Scientists feel stifled by Bush administration
- Thread starter CFLarsen
- Start date
CFLarsen said:
Not really. It's tough to stifle scientific inquiry for any length of time. The Catholic Church, at one time the world's superpower, never did have much sucess with the heliocentric thingy. I don't see much enthusiasm for creation science or intelligent design in the White House.
Some of the bio-science types can perhaps let us know what's happening in stem cell research.
Funding is always a problem. On the other hand, seen any useful stuff from the NIH (Not Invented Here) lately.
If the government had set out in 1965 to find a cure for retinal disease, do you really think a guy with a laser would have had a chance of getting govt. funding?
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
No.CFLarsen said:
All I see happening is that the current US policies towards science are leaving gaps for scientists from other countries with pro-science attitudes to fill. It is also encouraging the highly able US scientific brains to work outside of that country (i.e. a brain-drain). The sad part is the developing education gap - see my second sig line...CFLarsen said:
I expect there will be a rebound at some time in the future, though.
And don't think you are alone - our current government has been developing similar attitudes towards science for some time... Sad bastards.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Re: Re: Scientists feel stifled by Bush administration
"If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."
National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983
It's not new, it's not Bush's fault, it's not the end of the world, and it's not like every other country doesn't have its own problems.
"If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."
National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983
It's not new, it's not Bush's fault, it's not the end of the world, and it's not like every other country doesn't have its own problems.
Walter Wayne
Wayne's Words
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2002
- Messages
- 2,502
I don't believe the Bible has anything to do with it. Bush may be religious but God is also under strick orders not to say anything that conflicts with the business interests which drive Bush's policies.CFLarsen said:
Walt
Re: Re: Scientists feel stifled by Bush administration
First, spelling, "strict" not "strick". Get over it, it's AMERICA with a "C" not "Kanadink" with a "Don't matter dude. Get a country."
If Canada had any business interests maybe it could become a real country.
"USA, come for the MRI's, no waits for surgery and freedom to tell the toffs to buzz off! Stay for the sex!"
A Canadian writing about business? The pope gives sex talks.
Walter Wayne said:
First, spelling, "strict" not "strick". Get over it, it's AMERICA with a "C" not "Kanadink" with a "Don't matter dude. Get a country."
If Canada had any business interests maybe it could become a real country.
"USA, come for the MRI's, no waits for surgery and freedom to tell the toffs to buzz off! Stay for the sex!"
A Canadian writing about business? The pope gives sex talks.
Meaning what, exactly?
Fred Hoyle was a noted astronomer who nonetheless made the assinine "hurricane through a junkyard assembling a 747" quote.
Isaac Newton was a brilliant physicist, but that doesn't mean the fact that he believed in God is to be treated with any great reverence. And Pascal is also the source of his infamous wager - enough to tarnish any special claim he might have otherwise had towards infallibility.
As long as they continue to do good science, the religious beliefs of the scientists are immaterial. Whether or not it is possible to do good science and still be a fundamentalist is an open question, I suppose, but neither Newton nor Pascal were fundamentalists.
Fred Hoyle was a noted astronomer who nonetheless made the assinine "hurricane through a junkyard assembling a 747" quote.
Isaac Newton was a brilliant physicist, but that doesn't mean the fact that he believed in God is to be treated with any great reverence. And Pascal is also the source of his infamous wager - enough to tarnish any special claim he might have otherwise had towards infallibility.
As long as they continue to do good science, the religious beliefs of the scientists are immaterial. Whether or not it is possible to do good science and still be a fundamentalist is an open question, I suppose, but neither Newton nor Pascal were fundamentalists.
SixSixSix said:
Well that is kinda my point. Claus presented it as an either or scenario, ie no need for science because you have a Bible.
More evidence, is that some budget is getting "slashed" (whatever that means! No actual numbers.. I'd worry!, but this doesn't mean Bush admin are stifling science progress. For example, a lot of the budget is going towards NASA. Now tell me, is NASA anti-science?
And a reasonable follow up question would be: if the Democrats had won, would things be any better?
I'm an Aussie, not an American, but count me as skeptical that the answer would necessarily have been "yes". The real problem with political parties in both countries - the UK, too, come to think of it - is that they have both moved so close together as to be virtually identical.
But politics is - alas - far harder to "fix" than simply creating a perpetual motion machine.
I'm an Aussie, not an American, but count me as skeptical that the answer would necessarily have been "yes". The real problem with political parties in both countries - the UK, too, come to think of it - is that they have both moved so close together as to be virtually identical.
But politics is - alas - far harder to "fix" than simply creating a perpetual motion machine.