|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:25 pm
I was listening to yet another Science Friday podcast and among the topics was science as an issue for the (now past) election. Some of you have probably heard this before, but more than any other administration, the Bush administration has acted as an obstruction to the persuit of and use of science. The administration's denial of global warming is one such example as is the lack of movement to fund the EPA or the dismissal of "Plan B" over-the-counter birth control. So here are some questions for discussion!
arrow How should any elected official treat science and scientific data? Do they have a responsibility to listen to the scientific consensus on issues of national or international signifigance?
arrow How much funding should the government put into science (such as college scholarships and research grants)?
arrow When you vote, on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest) how much will you consider science-issues when compared to other common issues of concern like the economy?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:45 am
City of angels, can you hold my heart tonight? ,.;'* 
If anything, scientific data is the founding of the creation of the universe. When you don't consider any sort of religion of course. So it's important for an elected official to take care of these issues and listen to the scientific consensus. Why? Because you never know what's going to happen. You'll need specific advice and you'll want to care about the world we live in. Of course they have the responsibility. Just because they're an official, doesn't mean they're strictly dealing with politics. If anything, these guys should be more well-rounded and care more about the big picture, rather than the smaller trivial issues they want to care about.
The government really does need to help out more with scholarships, and ESPECIALLY research grants. There are a lot of places out there that need it, and aren't getting the funding they need. I don't know an approximation of how much they'd need but the government should put more effort in that category. neutral
The economy's highly shaped by the environment. If something happens to the structure of the land, or if certain situations arise, it'd be best for them to know about it. It could shape their investments. Like oil companies, or maybe even agriculture/trade. So I'd say that science-issues is rated an eight overall.
*';., 'Cause everything seems broken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:06 pm
I was listening to a podcast that related to this topic recently so I thought I'd add in a few things to this thread. The US government as some may know, hasn't been too on the ball with science funding over the past year. The budgets have basically stayed the same which means a net loss because of that little baddie known as inflation. Lots of programs are in jepordy of fizzling out before they even get started, several of which relate to our understanding of climate change and possible solutions. Of course, these projects will probably still get done.
In other countries instead of the US.
The podcast cited that the return on science money invested is something like at least $1.50 for every buck invested. So what's the deal with our government? Tons of our consumer innovations have come from grants that initially funded scientific projects (like the ever popular iPod).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:59 pm
I definitely think government officials have a responsibility to respect the scientific consensus.
I'd be for more funding going towards science, and I would consider a politician's positions on science related issues of equal or greater importance than other issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
