 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Marty Nemko, guest blogger
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Bob ZemskyRecent Posts
'Rebranding' Engineering | Comment [13]
Prizes Won't Beat the Energy Crunch ... | Comment [8]
Detecting Scientific Fraud | Comment [4]
Countering Big Pharma's Misuse of Academic Prestige | Comment [7]
Featured Articles By the Author
The Phantom Science Debate: Clinton, Obama, McCain
There appears to be some confusion over whether Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain accepted an invitation from many prominent scientists and research organizations to engage in a debate on science policy last week in Philadelphia. Nobelists David Baltimore and Ahmed Zewail, writing in The Wall Street Journal on April 17 (“We Need a Science White House”), contend the candidates declined the invitation to ScienceDebate 2008. But upon returning from an evening out, I found the following on my digital video recorder, transcribed here for Brainstorm readers.
Q: Welcome to ScienceDebate 2008. First question for Senator Clinton: Why did you choose law over a career in science?
Clinton: While going to law school I audited courses in chemistry, physics, and molecular biology, subjects to which I remain deeply attached. Oh, and mathematics, too. There’s no substitute for experience. I remember I was in the lab with Jim Watson when he found the double helix. It was so exciting. I keep up with developments in all these fields. They are vital to the future of our country. I like nothing better than settling down for an evening with a copy of Physics Review Letters. It’s so interesting. Sometimes I’ll read some item to Bill, and we’ll talk about it for hours.
Q: Same question for Senator Obama.
Obama: My first love was particle physics, but unfortunately I was late in applying for a suitable graduate program, so I settled for law. Perhaps that was a mistake. I could have waited for an opening in physics, but I was eager to get on with my career. But that was long ago. Do I have regrets? Perhaps. Difficult to say. Law has been a fulfilling occupation, but exploring the essence of matter would have been too.
Q: Senator McCain?
McCain: Science is a basic American activity, and as an American, I’ve always regarded it as essential to the American way. That’s fundamental to my understanding of what this country, my country, is all about. The Iranian nuclear centrifuges — that’s bad science, and I don’t think we can overlook it. I realize that others may have different perspectives because of different backgrounds and orientation, and they’re entitled to that. But, as an American, that’s my take on the situation.
Q: Senator Obama, what hope can you hold out to the many scientists who are encountering difficulty in obtaining grants?
Obama: I recognize that peer review must remain the gatekeeper in awarding research money. But some special consideration is needed for the many scientists who are struggling for research funds in these difficult times. We want them to be working on science and not worrying about putting bread on the table for their families. So, I would provide a one-time grant for all accredited applicants for research funding to get them through this crisis. I think that’s the least we can do. When hedge fund operators are raking in billions, we surely can provide help for our scientists. We don’t want them to become bitter.
Q: And Senator Clinton, how would you help our scientists?
Clinton: I have a nine-point program. On the first day of my presidency, I will establish a commission….
Q: Okay. Because of time constraints we’ll leave it at that. Now, for Senator McCain. How would you help our scientists?
McCain: We have to cut the size of government. Too many Washington bureaucrats are getting in the way of our scientists. I’d start out with a 10 percent budget cut across the board, and you’ll see a big increase in scientific breakthroughs. Trust me.
Q: Next question is for Senator Obama. Do you think China is a threat to American leadership in science?
Obama: When I was a community organizer in Chicago —.
Q: Thank you. We’ll leave it at that. Senator McCain?
McCain: Any threat to American leadership must be taken with the utmost seriousness. And that means not only China but also Iran and its nuclear centrifuges, which pose a threat to peace that we ignore at our peril. I know that’s an American perspective, but so be it. Combined with tax cuts, we can come out ahead.
Q: Senator Clinton, is China a threat to our scientific leadership?
Clinton: Experience is what counts, and from the perspective of having audited many advanced courses in the sciences, I strongly feel it’s essential to arrive at a good answer to that question. On the first day of my presidency, I will —
Q: Thank you Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain.
Posted at 02:27:10 PM on April 17, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Science Rattles the Tin Cup in Washington
Next: When the Press Calls: Rules for Avoiding Trouble
That was really funny. You have caught the essence of each candidate.
— Beau · Apr 17, 03:56 PM · #
This is dumb, substance free and of no use to anyone. It promotes the superficial and silly aspects of the political system. And I have a plan to fix that…
— Owen · Apr 18, 06:09 AM · #
Brilliant! Good work, Dan!
If we can’t have reality, we can just make it up. Who needs empirical evidence?
— Joe Erwin · Apr 18, 07:44 AM · #
Bull’s-eye.
— Dan · Apr 18, 07:52 AM · #
Bravo.
— a different Dan · Apr 18, 09:13 AM · #
Sheer genius, Dan! Sad, but so very true!
— Deb · Apr 18, 11:37 AM · #
Three candidates, one a scientist himself, vying for the Green Party’s nomination for our presidential ticket DID express their intention and interest in taking part in this debate.
They were snubbed by the organizers.
I hope that these organizers will have the decency and sense to include these citizens should they reschedule this important discussion.
In this way, they would not only be recognizing the diversity of voices in our society, but also putting the 3 bigwigs in the position where they can hardly snub the science community a second time and not look undemocratic, much less, unintelligent.
— Michal · Apr 27, 10:15 PM · #