Autism Vox
Common Sense
Developing Intelligence
Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge
Dr. X's Free Associations
Geek Buffet
Greg Laden's Blog
Jabal Al-Lughat
Lingformant
Literal-Minded
Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)
phonoloblog
Polyglot conspiracy
Providentia
Tenser, said the Tensor
The Omnibrain
The Phineas Gage Fan Club
Readers of this blog know that I have been skeptical of John McCain's support for science. Although he has said he supports increasing science funding, he appears to consider recent science funding budgets that have not kept pace with inflation to be "increases." He has also since called for a discretionary spending freeze.
In recent years vocally anti-science elements have hijacked the science policies of the Republican party -- a party that actually has a strong history of supporting science -- so the question has been where McCain stands, or at least which votes he cares about most. The jury is still out on McCain, but Palin just publicly blasted basic science research as wasteful government spending.
The project that she singled out, incidentally, appears to be research that could eventually lead to new treatments of Autism. Ironically, Palin brought up this "wasteful" research as a program that could be cut in order to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Republican Erosion
October 28, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 3 weeks ago
Comment id: 32569
I agree that it is disheartening to see the conservative movement getting hijacked by religious zealots espousing creationism, etc. However, the biggest disappointment of the Bush years was the wasteful government spending, which is really what most true conservatives hate. Similarly, the democrats are being hijacked by the far left and environmentalists who can't abide any development or necessary industry. All of this leads to two diametrally opposed groups, with everyone else in the middle trying to figure out who is closest to their viewpoint. It always boils down to big government/big programs = democrats; big industry, big private sector = republicans. I think the republican image has gotten blurred a little bit lately, but it's obvious that Obama has every intention of growing government to huge proportions which means more of your paycheck and more control over your life.
Is that worth an extra contract or two for more fruit fly research? And I'm a science junkie.
It's *not* fruit fly research
October 28, 2008 by coglanglab, 1 year 3 weeks ago
Comment id: 32570
OK. There seems to be some confusion about what it means to study fruit flies.
Very few people study fruit flies because they are interested in fruit flies. These researchers in particular seem to be interested in Autism. Why study fruit flies to learn about Autism?
That's how science works. It's very rare that you study directly study the phenomenon you are interested in. I'm interested in how people "read between the lines." That's hard to study directly, so I pick simpler questions that I can study that will help move us in the direction of the questions I really care about.
Fruit flies are enormously useful animals to study because they breed quickly, because their genome is very well understood, and because there are a lot of developed tools for studying them.
Mendel discovered the properties of genetics by studying pea plants. Darwin developed the theory of evolution by studying birds. You can imagine Palin now: Pea plants! At a monastery! Birds at a tropical island! What waste!
Please try my web-based experiments
A little slanted aren't we?
October 27, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 3 weeks ago
Comment id: 32561
I will vote for Obama as I see him as the lesser of two evils, however, mentioning fruit-fly research in France as an example of wasteful spending is hardly the same as the implication of the statement "Palin just publicly blasted basic science research as wasteful government spending."
A person can dislike a subset of a group without disliking the whole group...
No, angry a little
October 28, 2008 by coglanglab, 1 year 3 weeks ago
Comment id: 32564
Slanted? Hopefully not. I try to be open-minded.
Angry? Definitely. It's hard to have cared about American science these last 8 years and not be angry and suspicious. Obama has done much to allay any fears about him (see previous posts) -- McCain pointedly has not.
I agree it's theoretically possible to disagree with one particular line of research. There are some projects I think are wasteful, too. But Palin never argued that this line of research was wasteful. She seems to be arguing that fruit fly research, on the face of it, is wasteful (just like the bear DNA she harped on before).
Now, it might be a bit much to expect someone who doesn't believe in geology, evolution, global warming, drowning polar bears or the negative environmental impacts of oil drilling to understand the long-range implications for Autism of some work with fruit flies. But that's exactly the problem.
Please try my web-based experiments
McCain
October 27, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 3 weeks ago
Comment id: 32559
A vote against Obama is a vote against socialism.
A vote for Obama is a vote for oppression and government dictates on what is PC be it in society or science.
Obama is the most dangerous candidate since the US was founded and must be stopped.
Re: Anon on McCain
October 27, 2008 by Fred Bortz, 1 year 3 weeks ago
Comment id: 32560
In my previous post, I asked
The anonymous poster, who is echoing the campaign's worst unsupported accusations while saying nothing about science, makes that question all the more on target.
I'd like to hear the answer to my question from Republicans who value both their party and science.
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
To clarify
October 28, 2008 by Fred Bortz, 1 year 3 weeks ago
Comment id: 32571
I'm not a Republican. I am a Democrat, but not an ideologue.
Politics goes wrong without a credible opposition, so although I'd like to see the Democrats in power for a while, I lament the fact that GWBush has damaged the Republican party.
So while I disagree with the characterization of the Democrats as big spenders (consider the late 1990s surpluses), I share our Republican commenter's lament that GWBush apparently bought into the doctrine that deficits don't matter.
The recent deficits have harmed our government's ability to step in where it has legitimate purpose. The support of basic science is one place where the government has incentive to do what corporations cannot justify.
I like the term "the commons" to describe where government funds support, and regulations sustain, what is needed for the common good and provide for a better future. Basic science is part of the commons, as I see it.
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
I'm with you
October 27, 2008 by Fred Bortz, 1 year 3 weeks ago
Comment id: 32557
Among the great political tragedies of the Bush years has been the steady erosion of the Republican party because ideology has taken precedence over evidence.
McCain seems to understand this, yet he knows he can't get elected without the support of the ideologues. He chose Palin to solidify his base, but at the cost of independents, especially those who appreciate the role of science in policy-making.
Are we seeing the surrender of the Republican Party to the ideological and religious right, or are we seeing its low point, from which it will rebuild as the party of Dwight Eisenhower, Colin Powell, and moderates like my Senator Arlen Spector (who once had my enthusiastic support but lost my vote when he pandered to the right, including his roundly defeated colleague Rick Sanctimony-orum)?
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
Additional details
October 27, 2008 by coglanglab, 1 year 3 weeks ago
Comment id: 32556
For more detail, check out this article in Slate.
Please try my web-based experiments