An Open Letter to the American People
The year’s presidential election is among the most significant in our nation’s history. The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.
We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.
During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country’s scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support. The government’s scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations. As a result, our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.
We have watched Senator Obama’s approach to these issues with admiration. 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 world’s most urgent needs.
Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal investments in science and technology are crucial elements in successful governance of the world’s leading country. We hope you will join us as we work together to ensure his election in November.
Clicking on the link will show the signatures 76 Nobelists, 3 of which are winners from this year.
It doesn’t help that McCain and Palin deride scientific research into bear DNA in Montana, fruit fly research critical to olive grove crops in California, and the use of an “overhead projector” which would bring Chicago’s planetarium up to date with those in L.A. and NYC, not to mention that fact that one of these two scientifically illiterate mooks doesn’t think understanding climate change is important toward stopping it.
Filed under: News | Tagged: adler, bear DNA, fruit flies, McCain, montana, nobelists, Obama, olive grove, Palin, Science, zeiss projector |
For the Sake of Science 
I find it ironic that in an earlier post you were arguing that science can’t make someone ‘conservative or liberal’ and now you are trumpeting the fact that ‘Scientists Endorse Obama’, misleading as that headline might be. Apparently some can live with these obvious contradictions, but I think it’s fairly obvious that scientists are mostly idiots when it comes to politics.
Indeed, scientists of the sort who have written here are mostly academics who rely on a form of welfare that comes from government distirbutions of taxpayer moneys; of course they support Obama, because he is the sort of candidate who is most like to feed that hog.
If they were in the business of conducting research that produced useful and marketable discoveries, chances are they would be as supportive of McCain as they are Obama; but because they are glorified welfare queens, they by neccesity have to glom onto the candidates who promise the greatest transfer of unerned wealth.
Obama has expressed his support for scientific research. McCain has done so for stem cell research, but has made little other point of emphasizing the importance of science. And then there’s the whole Sarah Palin not knowing the difference between a scientific theory and a laymen theory like creationism and intelligent design. That isn’t science being conservative or liberal. That’s scientists voting for who they think will fund them the best.
Obama has expressed his support for scientific research. McCain has done so for stem cell research, but has made little other point of emphasizing the importance of science. And then there’s the whole Sarah Palin not knowing the difference between a scientific theory and a laymen theory like creationism and intelligent design. That isn’t science being conservative or liberal. That’s scientists voting for who they think will fund them the best.
Well, exactly; when one depends on welfare for one’s livelihood, one supports the administration most likely to increase it.
You’re entitled to that opinion. It still remains that your original point that this post is “ironic” hasn’t held up.