On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:49:06 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote: >"Nearly 180 organizations representing the interdependent arenas of >science, academia and business are urging the next president to appoint >a White House science adviser by Inauguration Day and give the position >cabinet-level rank.... The groups, including the American Association >for the Advancement of Science and Association of American Universities, >said the science adviser should have the same status in the cabinet as >the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the administrator >of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Trade >Representative." >To read the rest, go here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/science-advice-for-the-next-president/?ref=science
Excuse me while I go into pragmatic mode. Just a few points: (1) As the Bush-Cheney administration has made abundantly clear, if a President does not have an intrinsic respect for science (in contrast to an instrumental "What can you do for me now" orientation), there is no reason for him to prefer the counsel of scientists relative to that of the representatives of religious groups that vote as a block (usually for anti-science), the lobbyists and heads of the military-industrial- petrochemical-pharmaceutical complex, and the simple voice of a people who prefer anti-intellectual positions while consuming the technological benefits of scientific advances. (2) One of the lessons that we all should have learned is that scientists are only human, often putting their own political or personal concerns before scientific concerns; Exhibit 1 -- Edward Teller. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller The President doesn't just need scientific counsel but wise scientific counsel. (3) Until scientists across disciplines can organize their political power into some form of coherent organization that can challenge politicians, such as demanding a debate on science policies as well as scientific beliefs, they will be ignored. A President who believes in Dispensationalist Theology is likely to use science and scientists only as window dressing to maintain the appearance of rationality and not because they really believe in science and its promotion. For more on Dispensationalism, see: (standard caveats apply) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism One advocate for this position is Reverend John c. Hagee who earlier this year announced his support for John McCain but then withdrew that support after McCain repudiated Hagee for Anti-Catholic comments and that God had sent Hitler as a "Jew hunter". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee By the way, Sarah Palin is a Dispensationalist. see: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/04/palins-evangelical-faith-drives-pro-israel-view/ or http://tinyurl.com/5mjxtj (one might want to read the comments to this article) -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
