Scientists & Engineers for America Action Fund

Dems Distort Stem Cell Policy for Electoral Gain (Again)

Posted by Michael Stebbins on October 8th at 11:11 am

By Matt Nisbet at A Vote For Science

Democrats are far from innocent when it comes to twisting the reality of science policy for political gain. For example, back in 2004, when the Kerry/Edwards campaign tried to use stem cell research as a wedge issue against Republicans, Edwards infamously went well beyond the uncertainty of stem cell research and the realistic timeline for therapies when he said on the campaign trail: “”If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.”

And now in 2008, distortions on stem cell research enter again as a Democratic strategy. As Fact Check.org at the University of Pennsylvania reports (listen to ad and read full analysis):

An Obama-Biden radio ad hammers McCain for being opposed to stem cell research. Not true. Meanwhile two spots from the McCain-Palin campaign, together with the Republican National Committee, describe McCain’s support for the research; they’re largely accurate.By saying that “John McCain has stood in the way - he’s opposed stem cell research,” the Obama ad seriously misstates the view that McCain has held on this issue since 2001, when he began backing embryonic stem cell research, a position that was out of step with that of many of his fellow Republicans.

The McCain/RNC ads would probably lead listeners to believe that Palin shares McCain’s views on this topic. That’s not true. But we find that to be a minor flaw compared with the misrepresentation in Obama’s ad.

Filed under ScienceBlogs, stem cells
Add Comment  | 

Schwarzenegger signs Researcher Protection Act of 2008

Posted by Michael Stebbins on October 6th at 6:31 pm

By Janet Stemwedel at Adventures in Ethics and Science

The past couple years in California have been scary ones for academic researchers who conduct research with animals (as well as for their neighbors), what with firebombs, home invasions, significant intentional damage to their properties and threats to their safety.

In response to a ratcheting up of attacks from animals rights groups, universities have lobbied for the Researcher Protection Act of 2008, which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law on September 28.

(more…)

Filed under ScienceBlogs, Scientific Integrity
Add Comment  | 

Economist Poll: Strong Majority of Economists Favor Obama

Posted by Michael Stebbins on October 5th at 6:16 pm

By Matt Nisbet at Framing Science

Just how bad as the information tide turned against McCain on the economy? The conservative Economist magazine, in survey results published this week, finds that economists overwhelmingly name Obama as more qualified to handle the economy.

More Democrats than Republican economists replied to the survey, but even among Republicans, Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Obama has the better grasp of the subject. In terms of who is more likely to surround himself with qualified experts, 81% of all respondents say Obama; 71% among respondents who say they are unaffiliated with a party.

Filed under Economy, Presidential Candidate, ScienceBlogs
Add Comment  | 

Tracking the lag between promise and payoff.

Posted by Michael Stebbins on October 3rd at 7:35 pm

From our friends at Adventures in Ethics and Science

One of the reasons non-scientists see science as at all valuable is that scientific research may result in useful medical treatments. And one of the aspects of science that seems elusive to non-scientists is just how long it can take scientific research to bring those useful medical treatments about.

In the 5 September 2008 issue of Science, Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, George A. Alexiou, Theodore C. Gouvias, and John P. A. Ioannidis [1] present research that examines just how long it has taken to get from initial discoveries to medical interventions.

Contopoulos-Ioannidis et al. identified articles that reported research showing a medical intervention to be effective in clinical trials and that were highly cited in the scientific literature (receiving more than 1000 citations each in 1990-2004). These articles represent an endpoint of a sort, the culmination of many preliminary research studies in clinical trials. However, of the highly-cited studies reporting positive outcomes in clinical trials, not all were replicated or even unchallenged by the end of 2006. Some were contradicted by subsequent studies. Others were found to have had initially stronger effects … when larger or better controlled subsequent studies were performed (1298)

(more…)

Filed under Science Funding, ScienceBlogs
Add Comment  | 

Carbon capture and storage is an end-of-pipe dream

Posted by Michael Stebbins on October 1st at 3:50 pm

By David Thorpe at Next Generation Energy

Over in the United Kingdom, the Government’s business and technology department (BERR) has a new enthusiasm for new coal-burning power stations which is based on the notion of retrofitting CCS (carbon capture and storage) in the future once the technology is developed. But all the independent advice is going against this policy.

Another thumbs down

Three new reports cast doubt on this. The first is a response to the Government’s consultations on the topic published yesterday by the Environment Agency.

It says “The concept of carbon capture readiness (CCR) is insufficient for the climate change challenge that we face.” This is categorial and agrees with most other independent studies.

A second report is an in-depth integrated assessment of CCS that analyses the overall effects of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in electricity and hydrogen generation and compares them to renewable energies. It casts many great doubts upon the possibility of CCS ever being viable.

(more…)

Filed under Energy, ScienceBlogs
Comments (2)  | 

Performance Issues: Science Debate Still a Bad Idea

Posted by Michael Stebbins on September 25th at 9:48 am

By Matt Nisbet over at Framing Science
For those that have seen the Nisbet/Mooney Speaking Science 2.0 talks over the past year, you might have witnessed during the Q&A some disagreement over the merits of actually having the presidential candidates participate in a “Science Debate.”

As I have said at these talks, I think the goal of raising the profile of science and environmental policy in the presidential election is a good one, it’s just that I have doubts about whether or not pushing for an actual debate between the candidates is the right strategy for achieving this goal. (Never mind the likelihood of getting the debate commission, networks, and candidates to agree to a science-exclusive debate.)

Having a Republican and Democrat stand on stage discussing science policy would send the strongest signals to a miserly public that these issues can easily be re-interpreted via the mental box of partisanship. Moreover, it’s unlikely that the candidates would actually discuss science, instead their remarks would be carefully framed to evoke ideology or emotion, and to make small differences on policy into openings for attack politics.

Case in point: Read this transcript of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards at the Nevada primary debate discussing their positions on Yucca mountain and investment in nuclear energy. Though it raises the salience of the issue, there’s little or no actual science content in their answers, and in several cases even where Clinton and Obama agree on policy, Clinton uses the occasion to attack Obama about his industry campaign donors, strikes for emotion by connecting energy policy to Dick Cheney, while Edwards similarly moves on the attack!

(more…)

Filed under Election News, Presidential Candidate, ScienceBlogs
Comments (1)  | 

For Palin, Is it God-made Climate Change? Journalists Need to Ask the Question.

Posted by Michael Stebbins on September 23rd at 4:39 pm

By Matt Nisbet at Framing Science

At the WPost, Juliet Eilperin pens a lengthy feature on the differences between Palin and McCain over the causes of global warming. Palin believes that the effects of climate change are impacting Alaska and has advocated for action, but continues to hedge on whether or not humans are a cause. McCain, on the other hand, believes that “the science of man made global warming has really been proven.”

Palin’s rejection of scientific consensus may simply be politically strategic, playing to a conservative base, or she may be victim to the counter-framing of climate skeptics. Either way, Palin’s opinion of climate change is in line with her party faithful. Polls show that less than 25% of college-educated Republicans accept that human activities are contributing to climate change.

On the other hand, as a devout Pentecostal who believes in creationism, Palin’s rejection of scientific consensus may also derive from her religious faith. Palin, for example, is already on record saying that she believes Iraq is “a task that is from God.” It stands to reason that religion also likely colors her views on climate change.

So for journalists, the relevant question for Palin is the source of her beliefs about climate change. Why is it that she rejects overwhelming scientific consensus? And specifically, what role does her faith play in perceiving the causes of climate change? For Palin, does God trump science when it comes to understanding the causes of complex problems?

Filed under Climate Change, Presidential Candidate, ScienceBlogs
Add Comment  | 

We’ve joined ScienceBlogs at A Vote for Science

Posted by Michael Stebbins on September 17th at 12:20 pm

Just an FYI for everyone. We will be crossposting some of our original content on a new blog set up by Seed Media Group over at ScienceBlogs. They have been very gracious in allowing us to crosspost some of their content on the site, and we are delighted to be a part of the ScienceBlogs family. The new blog is called A Vote for Science and, as it implies, it is focussed on election issues and science. It is not clear whether they will keep this blog active after the election, but until then, it will serve as a nice home for election coverage. You can also check out their politics channel, which often has some of the most inciteful coverage of science issues in the elections. I urge you to check out the writing of some of the other bloggers there including one of my colleagues at the Federation of American Scientists, Ivan Oelrich.

Filed under SEA Action Fund News, ScienceBlogs
Add Comment  | 

McCain answered the 14 questions on science!

Posted by Michael Stebbins on September 15th at 6:40 am

John McCain has sent in the answers to the 14 questions posed by SEA and a group of scientific organizations! Now both Obama and McCain have put their cards on the table and there are clear differences. Now get to work comparing McCain and Obama. At an initial glance I found one minor error in McCain’s answer. He claimed, “I will work to fill early in my Administration both the position of Science Adviser and at least four assistant directors within OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy).” He clearly meant 4 Associate Director positions, the Senate confirmed positions at OSTP. But on the scale of mistakes that he could have made, this is minor. It is good to see that he is at least dedicated to having a science advisor, but like Obama has not committed to having one at the cabinet level.

Another clear difference between the two is in science funding. “I am committed to reinvigorating America’s commitment to basic research, and will ensure my administration funds research activities accordingly. I have supported increased funding at DOE, NSF, and NIH for years and will continue to do so.” This is in comparison to Obama’s unequivocal call for doubling of federal R&D spending to boost our economy. McCain has previously said that he will have a domestic spending freeze in his first year as President, which means another year of flat funding and more real cuts to the nations scientific endeavor. With that said, there is a lot of really good stuff buried in the answers. So dig in and find all the differences and load them up on the SHARP Network and tell me about them so we can highlight them further.

Filed under Election News, Energy, Presidential Candidate, SHARP Update!, ScienceBlogs
Comments (1)  | 

WordPlay: McCain Ad Claims Unified Support for Stem Cell Research

Posted by Michael Stebbins on September 15th at 5:41 am

From the Associated Press through Framing Science

On Friday, a McCain radio ad attempted to present McCain and Palin as a unified force behind stem cell research. In fact, McCain supports relaxing federal restrictions on financing of embryonic stem cell research, a position opposed by abortion opponents. Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research.The ad, however, does not mention the word embryonic, making it correct on its face. Supporters and critics of using stem cells from embryos do support research using adult stem cells to help conquer some diseases.

This type of advertising sleight of hand works because, as I review in this past column, few Americans are aware of the key differences between embryonic and adult stem cell research while the recent breakthroughs in adult stem cell reprogramming likely add further confusion.

Filed under Election News, Presidential Candidate, ScienceBlogs, Scientific Integrity, stem cells
Add Comment  | 
Join SEA
Search:
Join SEA

Our Partner

Scientists & Engineers for America

SHARP Network

Science, Health, and Related Policies

Recent Posts

 
 

SEA Action Fund is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. SEA does not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or party affiliation. SEA does not lobby or support, endorse or oppose candidates for office.

© 2007-2008 SEA Action Fund

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons License