76 Nobel Laureates Endorse Obama
As of last Friday, the number of Nobel Laureates endorsing Barack Obama for president has risen to 76, saying Obama will end Bush-era trashing of scientific research, integrity, and competitiveness.
In an open letter (pdf), the Laureates cite the politicization of science under the Bush administration, particularly in the fields of heath and climate, saying that “vital parts of our country’s scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support,” adding that through an advisory process “distorted by political considerations” America’s “once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk.”
Despite John McCain’s claim that he is the true agent of change for all that has gone wrong under George Bush, both he and his remarkably incurious and misinformed (at best) running mate show how they plan to continue Bush’s appalling lack of regard for science; combining an inexcusable ignorance of the importance of basic scientific research, with the morally bereft penchant for using science as yet another divisive wedge to promulgate their politics of intolerance, fear, and derision - aiming straight at the lowest common denominator in the body politic.
The vital role of science to address the most pressing issues of our time, from economic competitiveness to climate change, energy, and sustainability, will return under an Obama administration, say the Nobel scientists:
“We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation’s competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take – through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research – to meet the nation’s and the world’s most urgent needs.”
The letter stresses that the country is in urgent need of a “visionary leader” saying, “We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him”.
McCain and Palin would surely continue us on the resolute path back to the Dark Ages upon which George Bush set out eight years ago.
And there is no more time to waste on such foolishness.
“Despite John McCain’s claim that he is the true agent of change for all that has gone wrong under George Bush, both he and his remarkably incurious and misinformed (at best) running mate show how they plan to continue Bush’s appalling lack of regard for science;”
Just how do they “show” their plan to continue a lack of regard for science? Your article has gone into such a slanted direction without any presentable facts?
“McCain and Palin would surely continue us on the resolute path back to the Dark Ages upon which George Bush set out eight years ago.”
I’m not sure which crystal ball you’re looking at… but the scientist’s open letter does not refer to McCain’s future policy on science and technology.
Please give us some references. Open ended attacks are just plain ignorant, and leave no room for readers who may not share the cheerleader type liberal point of views of this article.
Hey Jay,
The references are right there. Follow the links. The “crystal ball” I use are McCain’s and Palin’s own words. The open letter endorses Obama as the best choice to reverse the attack and politicization of science of the past eight years. Since you apparently didn’t follow the referring links for that information (might have been a good idea before calling me out for not providing reference information), I’ll do it for you (rah, rah, rah):
“…when, at a speech in Pittsburgh, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin denounced wasteful expenditure on fruit-fly research, adding for good xenophobic and anti-elitist measure that some of this research took place “in Paris, France,” and winding up with a folksy, “I kid you not.”
It was in 1933 that Thomas Hunt Morgan won a Nobel Prize for showing that genes are passed on by way of chromosomes. The experimental creature that he employed in the making of this great discovery was the Drosophila melanogaster, or fruit fly. Scientists of various sorts continue to find it a very useful resource, since it can be easily and plentifully “cultured” in a laboratory, has a very short generation time, and displays a great variety of mutation.
This makes it useful in studying disease, and since Gov. Palin was in Pittsburgh to talk about her signature “issue” of disability and special needs, she might even have had some researcher tell her that there is a Drosophila-based center for research into autism at the University of North Carolina. The fruit fly can also be a menace to American agriculture, so any financing of research into its habits and mutations is money well-spent. It’s especially ridiculous and unfortunate that the governor chose to make such a fool of herself in Pittsburgh, a great city that remade itself after the decline of coal and steel into a center of high-tech medical research.
In this case, it could be argued, Palin was not just being a fool in her own right but was following a demagogic lead set by the man who appointed her as his running mate. Sen. John McCain has made repeated use of an anti-waste and anti-pork ad (several times repeated and elaborated in his increasingly witless speeches) in which the expenditure of $3 million to study the DNA of grizzly bears in Montana was derided as “unbelievable.” As an excellent article in the Feb. 8, 2008, Scientific American pointed out, there is no way to enforce the Endangered Species Act without getting some sort of estimate of numbers, and the best way of tracking and tracing the elusive grizzly is by setting up barbed-wire hair-snagging stations that painlessly take samples from the bears as they lumber by, and then running the DNA samples through a laboratory. The cost is almost trivial compared with the importance of understanding this species, and I dare say the project will yield results in the measurement of other animal populations as well, but all McCain could do was be flippant and say that he wondered whether it was a “paternity” or “criminal” issue that the Fish and Wildlife Service was investigating. (Perhaps those really are the only things that he associates in his mind with DNA.)”
-Have a nice day.
A major issue with science in this country is the lack of research that is being done. This happens because tuition is so high that students do not have time to go into research before getting a job. Obama’s tax credit to college students who promise to serve their country in some way will help with that.
some people are just not too smart afterall!
I couldn’t agree more with the author of this article. Freedom of thought and the free-flow of scientific knowledge have been staples of American society for centuries.
I have been disappointed in recent years with the pace of progress made in the development of ‘controversial’ but quite possibly remarkably life-saving technologies like stem-cell research.
And, unfortunately, I don’t believe electing a vice-president who believes that creationism should be taught in schools is the appropriate choice to usher the United States into a new age of scientific exploration.
Geoff, the way to increase research is by increasing research grants. Currently, the majority of grants are given for applied military use rather than for basic research or research that could help the economy more.
Great article. I’d like to see some statistical evidence from this group.
Makes sense I mean the alternative is McBush and surely no one with an ounce of common sense would endorse him.
Jiff
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
Either people like it or not I see OBAMA becoming the new president!More of your digg is or are needed.
Not that I needed any more reason to not vote for the McCain/Palin ticket, but wow, her ignorant comment on fruit fly research was just so asinine.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have some brains in the White House again? (And not evil geniuses like Rove or Cheney.)