9 Responses to “Take 2: 14 Important Science Questions”

1. Joy Says:
   September 15th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

   1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?

   Selected to-the-topic tidbits from McCain's responses:

   McCain: I am committed to streamlining burdensome regulations and effectively protecting American intellectual property in the United States and around the globe.

   • Focus on addressing national needs to make the United States a leader in developing, deploying, and exporting new technologies;

   • Utilize the nation’s science and technology infrastructure to develop a framework for economic growth both domestically and globally;

   • Appoint a Science and Technology Advisor within the White House to ensure that the role of science and technology in policies is fully recognized and leveraged, that policies will be based upon sound science, and that the scientific integrity of federal research is restored;

   • Eliminate wasteful earmarks in order to allocate funds for science and technology investments;

   • Fund basic and applied research in new and emerging fields such as nanotechnology and biotechnology, and in greater breakthroughs in information technology;

   • Promote greater fiscal responsibility by improving the scientific and engineering management within the federal government;

   • Encourage and facilitate commercialization of new innovations, especially those created from federally funded research;

   Plus a lot of nice words about science, math and technology education boosts, just like Obama.

   My thoughts: Lots of nice words about education only mean something if changes in our educational system actually take place. Given the serious decline over the past 40 years, I'll reserve judgment on these nice words until there is actually some action on the educational front when the dust clears.

   • I am not clear on how someone who is basically sci-tech illiterate can be "uniquely qualified" to oversee expanded science, engineering and technological progress in the 21st century, so I'll reserve judgment on that too.

   • Addressing national needs is always a good idea when the nation's in Big Trouble. This may require not borrowing $10 billion a month for wars of oil and empire, since there's really nothing very forward-looking, scientific or technologically exciting about bombing homes and marketplaces and shooting civilians in other people's countries. If there is to be massive deficit spending to address national needs, it should address OUR national needs, not Haliburton's needs, Blackwater's needs, or Exxon's needs.

   • A Sci-Tech tsar is a good idea. As is eliminating the political twisting of scientific consensus and basing policy on "sound science." McCain should definitely vet this appointment, since not vetting has gotten him in so much hot water recently. Basic politics 101.

   • Dealing with McCain's running mate's fondness for high-dollar pork - as a role model for pork lovers everywhere - might be an issue. A lot of the pork-lovers in government seem to think bridges to nowhere are great uses of tax dollars, but that education, scientific research and technological development are not. THAT needs fixing. ALL federal money that goes to states for particular projects is "Pork." We just need to prioritize it under the broad view of what's good for the nation, not what's good for, say, Wasilla, Alaska.

   • Why does the phrase "promote greater fiscal responsibility" using federal 'management' by gub'ment bureaucrats sound so much like putting the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse? Looks like more of the same to me.

   • Why does "facilitating commercialization of innovations" created with our hard earned tax dollars sound so much like putting the financial onus on taxpayers to finance the R&D job industry and corporate science should be doing with their own money for their own bottom lines? And how does this jive with the whole 'protection of intellectual property' thing? Is that a nod to Big Pharma's notorious efforts to prevent generic knock-offs of their drugs for people in the Third World whose entire annual incomes won't buy a month's supply of necessary medications?

Comment by Joy — September 15, 2008 @ 1:38 pm

2. interested bystander Says:
   September 16th, 2008 at 1:48 am

   Hi Joy. Since McCain has now replied, I decided to compare the answers of the candidates to Question #4 about education. They were asked about K-12 education specifically: What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?
   Obama mentions “STEM education” 15 times. Does everyone automatically know that STEM means science, technology, engineering and math? I did not know that acronym until I got to the part where he has introduced legislation called “The Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education Act of 2008.” He favors coordinating the efforts of federal agencies and creating a State Consortium.

   “These reforms will strengthen interagency coordination at the federal level, encourage collaboration on common content standards and assessments for STEM education at the state and local levels, and provide a mechanism for sharing the latest innovations and practices in STEM education with educators.”

   My best interpretation of that is a sort of a trickle-down effect on the students from changes in the federal Department of Education and other agencies. Obama used the word students only once in his answer but does mention children and graduates several times.
   Additionally Obama would emphasize the role of teachers and the recruitment of better teachers and also the needs of the most at risk children with a “zero to five” program.
   Recruiting better teachers is an excellent idea, who would oppose that? The “zero to five” program falls outside of the K-12 scope of the question, I guess I would want more information on that, specifically how it differs from Head Start and all.

   McCain apparently supports STEM education programs as well, but not with the same fervor as Obama, he uses the acronym only once. He also strays from the K-12 scope of the question by talking about invigorating the community college system and retraining for displaced workers.

   “But I believe that education is an ongoing process. Thus our nation’s education system should not only focus on graduating new students; we must also help re-train displaced workers as they prepare for the rapidly evolving economy. Invigorating our community college system is a good place to start.”

   Interestingly, in talking about education McCain uses the word students or student about 13 times in his answer. Does that mean anything? Maybe. McCain also favors teacher development, incentives/bonuses for high performing teachers and also expanding online education opportunities.

   “We need to provide teachers with high quality professional development opportunities with a primary focus on instructional strategies that address the academic needs of their students. The first 35 percent of Title II funding would be directed to the school level so principals and teachers could focus these resources on the specific needs of their schools.”

   I am hearing from that that McCain would put money directly into the local schools as well as into the agencies that oversee them.
   The candidates differ in their choices of words and where they would put funds. They seem to agree on several things.

   I have always had an interest in science myself and would like to see more emphasis placed on science in the elementary grades when children still have a natural curiosity about plants and animals. As I look back, my interest in science was fueled most by my parents in providing me with books and travel and also by scout leaders and camping experiences. I fear that many children are wasting away their time indoors these days and are not getting up close and personal with nature.

Comment by interested bystander — September 16, 2008 @ 1:48 am

3. Joy Says:
   September 16th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

   interested bystander:

   I have always had an interest in science myself and would like to see more emphasis placed on science in the elementary grades when children still have a natural curiosity about plants and animals. As I look back, my interest in science was fueled most by my parents in providing me with books and travel and also by scout leaders and camping experiences. I fear that many children are wasting away their time indoors these days and are not getting up close and personal with nature.

   What's wrong with public education in this country is that it's a fairly haphazard "bottom-up" construct with issues involved that no one wants to talk honestly about. I'm not sure that public education can be 'fixed' at the federal level. And in fact, the federal Department of Education has no power to impose policies or criteria on state or local systems. I know quite a few college professors who complain regularly that instead of being able to teach real college level courses, they have to spend their time teaching basics their now-adult students were never taught in public school.

   All this ties back to other sociological issues, such as the fact that it now takes 2 or 3 incomes to barely get by in the lower middle class bracket, and no one's home. When those latch-key kids finally do get an hour with a parent, that parent is often too tired, stressed from work or still doing it (lots of people work hours at home every night) to help Johnny with his multiplication tables or mark up misspellings on Janie's theme draft. The kids are on their own.

   I know kids who have pretty much raised themselves and were primarily educated by television. Our neighborhoods are no longer safe enough for kids to "go out and play," so they sit glued to the idiot box eating themselves to obesity. I'm a firm believer that television is almost universally geared towards "dumbing down" the population, and it works frighteningly well. The true indicator of this is that despite protests that there are 3 or 4 "really good" programs during the week that hardly anybody watches, people have been convinced to pay $75 to $100 or more a month for the privilege of being stupefied! Never ceases to amaze me.

   All the factors work together for a sociological purpose. The goal is to create an entire population of basically mindless automatons who will be reliable consumers. To the point where, after the horrendous wake-up call that was the 9-11 attacks, we could believe it's somehow an acceptable Presidential response to tell us all to "go shopping." That sucks the big one. Tells me it's no longer about We The People. It's the profits our corporate overlords can squeeze out of us for junk we don't need, as if consumption of junk is the 'Meaning of Life'. It was always a fragile illusion. It's now shattering all around us.

   As our artificially propped economy nosedives millions of workers will lose their already less-than adequate jobs along with their work-sponsored health care coverage (and those who don't lose it will have it taxed as income if John McCain is elected). nearly 50 million citizens - including children - already have none, and can't get any even if they had the money because they suffer asthma or diabetes or epilepsy or some other "pre-existing condition." The entire middle class is one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. Tens of millions are becoming homeless, many millions more have seen the value of their lone 'real' asset plummet to where it's not even worth what they're paying for it. A majority of children these days are being raised in single-income families, usual a mother who earns a mere 77¢ for every dollar her wayward ex who won't pay child support earns.

   Guess you can tell that I think our entire society is sick. So I'm not confident that a regime change can actually do much to change things. These are not problems that will be cured by teaching evolution in high school (they've been doing for many decades already). They won't be cured by forcing religion down everybody's throats. And they won't be cured by declaring pre-emptive war on the rest of the world and sending all those young dropouts off to die so we can shop for more junk. It took us a long time to reach the bottom of this pit, it'll take a long time to climb out. And it'll take more unity of purpose than Americans are used to engaging. The distraction of 'Culture Wars' is too easy, the degradation of our civil discourse too tempting, the glint of gold too enticing, the comfort of ignorance and imposed stupidity too desirable.

   But I will vote for hope and change this November, because it's better than more of the same old same. Even though my expectations are minimal as to how much good that'll actually do us.

Comment by Joy — September 16, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

4. Pez Says:
   September 16th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

   Hi Joy,
   Have any of the answers the science questions tipped your vote, and if so which ones?

Comment by Pez — September 16, 2008 @ 3:45 pm

5. Joy Says:
   September 16th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

   Pez:

   Have any of the answers the science questions tipped your vote, and if so which ones?

   Nope. I've been voting Democratic ever since I started voting. I was the secretary-treasurer for our city's NAACP Youth Council the year both MLK and RFK were assassinated. I'm realistic enough to know change isn't always easy, but still hopeful enough to try for constitutionally ordered and civilized if we can manage it. We can't keep going with the same old same. It's unsustainable in every way.

   Per the science questions, I think McCain gave his basic plan in his response to the first one. Everything else was just policy wonks writing essays. McCain's plan is in those bulleted points I listed (italicized) in my first response to this thread. I answered them from my POV in that post as well. McCain's politics and career in the Senate do not give me any confidence that he's serious about doing away with graft, cronyism and lobbyists writing legislation for themselves. Heck, his campaign is being run by professional lobbyists! He also knows basically nothing about high finance or how to manage the world's largest economy, which is failing fast (and there's not enough money left out here in taxpayer land to bail 'em all out). What's being lost are not golden parachutes or corporate jets, it's real people's homes, jobs, pensions, retirement funds, etc., etc.

   I have a few problems with Obama's platform as well, particularly his energy plan's reliance on new nukes. But like "drill, drill, drill," new nukes can't even begin to supply any actual energy for at least 20 years and won't affect the costs at all. There's time to focus our attention elsewhere and get real results so long as we do something about meeting the coming change. We can either meet it on our own terms, or we can go down pretending all the while that things are just fine.

   I've just been following the progress of the Science Debate 2008 since its inception with interest, and now that the responses are in (there will be no actual debate) I've offered them in case participants here want to discuss science's role in society and governmental policy as we meet the coming change.

Comment by Joy — September 16, 2008 @ 6:05 pm

6. Pez Says:
   September 17th, 2008 at 12:17 am

   Thanks, Joy.
   Like many of us, you do have strong political opinions.

Comment by Pez — September 17, 2008 @ 12:17 am

7. Joy Says:
   September 17th, 2008 at 10:51 am

   LOL!!! Of course I have strong political opinions, Pez.
   Matthew 25.

   Just letting some folks around here know that those opinions are not uniform or dogmatic even if they are informed by faith. §;o)

Comment by Joy — September 17, 2008 @ 10:51 am

8. Pez Says:
   September 17th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

   Hi Joy,
   You aren't dogmatic? Well, one person's dogma …

   Rather than argue with you over political issues I hope you'll note the irony of your saying in the OP:

   Which is okay to a point, but in this thread I'll work harder to keep things on topic.
   …
   Please use this thread for discussion of the actual questions and the contrasts (if any) between the campaigns' responses to them. Thanks!

   …while your every comment ventures into ad hominem, politicking, and social commentary instead. Including:
   

   basically sci-tech illiterate, war, oil, Haliburton, etc., McCain should vet his appointment since…, running mate's fondness for high-dollar pork - as a role model for pork lovers everywhere, Bridge to nowhere, latch-key kids, cable TV, consumerism, 9/11, John McCain's tax proposals, economic nosedives, single family incomes, preemptive war, homelessness, …etc.

   I noticed too that McCain's answers were written by "policy wonks". Do you recall who you thought wrote, and did a great job on, Obama's? His fine science advisors, presumably from the whole "science wing" of the party, and for sure, read and signed off by Obama.
   McCain, you didn't mention, is also former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation with real experience when you ridiculed his qualifications. Obama, of, course, is a law professor who can use a Blackberry (but doesn't know when life begins and thinks there are 57 States, The United States of Heinz…).

   I say this not because I begrudge you your view - it's good for ID that its stereotypes are obviously false - but to point out that you are not comparing science answers (equally good, superficial, political, vague (well not quite, McCain actually gives numbers) on both sides) but stumping for your party. Dogmatically and unfairly at that.

Comment by Pez — September 17, 2008 @ 12:15 pm

9. Joy Says:
   September 17th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

   Pez:

   I say this not because I begrudge you your view - it's good for ID that its stereotypes are obviously false - but to point out that you are not comparing science answers (equally good, superficial, political, vague (well not quite, McCain actually gives numbers) on both sides) but stumping for your party. Dogmatically and unfairly at that.

   Dogmatically? Hmmm… you may be right. Still, it's fairly obvious which corner of the political playing field I occupy, and I have not attempted to hide that. I think 72 is questionably old for a President that isn't a 4-time cancer survivor, definitely questionable for one who is (and who won't release his medical status). I think 44 is a fine age for a Veep candidate, but I prefer those with some actual experience in national politics who aren't under current legislative investigation for ethics violations. I guess that preference might be dogmatic.

   But I'm not trying to change your mind. I already know that's a fool's errand. Nor do I expect to have any affect at all on anybody's vote in this upcoming election. Policy wonks *are* science advisors. And economic advisors. And speech writers. And all the other political operatives and policy-shapers that come attached to candidates at the hip. Candidates are, primarily, beauty contestants. At least your side has a genuine runner-up for that category! §;o)

Comment by Joy — September 17, 2008 @ 1:37 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.