General Stuff

The Dems Bostonian lovefest begins in earnest today. C-SPAN has the goods. Tonight's scheduled speakers include: Fmr. Pres. Bill Clinton, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Fmr. Pres. Jimmy Carter, and Fmr. Vice Pres. Al Gore.

*************************************

The housing market checked in with a surprisingly strong performance. Wall Street isn't impressed. It is almost a certainty that June's report will be the high-water mark for home sales(in this cycle). Last week's dismal report on building permits is the forward looking indicator..and it's not pretty.

*************************************

Buy Google at IPO? Is Google worth $39.1 Billion?

I won't be amongst the buyers.

*************************************

The newly free Iraqis are displaying oddly autonomous behavior. Don't they know that this is a conditional freedom?

Things are as deadly as ever in Iraq.

*************************************

Moore's film is in uncharted territory - for a documentary. $103.5 million and counting.

*************************************

Poll de jour

In a show of just how undemocratic the electoral process truly is, USA Today has polled 'battleground states.' You know, the few states that get all the money and attention lavished upon them because these states could go to either candidate.

For what it's worth, Kerry is polling better than Gore did in 2000 in the polled states, except for Florida.

The GOP and Science

It is stupefying that some members of the GOP think that there is a magical place where scientific research and politics meet and flourish.
 
From BioMed Central:

WASHINGTON, DC—Members of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel yesterday (July 21) challenged senior Bush administration officials over the propriety of asking the political affiliations and policy positions of scientists being considered for federal government advisory committees.

"Is it inappropriate to ask their party affiliation?" John E. Porter, NAS committee chairman, questioned government witnesses yesterday. "There is no specific prohibition against asking it," replied Robert Flaak, senior policy adviser in the General Service Administration, which oversees laws regarding federal advisory committees. "I see no reason why that would be important. [But] there are cases, in a policy-related committee advising the president, where perhaps it could be of interest."

Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, told the NAS panel that political viewpoint questions are indeed appropriate because scientific advisory committees represent "the nexus between politics and science."

"Scientists should not consider themselves to be a privileged class that is somehow above politics," said Ehlers, who is also a research physicist. "Scientists must be in touch, even in tune, with the political realities around them. Only by understanding the political process can scientists fully integrate science into decision-making."

But Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee who has issued his own allegations of Bush administration interference with government science, disagreed. "When it comes to scientific advisory committees, I don't think that the politics of the president or the administration should play any role in the selection. It ought to be solely on the basis of the competence of the scientists."

The NAS Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy is seeking ways to encourage greater participation by scientists in government. Yesterday's meeting assumed heavy political overtones, coming amid continuing complaints by research and public interest groups that the Bush administration is politicizing science and science policy. The committee plans to release its recommendations shortly after the November elections.

The Union of Concerned Scientists earlier this month issued a report claiming "new evidence that the Bush administration continues to suppress and distort scientific knowledge and undermine scientific advisory panels." The report cited several instances in which candidates for National Institutes of Health (NIH) councils said they had been asked during interviews if they had voted for President Bush and whether they supported his policies.

Waxman is correct. The GOP has one engineer in the House. There are a couple of physicians, and that's all for those trained in 'hard science.'

The only "nexus between politics and science" should be whether to fund research project A or B. The same rules regarding scientists' voting patterns, and or party affiliations should be applied as religion is in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution wherein it states:

...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

If you're from Michigan, and in Ehlers' district..send him home for the holidays. I think it's a good message to send :)
 
This is an issue that touches all of us. From real, unfettered research on climate change to stem cell work, there is arguably no more an important long term issue confronting us.