GOP war on science

[El_Machinae]

It's also very tough to scientifically show that something has no ill effects (statistically, getting a high power, a high Beta. Is HARD) It's very hard. Luis is correct, in that being unwilling to sufficiently fund such investigations is anti-science, just denying the opportunity. Trying to skimp on the testing is also anti-science.

 

[luiz]

but i have no problem with interfering to get bigger tastiier fish, I have no problem with stocking rivers with foreign fish, (my favorite fishing spots in Tasmainia do this), what i have a problem with is trusting someone who says "trust me, I know what I'm doing" because they did not know, and they did not know time and time again down here in Australia...

like i said the bill does not stop science it stops early release, untill the stakeholders concerned are actually satisfied with "trust me, I know what I'm doing"

And I like I said nobody needs to trust anyone, we have regulatory agencies in place to make sure that whatever product is released must meet safety standards. The way to deal with research into food is not a political bill banning the whole thing.

 

[Old Hippy]

And I like I said nobody needs to trust anyone, we have regulatory agencies in place to make sure that whatever product is released must meet safety standards. The way to deal with research into food is not a political bill banning the whole thing.

every regulation there is, is a result of a political bill, an agency might have some independence but all their regulations come about because of political will at some point.

 

[Samson]

And I like I said nobody needs to trust anyone, we have regulatory agencies in place to make sure that whatever product is released must meet safety standards. The way to deal with research into food is not a political bill banning the whole thing.

Is not the point here that there IS very much a need to trust someone, in fact multiple groups. In this case it would appear that there is a need to trust the regulatory agencies (assuming that some federal agency has approved these fish) and the company (assuming they have told the regulatory agencies that they are infertile). Someone (Gov. Brown?, or his electorate) obviously does not trust them, and from Grafitos quote quite justifiably.

 

[Truronian]

Putting people that don't understand how science works on a science committee seems like an obviously bad idea.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Putting people that don't understand how science works on a science committee seems like an obviously bad idea.

Well, what choice do they have? I'd be surprised if there are more than 2 people in all of congress who understand science at all, but the committee still has to be staffed. Maybe if people stopped voting for business majors and lawyers and started voting some scientists and engineers into office we'd have a good talent pool to fill those committees with but as it stands the expertise just isn't there.

The title of this thread is pretty misleading though. BOTH parties regularly abuse science without understanding it. Both parties are equally guilty of supporting science when it agrees with what they already believe anyway and trying to suppress it when it goes against their preconceived ideas. Neither party takes a truly scientific stance of examining the evidence and forming opinions based on that evidence, they both cherry pick the parts that support their already existing party line and ignore or actively fight against everything else. The GOP is doing it in a very obvious way right now because the climate change issue is so visible in the public discourse, but make no mistake, this is standard operating procedure for all politicians regardless of party affiliation.

 

[warpus]

Perhaps, but the right-wing religious wing of the Republican party is kind of crazy and is fueling a lot of this. There is no such equivalent wing of the Democratic party which is that much against science.

 

[Truronian]

Well, what choice do they have? I'd be surprised if there are more than 2 people in all of congress who understand science at all, but the committee still has to be staffed. Maybe if people stopped voting for business majors and lawyers and started voting some scientists and engineers into office we'd have a good talent pool to fill those committees with but as it stands the expertise just isn't there.

We have the same thing here, with many ministers in charge of things they have no experience of. What do Senate committees in the US do? Is it mostly deciding upon policy?

 

[warpus]

Isn't it true that in Germany and Japan and even China, engineers and scientists end up in a lot of political positions?

or do I have that wrong?

EIther way, it seems to be working out for them. How do we get more technology and/or science oriented people into office?

 

[KMRblue1027]

Peer Review is of course infallible.

Nothing is infallible, that's the whole freaking point.

 

[Antilogic]

I think waiting for data on whether to allow something is more scientific than an appeal to tradition.

This.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Isn't it true that in Germany and Japan and even China, engineers and scientists end up in a lot of political positions?

or do I have that wrong?

EIther way, it seems to be working out for them. How do we get more technology and/or science oriented people into office?

Vote for them. Convince other people to vote for them. We live in a country where we vote, the solution is simple, even if it isn't easy.

 

[warpus]

Vote for them. Convince other people to vote for them. We live in a country where we vote, the solution is simple, even if it isn't easy.

Yeah, but in your country those people just don't run for office. And if they do, they don't have $$$ behind them, so they never win.

So it's not as easy "just vote for them"

 

[tokala]

Isn't it true that in Germany and Japan and even China, engineers and scientists end up in a lot of political positions?

or do I have that wrong?

For Germany, this is indeed incorrect.
Only a small minority of our politicians are in that group, though we have two of those in the Merkel government (she has a PhD in physics, the head of the science ministry is a Professor of mathematics), three if you want to count a MD.
But the vast majority of top politicians here tend to be lawyers or political/social "scientists" (12 out of 16 members of the federal government).

Most politicians don't dare to appear to be openly anti-science, but we have our (small) share of climate change deniers.
Probably more of the anti-nuclear or -fracking, anti-GMO and general-purpose NIMBY types that consider science only to be valid if it confirms their opinions.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Those people DO run for office, I see them on the ballot every time an election comes up. Voting for them is easy. What isn't easy is convincing a majority of people to ignore the ads they see on TV and look into the candidates themselves so that they can do the same, because that would require effort, and effort is too hard, Real Housewives is on right now.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Peer Review is of course infallible.

I wonder what method Science, the journal, used to determine there are publications which have not been adequately peer reviewed. It's a pickle alright.

Did they pray to God? Please God, reveal the information we seek of you!
Did they read the Bible? "Then, in my vision, I saw the Lamb break one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures shout in a voice like thunder, 'the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara doesn't even exist!"

How on Earth did they manage to figure this one out?

 

[El_Machinae]

Another thing you can do at the personal level is help propagate scientific information, so that it more quickly becomes common sense, "oh, everyone knows that!"

 

[Arakhor]

Peer Review is of course infallible.

Well, the Pope declaring a position on Catholic theology ex cathedra is infallible, because Catholic tradition says so. The Bible is infallible, an extra-Biblical tradition popular with followers of Sola Scriptura, because (naturally) the exception proves the rule.

Q.E.D. peer review can be and is infallible, because scientists say so, right? Checkmate, atheists.

 

[BenitoChavez]

Well, what choice do they have? I'd be surprised if there are more than 2 people in all of congress who understand science at all, but the committee still has to be staffed. Maybe if people stopped voting for business majors and lawyers and started voting some scientists and engineers into office we'd have a good talent pool to fill those committees with but as it stands the expertise just isn't there.

One would hope that your average congressperson would be well educated enough to understand how the scientific method works. One would also hope that these business people and lawyers would have scientific advisers, who were in fact scientists and engineers capable of communicating complex scientific concepts to the educated layperson.

We can always hope....right?

 

[Antilogic]

Too bad those kinds of people are overruled by their big-dollar donors.