Obama’s Strident Support of Science

As Karen indicated, Obama spoke this morning about swine flu and other topics in a speech to the National Academy of Sciences (full text of his remarks after the jump). The President used the occasion to reiterate his intention–first declared in his inaugural address–to “restore science to its rightful place.” 

I generally agree with the value of investing more in scientific research and with those who believe that the past eight years saw too many instances of ideological biases trumping scientific–and particularly public health–concerns. And yet I find it striking that whenever Obama talks about science–from that first mention during the Inauguration to his speech restoring funding for stem-cell research to today’s address–his tone is rather un-Obama-like. 

It’s not that Obama works himself into a rant when he talks about science. He’s still calm, cool Barack, after all. But for him, it is almost strident. Sometimes it’s his language–today he complained that “We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.” And sometimes it’s just his tone–when I listened to the stem-cell speech, his voice sounded uncharacteristically hard, although in reading the text later I noticed a sensitivity to dissenting beliefs that hadn’t come through in the delivery.

Maybe the dismissal of science and evidence simply offends Obama’s intellectual sensibilities. Or maybe it’s one of those rare issues on which his emotions peek through and we’re hearing from a man who believes his mother died too early from a disease he hopes will one day be curable. 

Whatever the reason, it worries me somewhat because science is one of those areas in which Obama’s generally nuanced intellectual approach would be helpful. The anti-science, anti-expert mindset is obviously troubling. But so too is the idea that science is always an unquestioned capital-G good and that anyone who raises questions stands in the way of progress. To cite just one troubling example, this week Michael Isikoff reports a confrontation between FBI interrogator Ali Soufan and a CIA contractor whose harsh methods disturbed him:

“I asked [the contractor] if he’d ever interrogated anyone, and he said no,” Soufan says. But that didn’t matter, the contractor shot back: “Science is science. This is a behavioral issue.” The contractor suggested Soufan was the inexperienced one. “He told me he’s a psychologist and he knows how the human mind works.” 

Now, obviously that’s an extreme example. Most advocates of science aren’t looking to use it to excuse torture. But neither are most people who worry about the use of embryonic stem cells engaged in “effort[s] to advance predetermined ideological agendas.”

 

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

Washington, DC

April 27, 2009

 

It is my privilege to address the distinguished members of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as the leaders of the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine who have gathered here this morning.

I’d like to begin today with a story of a previous visitor who also addressed this august body.

In April of 1921, Albert Einstein visited the United States for the first time. His international celebrity was growing as scientists around the world began to understand and accept the vast implications of his theories of special and general relativity. He attended this annual meeting, and after sitting through a series of long speeches by others, he reportedly said, “I have just got a new theory of eternity.” I’ll do my best to heed this cautionary tale.

The very founding of this institution stands as a testament to the restless curiosity and boundless hope so essential not just to the scientific enterprise, but to this experiment we call America.

A few months after a devastating defeat at Fredericksburg, before Gettysburg would be won and Richmond would fall, before the fate of the Union would be at all certain, President Lincoln signed into law an act creating the National Academy of Sciences.

Lincoln refused to accept that our nation’s sole purpose was merely to survive. He created this academy, founded the land grant colleges, and began the work of the transcontinental railroad, believing that we must add “the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery… of new and useful things.”

This is America’s story. Even in the hardest times, and against the toughest odds, we have never given in to pessimism; we have never surrendered our fates to chance; we have endured; we have worked hard; we have sought out new frontiers.

Today, of course, we face more complex set of challenges than we ever have before: a medical system that holds the promise of unlocking new cures and treatments – attached to a health care system that holds the potential to bankrupt families and businesses.  A system of energy that powers our economy – but also endangers our planet.  Threats to our security that seek to exploit the very interconnectedness and openness so essential to our prosperity. And challenges in a global marketplace which links the derivative trader on Wall Street to the homeowner on Main Street, the office worker in America to the factory worker in China – a marketplace in which we all share in opportunity, but also in crisis.

At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science. That support for research is somehow a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been.  And if there was ever a day that reminded us of our shared stake in science and research, it’s today. 

We are closely monitoring the emerging cases of swine flu in the United States.  This is obviously a cause for concern and requires a heightened state of alert.  But it is not a cause for alarm.  The Department of Health and Human Services has declared a Public Health Emergency as a precautionary tool to ensure that we have the resources we need at our disposal to respond quickly and effectively.  I’m getting regular updates on the situation from the responsible agencies, and the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Centers for Disease Control will be offering regular updates to the American people so that they know what steps are being taken and what steps they may need to take.  But one thing is clear – our capacity to deal with a public health challenge of this sort rests heavily on the work of our scientific and medical community.  And this is one more example of why we cannot allow our nation to fall behind.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened.

Federal funding in the physical sciences as a portion of our gross domestic product has fallen by nearly half over the past quarter century. Time and again we’ve allowed the research and experimentation tax credit, which helps businesses grow and innovate, to lapse.

Our schools continue to trail. Our students are outperformed in math and science by their peers in Singapore, Japan, England, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, and Korea, among others. Another assessment shows American fifteen year olds ranked 25th in math and 21st in science when compared to nations around the world.

And we have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.

We know that our country is better than this.

A half century ago, this nation made a commitment to lead the world in scientific and technological innovation; to invest in education, in research, in engineering; to set a goal of reaching space and engaging every citizen in that historic mission. That was the high water mark of America’s investment in research and development. Since then our investments have steadily declined as a share of our national income – our GDP. As a result, other countries are now beginning to pull ahead in the pursuit of this generation’s great discoveries.   

I believe it is not in our American character to follow – but to lead. And it is time for us to lead once again. I am here today to set this goal: we will devote more than three percent of our GDP to research and development. We will not just meet, but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the Space Race, through policies that invest in basic and applied research, create new incentives for private innovation, promote breakthroughs in energy and medicine, and improve education in math and science. This represents the largest commitment to scientific research and innovation in American history.

Just think what this will allow us to accomplish: solar cells as cheap as paint, and green buildings that produce all of the energy they consume; learning software as effective as a personal tutor; prosthetics so advanced that you could play the piano again; an expansion of the frontiers of human knowledge about ourselves and world the around us. We can do this.

The pursuit of discovery half a century ago fueled our prosperity and our success as a nation in the half century that followed. The commitment I am making today will fuel our success for another fifty years. That is how we will ensure that our children and their children will look back on this generation’s work as that which defined the progress and delivered the prosperity of the 21st century.

This work begins with an historic commitment to basic science and applied research, from the labs of renowned universities to the proving grounds of innovative companies.

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and with the support of Congress, my administration is already providing the largest single boost to investment in basic research in American history.

This is important right now, as public and private colleges and universities across the country reckon with shrinking endowments and tightening budgets. But this is also incredibly important for our future. As Vannevar Bush, who served as scientific advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt, famously said: “Basic scientific research is scientific capital.” 

The fact is, an investigation into a particular physical, chemical, or biological process might not pay off for a year, or a decade, or at all. And when it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore its costs but also by those who did not.

That’s why the private sector under-invests in basic science – and why the public sector must invest in this kind of research. Because while the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society.

No one can predict what new applications will be born of basic research: new treatments in our hospitals; new sources of efficient energy; new building materials; new kinds of crops more resistant to heat and drought.

It was basic research in the photoelectric effect that would one day lead to solar panels. It was basic research in physics that would eventually produce the CAT scan. The calculations of today’s GPS satellites are based on the equations that Einstein put to paper more than a century ago.

In addition to the investments in the Recovery Act, the budget I’ve proposed – and versions have now passed both the House and Senate – builds on the historic investments in research contained in the recovery plan.

We double the budget of key agencies, including the National Science Foundation, a primary source of funding for academic research, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which supports a wide range of pursuits – from improving health information technology to measuring carbon pollution, from testing “smart grid” designs to developing advanced manufacturing processes. And my budget doubles funding for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science which builds and operates accelerators, colliders, supercomputers, high-energy light sources, and facilities for making nano-materials. Because we know that a nation’s potential for scientific discovery is defined by the tools it makes available to its researchers.

But the renewed commitment of our nation will not be driven by government investment alone. It is a commitment that extends from the laboratory to the marketplace.

That is why my budget makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent. This is a tax credit that returns two dollars to the economy for every dollar we spend, by helping companies afford the often high costs of developing new ideas, new technologies, and new products. Yet at times we’ve allowed it to lapse or only renewed it year to year. I’ve heard this time and again from entrepreneurs across this country: by making this credit permanent, we make it possible for businesses to plan the kinds of projects that create jobs and economic growth. 

Second, in no area will innovation be more important than in the development of new technologies to produce, use, and save energy – which is why my administration has made an unprecedented commitment to developing a 21st century clean energy economy.

Our future on this planet depends upon our willingness to address the challenge posed by carbon pollution. And our future as a nation depends upon our willingness to embrace this challenge as an opportunity to lead the world in pursuit of new discovery.

When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik a little more than a half century ago, Americans were stunned: the Russians had beaten us to space. We had a choice to make: we could accept defeat – or we could accept the challenge. And as always, we chose to accept the challenge.

President Eisenhower signed legislation to create NASA and to invest in science and math education, from grade school to graduate school. And just a few years later, a month after his address to the 1961 Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, President Kennedy boldly declared before a joint session of Congress that the United States would send a man to the moon and return him safely to the earth.

The scientific community rallied behind this goal and set about achieving it. And it would lead not just to those first steps on the moon, but also to giant leaps in our understanding here at home. The Apollo program itself produced technologies that have improved kidney dialysis and water purification systems; sensors to test for hazardous gasses; energy-saving building materials; and fire-resistant fabrics used by firefighters and soldiers. And, more broadly, the enormous investment of that era – in science and technology, in education and research funding – produced a great outpouring of curiosity and creativity, the benefits of which have been incalculable. 

The fact is, there will be no single Sputnik moment for this generation’s challenge to break our dependence on fossil fuels. In many ways, this makes the challenge even tougher to solve – and makes it all the more important to keep our eyes fixed on the work ahead.

That is why I have set as a goal for our nation that we will reduce our carbon pollution by more than 80 percent by 2050. And that is why I am pursuing, in concert with Congress, the policies that will help us meet this goal.

My recovery plan provides the incentives to double our nation’s capacity to generate renewable energy over the next few years – extending the production tax credit, providing loan guarantees, and offering grants to spur investment. For example, federally funded research and development has dropped the cost of solar panels by ten-fold over the last three decades.  Our renewed efforts will ensure that solar and other clean energy technologies will be competitive.

My budget includes $150 billion over ten years to invest in sources of renewable energy as well as energy efficiency; it supports efforts at NASA, recommended as a priority by the National Research Council, to develop new space-based capabilities to help us better understand our changing climate.

And today, I am also announcing that for the first time, we are funding an initiative – recommended by this organization – called the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E.

This is based on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA, which was created during the Eisenhower administration in response to Sputnik. It has been charged throughout its history with conducting high-risk, high-reward research. The precursor to the internet, known as ARPANET, stealth technology, and the Global Positioning System all owe a debt to the work of DARPA.

ARPA-E seeks to do this same kind of high-risk, high-reward research. My administration will also pursue comprehensive legislation to place a market-based cap on carbon emissions. We will make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America. And I am confident that we will find a wellspring of creativity just waiting to be tapped by researchers in this room and entrepreneurs across our country.

The nation that leads the world in 21st century clean energy will be the nation that leads in the 21st century global economy. America can and must be that nation.

Third, in order to lead in the global economy – and ensure that our businesses can grow and innovate, and our families can thrive – we must address the shortcomings of our health care system.

The Recovery Act will support the long overdue step of computerizing America’s medical records, to reduce the duplication, waste, and errors that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

But it’s important to note: these records also hold the potential of offering patients the chance to be more active participants in prevention and treatment. We must maintain patient control over these records and respect their privacy. At the same time, however, we have the opportunity to offer billions and billions of anonymous data points to medical researchers who may find in this information evidence that can help us better understand disease.

History also teaches us the greatest advances in medicine have come from scientific breakthroughs: the discovery of antibiotics; improved public health practices; vaccines for smallpox, polio, and many other infectious diseases; anti-retroviral drugs that can return AIDS patients to productive lives; pills that can control certain types of blood cancers; and so many others.  

And because of recent progress – not just in biology, genetics and medicine, but also in physics, chemistry, computer science, and engineering – we have the potential to make enormous progress against diseases in the coming decades.  That is why my Administration is committed to increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health, including $6 billion to support cancer research, part of a sustained, multi-year plan to double cancer research in our country.

Fourth, we are restoring science to its rightful place.

On March 9th, I signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.  Our progress as a nation – and our values as a nation – are rooted in free and open inquiry. To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy.

That is why I have charged the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy with leading a new effort to ensure that federal policies are based on the best and most unbiased scientific information.  I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions – and not the other way around.

As part of this effort, we’ve already launched a website that allows individuals to not only make recommendations to achieve this goal, but to collaborate on those recommendations; it is a small step, but one that is creating a more transparent, participatory and democratic government.

We also need to engage the scientific community directly in the work of public policy.  That is why, today, I am announcing the appointment of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, known as PCAST, with which I plan to work closely.

This council represents leaders from many scientific disciplines who will bring a diversity of experiences and views. I will charge PCAST with advising me about national strategies to nurture and sustain a culture of scientific innovation.  It will be co-chaired by John Holdren, my top science advisor; Eric Lander, one of the principal leaders of the Human Genome Project; and Harold Varmus, former head of the National Institutes of Health and a Nobel laureate. 

In biomedicine, for example, this will include harnessing the historic convergence between life sciences and physical sciences that is underway today; undertaking public projects – in the spirit of the Human Genome Project – to create data and capabilities that fuel discoveries in tens of thousands of laboratories; and identifying and overcoming scientific and bureaucratic barriers to rapidly translating scientific breakthroughs into diagnostics and therapeutics that serve patients.

In environmental science, it will require strengthening our weather forecasting, our earth observation from space, the management of our nation’s land, water and forests, and the stewardship of our coastal zones and ocean fisheries.

We also need to work with our friends around the world. Science, technology, and innovation proceed more rapidly and more cost-effectively when insights, costs, and risks are shared; and so many of the challenges that science and technology will help us meet are global in character. This is true of our dependence on oil, the consequences of climate change, the threat of epidemic disease, and the spread of nuclear weapons, among other examples. 

That is why my administration is ramping up participation in – and our commitment to – international science and technology cooperation across the many areas where it is clearly in our interest to do so. In fact, this week, my administration is gathering the leaders of the world’s major economies to begin the work of addressing our common energy challenges together.

Fifth, since we know that the progress and prosperity of future generations will depend on what we do now to educate the next generation, today I am announcing a renewed commitment to education in mathematics and science.  

Through this commitment, American students will move from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math over the next decade. For we know that the nation that out-educates us today – will out-compete us tomorrow.

We cannot start soon enough. We know that the quality of math and science teachers is the most influential single factor in determining whether or a student will succeed or fail in these subjects. Yet, in high school, more than twenty percent of students in math and more than sixty percent of students in chemistry and physics are taught by teachers without expertise in these fields. And this problem is only going to get worse; there is a projected shortfall of more than 280,000 math and science teachers across the country by 2015.

That is why I am announcing today that states making strong commitments and progress in math and science education will be eligible to compete later this fall for additional funds under the Secretary of Education’s $5 billion Race to the Top program.

I am challenging states to dramatically improve achievement in math and science by raising standards, modernizing science labs, upgrading curriculum, and forging partnerships to improve the use of science and technology in our classrooms.  And I am challenging states to enhance teacher preparation and training, and to attract new and qualified math and science teachers to better engage students and reinvigorate these subjects in our schools.

In this endeavor, and others, we will work to support inventive approaches.  Let’s create systems that retain and reward effective teachers, and let’s create new pathways for experienced professionals to enter the classroom.  There are, right now, chemists who could teach chemistry; physicists who could teach physics; statisticians who could teach mathematics.  But we need to create a way to bring the expertise and the enthusiasm of these folks – folks like you – into the classroom.

There are states, for example, doing innovative work. I am pleased to announce that Governor Ed Rendell will lead an effort with the National Governors Association to increase the number of states that are making science, technology, engineering and mathematics education a top priority.  Six states are currently participating in the initiative, including Pennsylvania, which has launched an effective program to ensure that his state has the skilled workforce in place to draw the jobs of the 21st century. I’d want every state participate.

But our work does not end with a high school diploma.  For decades, we led the world in educational attainment, and as a consequence we led the world in economic growth. The G.I. Bill, for example, helped send a generation to college. But in this new economy, we’ve come to trail other nations in graduation rates, in educational achievement, and in the production of scientists and engineers.

That’s why my administration has set a goal that will greatly enhance our ability to compete for the high-wage, high-tech jobs of the 21stcentury – and to foster the next generation of scientists and engineers. In the next decade – by 2020 – America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. And we’ve provided tax credits and grants to make a college education more affordable.

My budget also triples the number of National Science Foundation graduate research fellowships. This program was created as part of the Space Race five decades ago. In the decades since, it’s remained largely the same size – even as the numbers of students who seek these fellowships has skyrocketed. We ought to be supporting these young people who are pursuing scientific careers, not putting obstacles in their path.

This is how we will lead the world in new discoveries in this new century. But it will take far more than the work of government. It will take all of us. It will take all of you.

And so today I want to challenge you to use your love and knowledge of science to spark the same sense of wonder and excitement in a new generation.

America’s young people will rise to the challenge if given the opportunity – if called upon to join a cause larger than themselves. And we’ve got evidence. The average age in NASA’s mission control during the Apollo 17 mission was just 26. I know that young people today are ready to tackle the grand challenges of this century

So I want to persuade you to spend time in the classroom, talking – and showing –young people what it is that your work can mean, and what it means to you. Encourage your university to participate in programs to allow students to get a degree in scientific fields and a teaching certificate at the same time. Think about new and creative ways to engage young people in science and engineering, like science festivals, robotics competitions, and fairs that encourage young people to create, build, and invent – to be makers of things.

And I want you to know that I’m going to be working along side you. I’m going to participate in a public awareness and outreach campaign to encourage students to consider careers in science, mathematics, and engineering – because our future depends on it.

And the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation will be launching a joint initiative to inspire tens of thousands of American students to pursue careers in science, engineering and entrepreneurship related to clean energy.

It will support an educational campaign to capture the imagination of young people who can help us meet the energy challenge. It will create research opportunities for undergraduates and educational opportunities for women and minorities who too often have been underrepresented in scientific and technological fields – but are no less capable of inventing the solutions that will help us grow our economy and save our planet. And it will support fellowships, interdisciplinary graduate programs, and partnerships between academic institutions and innovative companies to prepare a generation of Americans to meet this generational challenge.

For we must always remember that somewhere in America there’s an entrepreneur seeking a loan to start a business that could transform an industry – but she hasn’t secured it yet. There’s a researcher with an idea for an experiment that might offer a new cancer treatment – but he hasn’t found the funding yet. There is a child with an inquisitive mind staring up at the night sky. Maybe she has the potential to change our world – but she just doesn’t know it yet.

As you know, scientific discovery takes far more than the occasional flash of brilliance – as important as that can be. Usually, it takes time, hard work, patience; it takes training; often, it requires the support of a nation.

But it holds a promise like no other area of human endeavor.

In 1968, a year defined by loss and conflict, Apollo 8 carried into space the first human beings ever to slip beyond the earth’s gravity. The ship would circle the moon ten times before returning home. But on its fourth orbit, the capsule rotated and for the first time earth became visible through the windows. 

Bill Anders, one of the astronauts aboard Apollo 8, could not believe what he saw. He scrambled for a camera. He took a photo that showed the earth coming up over the moon’s horizon. It was the first ever taken from so distant a vantage point, soon to become known as “Earthrise.”

Anders would say that the moment forever changed him, to see our world – this pale blue sphere – without borders, without divisions, at once so tranquil and beautiful and alone.

“We came all this way to explore the moon,” he said, “and the most important thing is that we discovered the Earth.”

Yes, scientific innovation offers us the chance to achieve prosperity. It has offered us benefits that have improved our health and our lives – often improvements we take too easily for granted. But it also gives us something more.

At root, science forces us to reckon with the truth as best as we can ascertain it. Some truths fill us with awe. Others force us to question long held views. Science cannot answer every question; indeed, it seems at times the more we plumb the mysteries of the physical world, the more humble we must be. Science cannot supplant our ethics, our values, our principles, or our faith, but science can inform those things, and help put these values, these moral sentiments, that faith, to work – to feed a child, to heal the sick, to be good stewards of this earth.

We are reminded that with each new discovery and the new power it brings, comes new responsibility; that the fragility and the sheer specialness of life requires us to move past our differences, to address our common problems, to endure and continue humanity’s strivings for a better world.

As President Kennedy said when he addressed the National Academy of Sciences more than 45 years ago: “The challenge, in short, may be our salvation.”

Thank you all for your past, present, and future discoveries. God bless you and may God bless the United States of America.


Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Morning Must Reads: Haunted

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    But neither are most people who worry about the use of embryonic stem cells engaged in “effort[s] to advance predetermined ideological agendas.”

    .
    Bullsh*t.

  • opensourcepundits

    How absurd.
    -
    You’re “worried” about Pres. Obama possibly being passionate about science? Science is about truth, it’s neither inherently good or inherently bad. Obviously we would not want people out there practicing bad science, or doing bad things in the name of science…but that’s definately not what Pres. Obama advocates for on the subject of science. He advocates against the idea of holding scientists back based on some ideaolgical arguement.
    -
    You’re worries, and your example, don’t apply.

  • http://www.124monkeys.com Sean DeCoursey forgot his password

    Actually Amy, your example is completely, insanely bogus. Real interrogation science – the kind practiced by the military, the FBI, and the CIA before Bush, shows that torture is the worst way to gather information.
    -
    After WWII, the U.S. military hired the best interrogators of Nazi Germany to lecture at U.S. bases and help set the American doctrines of interrogation. We were able to hire and utilize these individuals because the best Nazi interrogators disdained torture and refused to use it.
    -
    The most significant breach of captured U.S. personnel occurred during the Korean War. The communist interrogators who turned the most American soldiers didn’t use torture either. They convinced the captive soldiers they were their real friends, then encouraged debate and helped guide that debate in ways that were helpful to them.
    -
    That’s interrogation science. Some contractor hack babbling about psychology and calling it science isn’t any more scientific than some idiot contending they’ve found proof in the fossil record of Jesus riding around on a velociraptor.

  • http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/ JJ

    The stridency is needed. It’s a correction. He needs to say it loudly so the Washington elites do their freaking jobs. The past eight years have been nothing, if not an abject failure of Washington elites.
    .
    Washington slept after Run Suskind wrote this:
    .
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/149156.php
    .
    The public at large got it long before the beltway did:
    .
    http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/as_science_goes_so_goes_the_nation/

  • textee

    Given the fact that Obama supports killing infants who have survived abortions, does he support harvesting the organs of the killed infants, so that non-killed infants in need of organ transplants have a chance at life? If not, what would be Obama’s objection to harvesting the organs of the children he supports killing? Does his plan to socialize American medicine include paying for harvesting the organs of children killed after surviving abortions? BTW, will Time magazine post the video of Obama’s speech today where he demonstrates that he is a complete idiot when his teleprompter gets ahead of him? If not, what is Time magazine’s reason for failing to post said video?

  • opensourcepundits

    Textee is my hero for being willing to speak truth to power! I will strive, daily, to be more like you. Let’s be sure to get together and talk shop at the next teabagger’s ball…I’ll make sure I’m properly washed.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Given the fact that Obama supports killing infants who have survived abortions, does he support harvesting the organs of the killed infants, so that non-killed infants in need of organ transplants have a chance at lie?

    .
    Exhibit A

  • http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/ JJ

    And it still goes on, by the way. Here’s Chris Mooney correcting George Will’s, er, Straussian manipulation:
    .
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032002660.html?sub=AR
    .
    And Will keeps deceiving the public, even after this. It’s ridiculous. Says Rachel Maddow, what the h*ll do we do about this, but go all Jon Stewart on it:
    .

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Amy has fallen into a familiar trap. Science is was and remains all about gaining knowlege. Using that knowlege on the other hand is a different field of endeavor we generally call Engineering. No actual scientist would ever make a claim like “I know how the mind works.”
    The whole operation of science relies of the fact that all knowlege is tentative and subject to revision if the occasion warrants it.
    .
    Misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) that point is a huge source of ignorance in this country and Amy’s willingness to opine on things she clearly doesn’t understand is a fine example of the larger problem.

  • http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/ JJ

    Basic empiricism is something the right has ditched. Even David Frum has said as much:
    .
    “we have to follow the evidence where it leads”
    .
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/28/david-frum-lies-about-me-and-the-lying-liars-who-tell-them.aspx
    .
    Um, Duh?

  • 53_3

    They have had this problem with history as well. These two fields are the worst enemy of an ideologist, anyway.
    .
    That’s why we see so much ‘revionism’ in history and ‘doubt’ cast in science.
    .
    Neither has any impact on their respective fields, which is why, in order to make it stick, intellectuals have to flee their country of origin when a strict ideologically based movement takes over.

  • http://sinisterbutterfly.wordpress.com/ jwbates

    Whatever the reason, it worries me somewhat because science is one of those areas in which Obama’s generally nuanced intellectual approach would be helpful… But so too is the idea that science is always an unquestioned capital-G good and that anyone who raises questions stands in the way of progress.
    .
    Hasn’t Obama seen all of those movies in which scientists, while striving to create something good, lose control of it and see it turn to evil?
    .
    Seriously, given the damage done over the past eight years to the general state of science education and many aspects of basic research, a call for “nuance” makes much less sense than a call for triage.

  • 53_3

    Or, in the case of the Bush Administration, since you can’t drive off or persecute the intellectuals (except in a few cases), they resorted to placing political operatives in charge of agencies that have the ability to undercut their ideological aims.
    .
    Thus, the so-called ‘diversity of opinion’ the trolls rant about…

  • Friar Tuck

    “We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.”
    .
    Amy Sullivan, you moronic concern troll, this isn’t being “strident,” it’s calling a fact a fact. Obama is describing the fate of science at the hands of the Republican Party.
    .
    Do you think of yourself as being “strident” when you insist upon pushing a “God Gap” that exists nowhere outside of your own imagination?
    .
    “Amy Sullivan, you wouldn’t recognize reality if it robbed you at gunpoint in a parking lot at noon.” That’s being strident. Do you get the distinction?

  • shepherdwong

    “He told me he’s a psychologist and he knows how the human mind works.”
    .
    That’s egomania and self -delusion, not science. Apparently, an education in religion is poor preparation for the science beat. Who would have guessed?

  • http://privcorr.blogspot.com/ wvng

    I wonder if Amy is bothering to read this thread? I have zero sense that she understands the distinction between believing something is true based on a methodical and rigorous examination of the evidence (i.e.: interrogation science as defined by Sean at 3), and believing something is true because you really really want to torture somebody (i.e.: the CIA contractor who had never conducted an interrogation).
    .
    IN fact, there is so much fail in Amy’s post that perhaps an entry to http://failblog.org/ is inorder?

  • http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/ JJ

    I’m sure Obama would recognize that there’s a difference between the physical sciences and the human sciences.
    .
    But the past few years have been a study of political discourse operating as if it were completely disconnected from the merits of actual physical scientific arguments.

  • kattest123

    From the Helpful Guide To Liberalism, Page 32:
    .
    “Politicizing science is a bad thing that Republicans do. When Democrats politicize science – such as trying to send their opponents to Siberia in one way or another – that’s a good thing, because they’re de-politicizing science. Those Dems are politicizing science in a strict sense, but they aren’t politicizing it in reality because they’re getting rid of bad ideas from bad people. So, it’s all good.”
    .
    You can read the PGTL for free here. Just keep scrolling and scrolling.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Perhaps you would do well to follow another Obama example and that is to think about things before you post. Why would you categorize Obama’s disdain for the way the wingnuts have hamstrung this country’s efforts to safeguard our food stock, conduct medical research, educate our children and reduce us to an intellectually impoverished nation in an attempt to praise their God, as somehow indicative of a personal defect.

  • http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/ JJ

    When you have GOP trolls working full time to argue against this meme, then you know there’s something there and it has legs.
    .
    Paul Krugman was onto this a long time ago. Chris Mooney did a lot of the early legwork. And you know he was effective because he was attacked.
    .
    My thinking is that this goes back to stoked antagonisms against the “New Class” that people like Irving Kristol dreamed up against “liberal” professionals in order to raise money for conservative foundations.

  • http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/ JJ

    The success of the conservative movement’s infrastructure has been because of “a sophisticated ability to relate ideology to constituencies” (former AEI president Michael Baroody). But what happens when, as Jay Rosen put it, “the base is no longer reality based“? Do you rail against reality itself? Apparently, you do.

  • afguy

    Bullsh*t.
    .
    sgwhite,
    .
    Short, succinct and to the point. Well done . . .

  • FlownOver

    It offends my sensibilities whenever an allegedly professional journalist tries to create yet another false equivalency as between fact and willful ignorance.
    .
    But, then, neither AS nor (evidently) the High Sheriffs care a fig for what the readers think.

  • tantef

    Go back to answering to “Bible Girl”, stick to your fantasy rather than trying to understand science.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    “”I asked [the contractor] if he’d ever interrogated anyone, and he said no,” Soufan says. But that didn’t matter, the contractor shot back: “Science is science. This is a behavioral issue.” The contractor suggested Soufan was the inexperienced one. “He told me he’s a psychologist and he knows how the human mind works.” ”
    .
    Isn’t this more a case of a moral degenerate using science as an convenient excuse to justify his illegal acts than it is an example of the evil of science? As someone pointed out above most of the “experts” don’t think torture even works. Science for the most part is value free. Good and evil are found in how it is used.

  • http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/ JJ

    And I’m fully aware that science and religion is a legitimately contested area, miss Harvard Divinity.
    .
    But the distance between Enlightenment values (helloooo, founding fathers?), and the conservative movement’s Trotskyist-tinged, ideological values, couldn’t be greater.

  • http://sinisterbutterfly.wordpress.com/ jwbates

    In Amy’s defense, in her world, she’s used to people arguing from absent authority. So, there’s a valid equivalence between somebody justifying torture by saying, “This is God’s will” and “Science is science”.
    .
    But this kind of vacant, ideology-driven argument is precisely what riles Obama so. (At least, in my own mental model of Obama’s mental model.) Science as a *process* is designed to impede ideology. Of course, it is an imperfect tool, especially as its practitioners are all too fallible, but it is the best one that we have developed.
    .
    Both corporate and religious entities have combined to undermine the very process of science, because they wish specific conclusions to be drawn: no global warming! God created Adam and Eve!

  • rmrd

    Ms Sullivan, the case of the CIA operative using “psychology” to justify torture is equivalent to citing an atheistic slave-owner quoting the Bible to justify the institution of slavery.
    .
    The CIA representative is not a shining example of the work being done in psychology. The operative does not care if the science indicates that torture will generate a false confession. He does not understand pasychology.
    .
    The slave-owner does not care that 1 Corinthians 7:21 tells the slave to take any chance that occurs to break the bonds of slavery, or that the message goes on to say that no man should be subservient to another. The slave-owner is a heathen, not a Christian.
    .
    Both torturers (CIA operative and slave-owner) have already formulated the justification for their evil. Neither is looking for supporting documentation.

  • lurkeringa

    “science is always an unquestioned capital-G good and that anyone who raises questions stands in the way of progress.”

    If Amy believes that this is what Obama believes she must not have read the entire text of the speech. At the very end he says this:

    “Science cannot answer every question; indeed, it seems at times the more we plumb the mysteries of the physical world, the more humble we must be. Science cannot supplant our ethics, our values, our principles, or our faith,”

    He has a much more balanced view of science than the “know-nothings”

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Science for the most part is value free…
    .
    I wouldn’t put it like that.
    Science places specific value on ascertainable truth. Insofar as valuing truth over hunches or outtright lies represents a moral judgment, there is indeed a moral component to scientific inquiry. But humans are quirky animals. There are certain people who are uncomfortable with the notion that human beings are a legitimate subject of scientific inquiry. The notion that our internal experiences and emotional states can have mechanical causes drives them to distraction. Hence the knee-jerk insistence that science is not inherently good.

  • http://sinisterbutterfly.wordpress.com/ jwbates

    Science cannot answer every question; indeed, it seems at times the more we plumb the mysteries of the physical world, the more humble we must be.
    .
    Science expands the boundary of our ignorance. To put it as a stupid aphorism: the more we learn, the more we learn that we don’t know.

  • afguy

    Science expands the boundary of our ignorance. To put it as a stupid aphorism: the more we learn, the more we learn that we don’t know.
    .
    Well said!!
    .
    The Human Genome Project taught us more about genetics than we ever knew before – and scared the h3!! out of the ethical scientists about what they didn’t know and couldn’t foresee if they tried to “experiment” with the genetic coding.

  • Cliff

    And Amy was doing so good at writing posts that aren’t mind-numbingly stupid. So much for that…

  • lysacor

    My opinion of the matter is that Obama is doing exactly what is necessary to advance humanity through allowing scientific research to occur within the boundaries of reason, not the boundaries of religious doctrine (which has been proven wrong time and time again).

    Science: Exploration of fact, and reason through research and experimentation with the physical fabric of the universe.

    Religion: An attempt to discover the true meaning of existence and life through spiritual discovery and worship of a being greater than oneself.

    Science is based on fact, reason, and hard data (unless the data is tainted).

    Religion is based on an assumption of an ideal stated many times over generations through literature and oratory in an attempt to influence the masses to believing the same way.

    Let us not get mired into the quasi-religious babble over stem cell research. Please speak your own mind, and not the opinion of a religious figure or interest group.

    The world needs more free-thinkers, and fewer sheep. When you cannot move from the Bible when explaining your opinion, then don’t proselytize the rest of us please.

  • http://privcorr.blogspot.com/ wvng

    This report explains a lot. Repugs don’t understand that Colbert is satire. From The International Journal of Press/Politic, comes The Irony of Satire Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Repor.
    .
    This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert’s political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert’s political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.

  • http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/ JJ

    TPM had a good piece on the conservative movement’s whatever-talking-point-will-fly approach to empiricism yesterday with Newt Gingrich’s testimony:
    .
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/gingrichs-many-cap-and-trade-distortions.php?ref=fp2

  • omorka

    rmrd: I confess to being puzzled by your example. How could a heathen slaveholder also be an atheist? And how many heathens were there around during the pre-Civil War era, anyway? (It was the Romantic period, so I’m prepared to believe there might have been a few, but I can’t imagine there being a significant number.)
    .
    Having said that – someone who genuinely saw science as a “capital-G Good” would be incapable of believing that raising questions of any sort would be a bad thing. Inquiry is at the heart of science as an academic discipline and a human pursuit.

  • rose83

    The anti-science, anti-expert mindset is obviously troubling. But so too is the idea that science is always an unquestioned capital-G good and that anyone who raises questions stands in the way of progress. To cite just one troubling example, this week Michael Isikoff reports a confrontation between FBI interrogator Ali Soufan and a CIA contractor whose harsh methods disturbed him:
    .
    This misunderstanding of science is one of the most annoying forms of anti-intellectualism. Science is ALWAYS for questioning. Anyone who claims that “science is always an unquestioned capital-G good and that anyone who raises questions stands in the way of progress” is anti-science. Real scientists are very happy to talk about the possible downsides to scientific research. Real scientists love to play Devil’s advocate.
    .
    Amy, you study the bible. You must understand that people use religion and religious texts such as the Bible and Koran to justify things that are anti-Christian, or anti-Muslim. Please understand that interrogators who stop discussion about their work by claiming that “Science is science,” and that they know “how the human mind works” are NOT in fact demonstrating a scientific mindset. They are using the label of “Science” to justify their actions in the same way that terrorists use the label of “Religion.”

  • Line

    I think that President Obama is intelligent enough to know that science can be misused. This comes from the humans that use it, not science itself.

    You are debating about something that was never said or even implied and, accordongly, I think your whole column is one straw man argument.

  • formerlyjames

    I agree with others that Sullivan’s interrogation example for caution is absurd and demonstrates that she doesn’t quite have a handle on the subject.
    .
    Obama is just bringing us out of the dark ages of the Bush administration. It wouldn’t even be noteworthy, or happening, if Bush had not incited anti-science and anti-rational thought in pandering to the neanderthal inerrancy contingent of bible thumpers.
    .
    Sullivan, it is long past time to relegate religious discourse to some religious corner of the media, and not poison the secular rational corners. Please. Obama,I, Copernacus, Galaleo, Mendle, Einstein, and countless others not encoumbered by the emotional pull of revival meetings will be in your gratutude.

  • formerlyjames

    Did I leave out Darwin? Slap my face. Also, for failing to mention, at the risk of insult to informed observers, that all, with the exception of Eiestein, were deeply religious people.

  • formerlyjames

    Einstein. Angry typing fingers are prone to typos.

  • rmrd

    omorka
    .
    heathen definition.
    .
    a. One who is regarded as irreligious, uncivilized, or unenlightened.
    .
    irreligious definition
    .
    2. indifferent or opposed to religion
    .
    atheist definition
    1. atheist – One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
    .
    I was thinking of an unenlightened, uncivilized person (heathen) who did not believe in god (atheist), but used the Bible as a defense to justify the holding of slaves. The Bible is a prop. similarly, Psychology is a prop for the CIA operative.
    .

    Definitions are from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

  • incandenzah

    Sullivan’s crafty use of the word “strident” is also a big tell regarding her P.O.V. (bias?) on the matter of science (seems she no likee to much, though I wonder why). I’m sure there must be a positive definition of the word “strident” that doesn’t bring with it the implication of “harsh” or “grating” or “unpleasant,” but I surely can’t find one.

  • http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/ JJ

    Somewhat OT, but Chris Mooney did an interesting blogging heads gig with a History of Science prof recently on Bloggingheads:
    .
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/25/bloggingheads-diavlog-with-graham-burnett-on-the-two-cultures/
    .
    I’m looking forward to their upcoming thing on science and religion, if they do it (this dialog just touches on the subject)…

  • omorka

    rmrd: I see. So, using a slur on a religious group is okay as long as it has entered someone’s dictionary? I admit, I’m disappointed. I usually only expect this sort of thing from fundamentalists (and perhaps from people who go by “Bible Girl”).

  • formerlyjames

    omorka, slurs on religious groups? I thought, following the example of the fundamentalist religionists, that this is the name of the game. I will pray over it.

  • rmrd

    omorka, the slur is against the CIA “psychologist” and the theoretical slave-holder.
    .
    Just to clarify, I said that the slave-owner was not a Christian. The slave-holder took the Bible out of context to justify a horrible act. I really was directing the comment to Ms Sullivan. I thought she might connect that a Bible quoting person does not necessarily represent Christianity with the fact that a CIA “psychologist” does not represent the science of psychology.
    .
    The evil exists within the individual. True psychologists would dispute the arguments of the CIA person. True Christians would be participating in the Underground Railroad.

  • sacredh

    “Obama’s strident support of science”
    That sure does contrast with the evangelical right’s “nuanced” approach. Strident means harsh or grating. I much prefer the religious fanatics calm and reasoned intellectualism. The next time I ride my dinosaur to work I’m going to whip that sucker down to his bare bones. Geesh.

  • rbhii

    WTF? Seriously? This woman needs to be assigned to a different subject – or fired. As a scientist I would never feel qualified to report on religious matters so why has Time decided to have a religion journalist report on science?

    1. Absolutely terrible example. As everyone else has pointed out, people can incite science incorrectly as a means to an end. Also, psychology and the study of the mind is an incredibly imperfect science, some may even say social science.

    2. Science makes no claims on morality, it is the act of discovering and knowing truth. Whether acting on that truth is moral and should be implemented into law is up to the ethicists and politicians (or even bioethicists, oh wait there is an entire field devoted to determining the ethical nature of scientific discovery? well then, must mean science does not make moral judgments). Using the word science is not a defense. For example, a person could not defend genocide based on the scientific evidence that overcrowding is occurring and that it has health consequences, but again that is a philosophical debate on morality that does not fall under the topic of science. So you cannot even defend science using scientific ideas because that in itself is not scientific.

    3. Amy, did you even read Obama’s script?? As others have pointed out, he clearly makes the above argument and recognizing all that you are trying to discredit him for. Time to get out of your shell and smell the fresh air.

    4. Your last sentence is based on a common misunderstanding of embryonic stem cell research, or an irrational philosophical argument. They embryos come from fertility clinics and are frozen so long they can no longer be realistically implanted. The act of freezing them in order to “save” them has already destroyed them. The research is simply using the remains to advance the health of billions of living, breathing humans. As such morality would indicate that the research should absolutely continue.

    5. Your grammar would suggest that Obama is upset for a single reason, but definitely not more than one reason. In fact intellectuals are furious about the previous place of science in America for a plethora of reasons. This includes family members lost unnecessarily and previous actions of the Bush administration. I bet Obama has many, MANY reasons to speak passionately about this issue.

    6. In your response you do not consider that the applause was louder for the first comment about putting science back in its rightful place than the comment about about it not replacing our ethical judgment because that is not science and scientists think about science. Think about it. If he was speaking to a group of bioethicists, I am pretty sure the latter comment would have been met with greater enthusiasm.

    My apologies for ranting and all the typos, grammar and eloquence must sometimes be sacrificed when such biased nonsense endangers the progress science is finally making.

  • omorka

    rmrd: The issue here, for me, is that most slaveholders were Christians of some form or another (mostly Protestants). How many might have been atheists under the skin is between them and their god. But I’m pretty sure that very few of them were heathens. Associating atheists and heathens is confusing for both groups, and associating either group with slavery tends to promote the Christian view that evil resides in those Other Godless Folk Over There. Your example smacks, to me, of associating both the truly godless and those whose gods are not the Christian one with evil – doing the fundamentalists’ work for them.
    .
    Having said that, I obviously agree with you that the CIA guy is neither a scientist nor a moral person.

  • rbhii

    omorka, pretty sure it was a theoretical point. Can’t we all just agree this post is ridiculous and should be removed, especially from the top of the website?

  • http://penndems.org/archives/875 University of Pennsylvania Democrats » Science, It Works

    [...] Obama and Science [...]

  • Cliff

    rbhii – no need to apologize, you pretty much said what I didn’t have the time to.
    .
    omorka – I don’t think rmrd’s point was to insult heathens and atheists. He clarified that he was talking about people who use the Bible as a backing for their immorality.

  • rmrd

    …………omorka, pretty sure it was a theoretical point. Can’t we all just agree this post is ridiculous and should be removed, especially from the top of the website?
    .
    Thanks, rbhii

  • formerlyjames

    omorka, most slave owners were protestant because most catholics were slaves themselves and didn’t have the money to buy other humans. Just goes to show how the vatican was so much more efficient in their cause.

  • http://www.speedkill.org/2009/04/27/2295/ Speedkill » Religious concern trolling

    [...] give you, Amy Sullivan: It’s not that Obama works himself into a rant when he talks about science. He’s still [...]

  • http://ballmedicine.com/ball-medicine/obamas-strident-support-of-science-time-magazine/ Obama’s Strident Support of Science (Time Magazine) | Ball Medicine | Ball Medicine

    [...] More here [...]

  • http://otisgrace.wordpress.com/ John

    “Most advocates of science aren’t looking to use it to excuse torture. But neither are most people who worry about the use of embryonic stem cells engaged in “effort[s] to advance predetermined ideological agendas.”"

    Science is neutral. It does not advocate. People advocate. They use science to support their positions.

    Advocating torture is not science, but science could be used to either advocate or discourage torture. With stem cell research, the opposition is mainly religious. Religion should play no part in dictating any part of the law.

    I applaud Obama’s stridency in support of science. This should be the default position. Any exceptions to this should be thought through very carefully, without resort to religion.

  • solus2sail

    The presidents comments should also bring us back to a discussion on the decriminalization of marijuana.
    Science has proven time and again that while maybe not a benign pastime, it is certainly less addictive and socially disruptive than drinking.
    While not personally a user, I can’t help but feel sympathy for the many hundreds of thousands languishing in jails and prisons for having caught up in the drug war.
    In 1973, there were 328,670 arrests logged in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for drug law violations. In 2007, that number rose to 1,841,182 arrests for drug law violations logged in the UCR.
    Although people may think that the Drug War targets drug smugglers and ‘King Pins,’ in 2007, 47.4 percent of the 1,841,182 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana — a total of 872,720. Of those, 775,137 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. By contrast in 2000 a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 were for possession alone.
    If we truly respect science then it’s time to end this madness.

blog comments powered by Disqus