|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 06/25/2004 : 05:21:39
|
GW's Administration is implementing more political control over scientists in the US - now they're restricting who can talk and what they can say to the World Health Organization. Unbelievable.
quote:
"This policy is unprecedented. For the first time political appointees will routinely be able to keep the top experts in their field from responding to WHO requests for guidance on international health issues," the California Democrat wrote in a letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson.
"This is a raw attempt to exert political control over scientists and scientific evidence in the area of international health," Waxman wrote.
"Under the new policy the administration will be able to refuse to provide any experts whenever it wishes to stall international progress on controversial topics."
Controversial topics? Birth control, abortion of course. And then there's stem cell research. What about health issues arising from climate change? And whatever Bush's religous beliefs don't agree with of course. And then if the administration wants to 'punish' any particular group for making statements against any administration policy . . . . this blatant anti-democratic policy is disgusting. They are trying to stifle one of the characteristics that helped make the US and the West great - free exchange of scientific knowledge. 
Source:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&e=4&u=/nm/20040625/hl_nm/aids_scientists_dc
|
-Chaloobi
|
Edited by - chaloobi on 06/25/2004 05:22:09
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/25/2004 : 06:10:59 [Permalink]
|
I may overuse this word.....
unreal |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 07:32:08 [Permalink]
|
| Not the first time when religion and/or ideology overrides science, and probably not the last. What puzzles me is that they are against science, but only sometimes. Stop scientists from talking, if it's possible they might say something Bush doesn't agree with... but still initiate the most ambitious space exploration plan ever. Perhaps he doesn't know that they're going to do some real science during the exploration journeys. Well, that, or Mars is simply not one of his gods and so it's ok to investigate it. :) |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 08:00:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick
Not the first time when religion and/or ideology overrides science, and probably not the last. What puzzles me is that they are against science, but only sometimes. Stop scientists from talking, if it's possible they might say something Bush doesn't agree with... but still initiate the most ambitious space exploration plan ever. Perhaps he doesn't know that they're going to do some real science during the exploration journeys. Well, that, or Mars is simply not one of his gods and so it's ok to investigate it. :)
Sending men to the moon and Mars is not the best use of dollars if you're most interested in science. You get a MUCH bigger science bang for your buck if you put money into robotic missions. I'm not at all convinced Bush is sincere with this Moon/Mars proposal. Afterall, he's only increased NASA's budget by a token. When Apollo was announced, NASA's budget was doubled or tripled immediately (can't recall which, exactly). I find it difficult to believe anything will come out of this bold new space venture. My guess after the election it will be quietly forgotten. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 09:29:41 [Permalink]
|
One thing is for sure. Soon as I graduate, I'm back in Europe. We can research what we want there. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 10:47:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
One thing is for sure. Soon as I graduate, I'm back in Europe. We can research what we want there.
The risk of Bush's policy is that the US will fall behind as the scientific/technological leader of the world. There are already signs that our society is in decline, this being one more of them. I'm reminded of a history text I read once that claimed the early rise of Arab culture was stifled by the social strictures of Islam. Is this ultimately what Christian Fundamentalism will do to the US? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 11:41:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick
Not the first time when religion and/or ideology overrides science, and probably not the last. What puzzles me is that they are against science, but only sometimes. Stop scientists from talking, if it's possible they might say something Bush doesn't agree with... but still initiate the most ambitious space exploration plan ever. Perhaps he doesn't know that they're going to do some real science during the exploration journeys. Well, that, or Mars is simply not one of his gods and so it's ok to investigate it. :)
Sending men to the moon and Mars is not the best use of dollars if you're most interested in science. You get a MUCH bigger science bang for your buck if you put money into robotic missions. I'm not at all convinced Bush is sincere with this Moon/Mars proposal. Afterall, he's only increased NASA's budget by a token. When Apollo was announced, NASA's budget was doubled or tripled immediately (can't recall which, exactly). I find it difficult to believe anything will come out of this bold new space venture. My guess after the election it will be quietly forgotten.
I do agree that the NASA budget was increased by too little. This entire program, to return to the moon, establish a lunar base and then go on to Mars is much bigger than the Apollo project, even if we now do have some experience of landing on other worlds, which we didn't have back then. This is why I was surprised that the increase was so little. Do they expect to do all this on that budget? NASA's annual budget is now around $15 billion if I remember correctly, and the military spending in USA annually is something like 20 times that. Also, last year the military spending increased with $42 billion, nearly three times the entire NASA budget!
I do agree that robotic spacecrafts can do a lot of science for very little money, but there are too few robotic missions too. Also, I believe they can be used as a complement rather than completely replace human spaceflight. Humans living and working on other worlds for years could do a lot of science. I have other reasons why I think we should do it, but my reasons aren't all completely scientific I suppose. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 12:04:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
One thing is for sure. Soon as I graduate, I'm back in Europe. We can research what we want there.
Except in Sweden. It's actually illegal to make plans for, or blueprints for a nuclear reactor, or to order equipment or to do any other preparations to construct and build a nuclear reactor. In reality, this could mean we can't even do research for, or develop the technology even with the purpose of making it safer and more efficient. That is at least how I interpret the paragraph. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 12:33:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick
I do agree that robotic spacecrafts can do a lot of science for very little money, but there are too few robotic missions too. Also, I believe they can be used as a complement rather than completely replace human spaceflight. Humans living and working on other worlds for years could do a lot of science. I have other reasons why I think we should do it, but my reasons aren't all completely scientific I suppose.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see a serious manned space-flight program. In fact, I believe that spreading life to other worlds around other stars is the greatest thing humanity will ever do. Or fail to do. I DON'T believe the Bush Administration is serious however. I think this is a cynical stab at getting votes by pretending to play some kind of leadership role in cutting edge space exploration. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 12:43:43 [Permalink]
|
Well, I'm not a fanatic for Kerry, but a vote for him is a vote against Bush....
The election is drawing closer and closer. Soon, the time will come to throw Bush out of office, and according to certain political polls now, Kerry has a majority of the American favor. If Kerry wins, we have Bush for only a few more months... However, if he loses, Bush......... for another four more years.....
Maybe Bush is just what we need. Maybe, if Bush stays in office for four more years, the American people will become outraged with his religious political agendas and a Revolution will ensue to kick him out of office, replacing him with real democracy! Idealistic and petty this thought..... but if so happens, at least we will all have evolved a bit more. |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 12:55:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick
I do agree that robotic spacecrafts can do a lot of science for very little money, but there are too few robotic missions too. Also, I believe they can be used as a complement rather than completely replace human spaceflight. Humans living and working on other worlds for years could do a lot of science. I have other reasons why I think we should do it, but my reasons aren't all completely scientific I suppose.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see a serious manned space-flight program. In fact, I believe that spreading life to other worlds around other stars is the greatest thing humanity will ever do. Or fail to do. I DON'T believe the Bush Administration is serious however. I think this is a cynical stab at getting votes by pretending to play some kind of leadership role in cutting edge space exploration.
Perhaps Bush is just trying to look like a visionary or perhaps get the geek's vote :) Unless the funding increases dramatically, we'll just have to wait and see how far they'll go. But then there is the new crew exploration vehicle, that would do it all, go to and from LEO as well as go all the way to the moon, if I understand things correctly? Since they will retire the shuttle, they have to develop a new vehicle. The smart thing would then perhaps be to develop a craft that could go to the moon too in some way.
Also, ESA has the Aurora programme, where the ultimate goal is to land on Mars in 30 years from now. They have already started to take the first small steps, with some more robotic missions to Mars for example. Considering that ESA's budget is even less than NASA's, it will be interesting to see if they can pull it off. In that case they would have to convince the member states to fund it all. One interesting thing is that this Aurora programme has recieved virtually no coverage in the popular media, hardly even in the popular science media. This leads me to think that it can't be some sort of attention seeker or a diversion or something. I am sure most people don't know about it... while lots of Europeans know about Bush's space vision.
Regarding spreading life to other worlds, I completely agree with you. It would be a terrific thing to do to terraform Mars, or perhaps even Venus in the future, and then continue at other solar systems. What a great fingerprint, or signature it would be to mark that "humans were here".
(Edited to add the last paragraph.) |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
| Edited by - Maverick on 06/25/2004 13:02:09 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 14:36:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick
Except in Sweden. It's actually illegal to make plans for, or blueprints for a nuclear reactor, or to order equipment or to do any other preparations to construct and build a nuclear reactor. In reality, this could mean we can't even do research for, or develop the technology even with the purpose of making it safer and more efficient. That is at least how I interpret the paragraph.
Hmmm, yeah. I was thinking about my own field, which is environmental health sciences/epidemiology. We do seem to have less restrictions on medical issues in Europe. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 15:06:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick
Regarding spreading life to other worlds, I completely agree with you. It would be a terrific thing to do to terraform Mars, or perhaps even Venus in the future, and then continue at other solar systems. What a great fingerprint, or signature it would be to mark that "humans were here".
(Edited to add the last paragraph.)
It's not just about leaving our mark, I feel it's a responsibity. As far as we know, this world is the only place life exists in the universe. And we are the only species on our world to ever develop the capability to spread life off this world. If you acknowldge that life is intrinsicly valuable, then you have to recognize the importance of moving it's eggs from a single basket. Further, life will flourish in countless directions from world to world. It's conceivable through biological engineering that we might even develop forms of life that can survive virtually anywhere. A universe teeming with life - better yet, teeming with MIND. It's not a modest goal, but a worthy one. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 17:35:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is this ultimately what Christian Fundamentalism will do to the US?
I hope not. The fundie crowd is by no means a majority, and they will eventually piss off enough of the lazy moderates who don't vote. Hopefully that will motivate some people to get to the polls. I think (just speculation) that most of the people in the US who don't vote are moderate or liberal. It's just a matter of convincing them that voting makes a difference. (not an easy task) |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2004 : 00:11:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sending men to the moon and Mars is not the best use of dollars if you're most interested in science.
I agree. We should indeed be sending atleast 2-3 full featured robotic missions every year. Manned spaceflight has real value also, but is not as practical/cost effective as robotic missions.
I think we need to work our manned programs up in small steps to achieve some major goals. A larger permanent space station, a permanent moon base, for starters.
Also, recent reporting says (latest issue of Discover) that the material sciences required for a space elevator have made some serious progress in the last couple of years. The latest concept, if the science and materials estimates are true, could be operational in 10-15 years. Whomever builds it first will own near-earth space. The cost estimate (also from the recent Discover mag) is something like NASA's budget for a year or 2. 10-20 billion. Cheap at 10 times the cost, I say. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2004 : 07:36:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
Hmmm, yeah. I was thinking about my own field, which is environmental health sciences/epidemiology. We do seem to have less restrictions on medical issues in Europe.
This is probably true, and if so also very good for Europe in the long run. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
