Scientists look to a pro-science president (for a change)

newscientist.com/article.ns? … news_rss20

[quote]Frustrated by their government’s position on the environment, climate change and stem cell research, a group of US scientists have decided to take matters into their own hands and actively promote the election of a president in 2008 who is more receptive to science.

Scientists and Engineers for America plunged into politics last week with the aim of campaigning for particular candidates, starting with the 2006 mid-term elections. SEA says that “scientists and engineers have a right, indeed an obligation, to enter the political debate when the nation’s leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis.”

SEA’s main targets will be the Bush administration and the Republican leadership, says executive director Mike Brown. “[They] are the source of a lot of the problems we’ve identified.”

So far, the pitch has struck a responsive chord. Within days of the group being announced on 27 September, nearly 2500 people had signed up as members. SEA’s advisory board includes two of Bill Clinton’s former science advisers - John Gibbons and Neal Lane - and eight Nobel laureates.
[/quote]

How awful that these liberals should mix politics with science. And so say all of us in the Creation Science faculty of Landover Baptist University.

landoverbaptist.com

As the husband of a scientist, I know first hand how important government money is to the advancement of science. A push to put more money into scientific research from the president would do a lot to bring more funding for new projects, not to mention create jobs and propel the US back into position as the world’s leader in science. It only makes sense for scientists to be looking for and advocating someone who will bring more their way. I applaud their efforts and hope they get their wish.

I wonder how many millions of taxpayer dollars went into the research on cell phones detonating gas pumps at service stations.