RECENT POSTS
Archives
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- Science Education Progress
- Why Spies Should Team Up With Environmental Scientists
- More Cells are Good, More Diverse Cells are Better
- More Stem Cells Lines Approved, Process Proves Smart
- Research Parks and Job Creation: Innovation Through Cooperation
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
Scientific Reasoning Should be the Starting Point in Policy Debates
Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) knows that scientific research, along with science and math education, are long-term investments in our future. A physicist and businessman, Foster made his way from the 14th district of Illinois to the House of Representatives in March, after a special election to replace former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. He joined Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), the two other physicists who bring their scientific knowledge to the House. In this video message, Foster outlines what he sees as the three largest challenges facing federal science policy: rational decision making, balancing basic research and commercialization, and ramping up STEM education.
Comments on this article
Let me take up Mr Foster’s concern with education, as I am unable to comment constructively on ways in which the patent system should be modernized. I’ve taught math and science for over 20 years.
It’s all very well, Mr Foster, to call for a rational process in political discussion of science policy, but how do you propose to obtain it? Suppose there were political charges that the Army had been stabbed in the back in the last war, and that only military strength could return the country to its former status? Suppose the legislature and Executive were filled with politicians who propagated fear of subversion and maleficence from vaguely motivated evil-doers all around us?
No matter that our country had a magnificent tradition of humane culture, of the highest standards in research of both physical and biological sciences, our country could still be captured by the Nazi Party. Certainly the honor roll of politicians defending our civil liberties is as short of the same roll in 1933 Germany.
I to my sorrow have no sure answer to the question myself. I submit the situation is not in any real way addressed by asking the political system suddenly to adopt rational processes of consideration, that’s all.
I submit that an organized party separate from the two compromised and corrupt parties presently engaged in irrational posturing in our nation’s capital has a greater sense of fitting the proportion of the solution to that of the problem.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:48 am