disagree with you on several points. First, we have to use taxpayer funds for scientific research. There is much research that no company can directly benefit from (make $$) that is nonetheless critical research. This falls, as it should, under the purview of the public good. Have you ever heard of the tragedy of the commons? People will take and take and take public natural resources- research needs to be conducted to determine sustainable levels, to determine contaminants in our air and water and how they will affect us and our environment. When we wait until this must "absolutely be done" it is often too late. In the latter half of the 20th century we had a population boom where the number of people increased exponentially (as it continues to today). Government also recognized that industry would not police itself in the interest of making more money. The "global warming" argument is a misnomer. It is really climate change. While the earth is warming overall, the real effects are warmer temperatures in some regions and colder temperatures in others. More precipitation in some regions and less in others. Temperature drives ocean currents and global weather patterns. Yes, climate change occurs naturally but on a very long timescale. What we have seen occur in our lifetimes has been on an extremely accelerated timescale-not natural. When you look at how much particulate and other emissions humans put into our atmosphere, that we know cause heat to be trapped and unable to escape, how can one not conclude that human-caused climate change is real? This is not only a concern to all of the species on earth (whose roles in keeping our natural systems functioning to give us clean air, water, soil to grow food, and pollinating our crops we don't fully understand), but will likely cause future global political unrest as populations will need to move or take land by force that will be more hospitable to living in and growing food.
I can say first hand that it is happening. I live in northern Canada and the winters are noticeably warmer than they were 10 years ago. There's also the opening of the northwest passage for the first time in hundreds of years so that you can now sail from the north Altlantic to the north Pacific. What ever the cause it is definitely happening.
In reply to the belief that only government funding can produce basic science results, I would point to the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation by a couple of engineers working for Bell Labs. Einstein condensates, nano scale physics, etc at IBM's Watson Research Center. Etc. At a more applied level, I would point to the transistor, a product of Bell Labs. Or the integrated circuit, an invention of Texas Instruments. Or historically the fruits of Edison's Lab. The products of RCA's Sarnoff Lab. Etc, etc, etc. The great industrial labs did basic research until much of it was politicized by government bureaucracy. They still do some fundamental work, and would do more if they couldn't get a free ride on the taxpayer's dime via government funded research.
I have heard of the tragedy of the commons. I've also heard why it is a tragedy, and that's because it is a commons, in other words, unowned resources. The solution, allow the resources to be claimed and owned, then there is motivation to use them to their highest economic purpose.
I am willing to believe the Earth's heat balance is shifting. Certainly our growing seasons are longer, land at higher elevations is becoming open to more crops, and crops can now be grown at higher latitudes. Purdue University researchers have determined that increased carbon dioxide increases crop yields. Etc, etc, etc.
There are supposedly some downsides too, mostly only postulated to date, having to do with some fears of sea level rise and increased tropical storms, but I don't believe they outweigh the benefits of opening up new agricultural ranges. Coasts are thin strips, the bulk of our nation is well inland and at significant elevation.
Conservative Republican view here:
Embryonic Stem Cells: There are better solutions closer to working without any ethical dilemmas. Why are we still stuck on this?
Climate Change: There are better reasons to turn away from fossil fuels than highly debated long-term consequences that may or may not happen anyway. Reasons like sulfur dioxide, mercury, lead, fly ash, carbon monoxide, and more. There are also better solutions than cap-and-trade or forced development of new technologies with limited promise. Solutions like nuclear power. Why are we still stuck on this?
Space Program: In order to achieve anything significant outside of orbit (and possibly inside orbit), we first need to solve the problem of cost. It still costs us about $2,000/lb to put anything into orbit. To break orbit would cost even more. We first need to solve that problem before we can do anything else significant. Reaching Mars will be a non-issue if we can't do anything there. Reaching NEOs won't be very helpful if we can't go back to them regularly. These are trophy achievements, not real achievements. A self-sustaining orbital colony would be a real achievement, because that would reduce the need to put $2,000/lb into orbit, but that's likely decades away at least.
Research Funding: All told, it's a drop in the barrel of the national deficit. Cutting research won't fix the budget. Meanwhile, some really stupid-sounding research has lead to some really world-changing technologies. Keep the research. Cut the military, welfare, medicaid, and maybe medicare spending.
When two areas --- science and education --- are discussed, we only have two choices: spend the time, money, and effort to lead. Or fall behind and be prepared to relegate the country to a second-tier existence. This doesn't bother people who are poorly educated (and I don't just mean formal education --- there are poorly educated PhDs) and ill-informed because they already lead second-tier lives of limited means and limited opportunity. In a strange way the Luddite anti-science and anti-academic rants are a way of trying to level the playing field ---- but at their lower, more basic level.
So many people don't thing in terms of what they could be or what this country could be or the better lives they could be building for their children. Then think only in terms of their limited experience and their minimal here and now. That is why China will have 8,000 miles of high speed rail before we have even one inch. I could ride a 150-mph train in Japan in 1964 (yes, I know that it only ran at 130 mph initially,) but will never be able to ride one in this country.
And we are squandering our leads in every technological area in which we lead by burning the "profit" candle at both ends to maximize profits. We are teaching people in other countries to manufacture our high tech products (so that they will not need us at all in the future) while failing to invest in research and development as a nation. It makes this quarter's earnings look great but will look more like bankruptcy in ten years. Our research and development investment in 2009 was the lowest it has been since prior to WWII. That means that we will decline technologically for the next 20-30 years even if we turn it around tomorrow.
And we want to blame everything on China. But at the bottom line, China has 95% of the rare earth minerals in the world. One of the "hot topics" at the current G20 Summit (to which the Republicans are so vocally objecting) is whether China will continue to supply us with these technologically-critical elements or whether they will use them either as economic leverage against us or will withhold them entirely and completely shut down all our high-tech industry virtually overnight (our strategic stockpile of some of these materials is less than two months.) And lest you think that this will not happen --- look at the solar power industry. China has used their control of the rare earth minerals to wrest control of thin-film solar technology away from Europe and now control around 98% of the production of high-efficiency solar panels for the world.
But my point is this: It is people like John Carter (#14) who want to see this country fail. Who want to see the whole 300 million plus people reduced to their intellectual and economic so they can have the luxury of living in a world that they kinda partially have an idea that they understand instead of the current one where they are entirely clueless.
We need a space-based solar power program, led perhaps bilaterally by the US and India, which will solve the clean baseload energy and environmental stewardship requirements for the next generations. The program is industrial activity which will lead to the settlement of space. We need a restoration of Fairness rules to TV and radio so that extremist positions on political, social, and scientific issues (i.e. global warming) are answered in the venues in which they are created. Free speech is chilled when opposing views are silenced as they are now.
So it is ok to mame and sacrifie astronauts and crewmembers? We should celebrate for this?
It is like saying the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are ok as long as my son or daughter are not there.
We are to celebrate and take pride on manned spaceflight with the sacrifice of others?
"Tombstone mentality" at it's best (or is that worst?).
The politicization of science is nothing new. It has been going on at least since the Middle Ages: look at Galileo vs. the Catholic Church.
That being said, we need a new mechanism for funding both basic science and applied science research. Corporate research is owned by the corporations - they get the patents and property rights. Government research, while in the public domain, has always been dominated by the ideological bent of the granting agencies. College research has become almost an oxymoron: it has become little more than a front for corporate and for government research.
We need a way to fund speculative research. This is research into wild, screwball and otherwise "insane" ideas, without having to lead to immediate practical applications. Much of this research leads nowhere, but if properly conducted, adds to the knowledge of what will not work. By mining the failures, other researchers will find the glimmers of new avenues of practical research. For an example, think of "Sticky Notes."
Academic labs that get funding through government agencies are not answerable to those agencies. They provide the funding with a few minor stipulations such as time frames for completion, submitting of progress reports, etc. Other than saying that a particular grant will be awarded to researchers investigating therapies for AIDS, for example, there is no control over the subject matter or course of the research. The panels that determine whether or not a grant application should be funded are made of independent scientists who decide based on the overall scope of the project, feasibility, novelty, etc. The government does not have a hand and does not steer the work. There is no ideological bent in the work. If you can do what you propose and prove it, you will be funded no matter the conclusions from the work.
As for corporate research being done on campuses: Most scientists steer away from it, but it is lucrative to provide some research expertise to a company - especially when the federal granting agencies have been continually gutted of funding.
What I don't understand, is how you can be Republican and claim to be uber Christian, and be against things like, protecting and NOT desecrating God's creation(the earth), hedging up national security with energy independence, and providing a better quality of life for your fellow man(i.e. healthcare reform).........Me thinks Jesus would send anyone against these things to hell first on judgement day....
Will there be a war on science?! There already is a war on science!
Funding levels at the NIH still have not recovered from the Bush years. Any further erosion of research funding will shut down many laboratories around America, putting thousands of scientists out of work. The biotech industry is in no shape to take these unemployed scientists into their fold either.
Science is high on the list of politicized issues among GOP circles. To them science is a lie used to push: liberal morals, energy reform, evolution, liberal education, etc. The right wing in this country has systematicaly taken stands against everything that science attempts to explain or produce. It is an anti-progress stance. It is a pro-religion stance.
There is a reason that high percentages of Americans with advanced degrees support the dems. These people are the scientists that create our modern world and the GOP wants them gone. They want them gone because science, by its very nature, challenges the status quo. Repubs can't have that! Repubs don't think beyond immediate gratification either. They cannot understand why they should spend millions now for future developments.
As a scientist I can say that I am continually pissed off when I listen to the GOP and their right wing, religio-fascist supporters demonize and question the motives of scientists the world over. Scientists have only ever been dedicated to truth and progress. When bad apples are found, they are found through the scientific process of self correction and peer review. There is personal incentive to catch a colleague making a mistake or telling a lie after all. If republicans don't turn away from their continued political attacks on science, there are going to be problems in this country.
We need to get the imperialistic oligarch lobbyists and corporate raiders out of heading our Govt agencies to begin with and keep them out by making laws if they worked for Monsanto, et al, they don't get a place at the round table. Replace them all with legitimate Scientists who aren't there to do anything but bring us real fact.
Good to read that there is still some intellectual life amongst us!
Should not science be subject to review and correction from outside sources as well?
Self correction and peer review are certainly admirable attempts at finding truth and looking out for the interests of progress, but thank God for liberty, the freedom of speech, and a right to peaceful assembly, whatever the reason.
Admittedly, Religion has failed miserably for the same reason every other institution of man has failed, or is failing, including science.
Dawkins said that if we found just one fossil out of sequence, the whole theory of evolution would blow up (I'm paraphrasing) . In January of 2010, the publication concerning tetrapod trackways in Poland categorically fulfilled this criteria, and blewup the lobe finned fish to tetrapod theory. Where is the peer review and self correction now?
Don't get me wrong. I am well aware of all the benefits of good science. But evolution, as it is taught today, is not very good science. It is an ideology my friends, that is in great need of correction and review, just like christianity, and every other religion.
Don't you people have jobs? wrote: "A large majority of our population can barely read or write their NATIVE LANGUAGE, let alone any other languages." Umm, first, this is ridiculous. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans (I'm assuming "our" refers to Americans) can read and write their names, and much else besides. Second, your name is the same in other _languages_. It might get written differently in other _writing systems— (Arabic script, Chinese characters, the Cherokee syllabary); but in languages that use the same writing system we do (Latin script), it can be spelled just the same as it is in English. There's no such thing as translating your name, unless your name is something like Little Bear or "the artist formerly known as the prince."
Oh, I see; your name is "Don't you people have jobs?" So yes, I suppose you *can* translate that...
Who said anything about "their name"? You can teach a monkey to write their name...
What I was saying is that a large majority of people (Yes, meaning Americans) have little grasp of the ONLY LANGUAGE they speak. (If you've been reading the Vine for any period of time, you'd see this as well, since most posts are nothing more than a continuous stream of misspelled words and bad grammar). Most foreigners I meet have a better grasp of the English language than do many Native born Americans who have never spoken anything BUT English.
From reading your post, I can see that you DO have a grasp of the written language (Perhaps not so much in reading comprehension, or logical thought, unless of course you just like being difficult for difficulty's sake).
The embryonic hoax was started to protect Pharma from losing profits to Adult Stem Cells. The hoax is safe because of the major scientific problems which no one in western medicine has come close to solving, such as cancer, immune rejection, and outrageous costs. There is also the religious objection will slow things down, to Pharma's delight. The final hoax defense is that Pharma will never let it out of the lab when solved. Therefore, embryonics will never "work" in North America.
The interesting story will be when a Russian, an Iranian or an Asian, without Pharma looking over their shoulder, quietly makes ESC useable. You can bet one thing---the embryonic hoaxers will bury that story as much as possible.