As we all know, the Bush Administration has been extremely aggressive about stamping out any real science whenever it can. This has been documented so many times and over so many far-reaching fields that it can be accepted as simple fact.
Well, Bush is on his way out, and hopefully we won’t have four more years of his failed policies and blind attacks on reality. But either way, the nonpartisan Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars has issued a statement that the new President will desperately need a good science advising team:
The science and technology policymaking capacity of the White House must be enhanced so that the next president can better address key issues facing the nation—from energy and the environment, to national security, and the ability of the United States to compete and collaborate internationally.
Well, yeah. The President needs a science advisor who will tell him the truth and be clear about it, and we need a president who will actually listen to the advisor and act on that advice, and not ignore it if it happens to go against policy or dogma.
That would be awesome. And refreshing.
Read the report. It’s very interesting, and I have very high hopes that maybe, just maybe, the next President will have at least one foot in reality.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
How about a small team? How about… YOU and PZ !
That way you guys cover both physical sciences (astronomy
and physics) and life sciences (biology, chemistry etc).
I’m sure you guys could easily get in touch with geologists,
climatologists, physicians, bioinformaticians (me!), etc too.
Phil Plait and P.Z. Myers for Advisors!
(Not that, as a Canadian, I do have an interest in promoting
good sciences in the U.S., because often what happens there
affects how we rule our own country too… unfortunately).
June 19th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
It’s “adviser.”
Wow! I used to hate the people who picked nits on this site.
Now I get to be one of them!
And it’s much more fun than I thought!
c
June 19th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Hi Phil =]
I noticed that you haven’t post science articles like you did before, at least not so often since I first started to read your page, I know that you really hate those anti-science people but dont be carried away to mock them, the only way people are gonna ignore them is giving them knowledge to fight back and you are good at spreading science lore so plz dont be carried away by the creacionist trolls & mindless politicians >_>
June 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
How about a Vulcan? Seems to me Mr. Spock did a heck of a job on the Enterprise. The fact that he is a fictional character would make him only slightly less effective than the current adviser.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I concur with JLPR. Imparting knowledge about science and the scientific method is the most effective way counter ignorance and demigoguery with irrefutable logic. Engaging in tit-for-tat barbs and name calling reduces the debate to nothing more than partisan mud slinging. Boring. Surely we are capable of a more sophisticated approach.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
It’s not just the White House in desperate need of science advisors. Congress needs to reinstate its Office of Technology Assessment that Gingrich dismantled in a fit of pique back in the mid-90s. Oh, and then … as you suggest … they all need to listen closely and pay attention.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
As much as I love and respect Bad Astronomy, you do seem to have taken on a political as opposed to science related stance on almost everything in the last few months.
Use your soapbox to propose a better plan or idea, or lead the giant crashing wave of positive action and reinforcement that cancels the waves of negativism, pessimism and ignorance.
Talk is cheap. That’s all a blog is. Make it worth something. Make it good, informative, enlightening, inspirational…
I got involved in blogging and podcasting about astronomy because of the inspiration supplied by you and others. I know it’s hard, but try to moderate the disappointment with the way things are with some realistic optimism about the way things could be. And then DO something about it.
Wasn’t that the idea behind Bad Astronomy in the first place?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Kurt Vonnegut recommended establishing a Secretary of the Future. I think that’s a great idea. I’m sure the president’s science advisers (at least ideally) would play that role to some extent. Still, I think it would be good to have somebody whose sole responsibility was future forecasting. I nominate Ray Kurzweil.
Also, I think the blog entries showcasing anti-science jackass shenanigans are generally hilarious. I say keep it up. We can sprinkle a little comedy in with the science.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
BA- Little gripe but you might want to think about the phrase “the nonpartisan Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars”….
They are admittedly and openly left wing (as you are). They accept money from fat cat Dem donors and put out position papers. Which is cool (well, actually, “good” given what is going on lately), but it should probably be stated as such above board. I mean, if you cited the Cato Institute I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t have referred to them as “non-partisan”. That group is obviously and overtly right wing.
Well, great blog man. Just, um, hoping that the BABloggees (pretty sweet group by the way!) can see what is what.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Introducing Dr. Phillip Plait, Science Adviser to the President of the USA……….
June 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
More importantly, Phoenix Lander had found water on Mars. Woot!
June 19th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Doh. HAS found water on Mars. Too excited, can’t type!
June 19th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Phil,
A new science advisory team / presidential administration / congress / etc., is all a joke. Do you think any administration is going to take money out of their own pocket by diverting it from the existing power structure (big oil, power, ag, defense contractors, etc.)? If so, you need to read about why coal mining and other unions were intially formed. Power does not concede without a fight even when it’s illogical.
We should already be living forever, have a completely clean environment and our energy needs should be from the sun or other more rational source. These old men in smoke filled rooms are willing to die along with us, rather to relinquish their thrones. They are drunk with power and can’t see clearly. Their vision of what could be is still complete tunnel vision with them at the top and the prolatariat at the bottom.
So, change will come from the masses and be driven upwards, like always in history. The old tired ways will remain the old tired ways.
The positive things is that there are close really close breakthroughs on the horizon from private companies that can’t be contained: The Energy Renaissance is within our lifetimes.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Mars has ice!
June 19th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I’m not hopeful, no matter who the next president is. In our dumbed-down, worship-invisible-deities-in-the-sky, let-your-kid-die-of-urinary-tract-blockage-for-Jezuz society, science and technology have fallen to near zero in importance. Corporate lobbyists will always have far more influence over government decisions than science advisors. I fear the U.S. will truly be a 3rd World nation in a decade.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Did I hear that Mars has ice?
June 19th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Congress also needs to restore the Office of Technology and Assessment. It did such an amazing job that other countries created their own versions of the OTA. You can thank Newt Gingrich for it’s dismantling. Nancy. You got some ‘splainin’ to do for not restoring it yet.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Mars has ice!….This is the awesome news we have been waiting for. quite frankly….SQUEEEE !
June 19th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Ok, first…
ICE ON FRIGGIN’ MARS!! Ok, done…
I’m always baffled by those who disagree with Phil’s right to post whatever he wants on his own blog. The science content of this site is far higher than the politics; if the latter bores or offends you, then DON’T READ IT. If you’re really offended, then GO AWAY. Seems pretty simple.
I love the idea of a scientist adviser on the Presidential staff. I love the idea of a President making informed, rational decisions based on that person’s advice even more. As Phil said, that would be refreshing.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Scientific Fraud May Be More Widespread Than Thought, Poll Says
By Elizabeth Lopatto
June 18 (Bloomberg) — About 1,000 potential incidents of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in scientific research go unreported every year, according to a survey that suggests such misconduct is far more prevalent than suspected.
On average, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Research Integrity receives only 24 reports of suspected misconduct from academic and other research institutions yearly, according to a report in the journal Nature. The authors called for scientists and institutions to implement more safeguards against research fraud.
Rooting out fraud in scientific research has gained increased attention since 2006 when Seoul National University investigators confirmed that one of their scientists, Hwang Wook Suk, faked studies of human embryonic stem cells. Most of the potential misconduct identified in the survey was fabrication or falsification, such as altering research data, which accounted for 60% of the reported incidents.
“We want to know if we’re handling misconduct appropriately,” said Sandra Titus, the director of intramural research from the ORI and one of the study’s authors. “There’s a feeling there’s a disconnect between what the office sees and what’s happening in the world.”
The data was based on surveys of 2,212 scientists holding research funding from the National Institutes of Health, asking if they believed they had observed fraud in 2002-2005. The scientists surveyed in the report said they observed 201 instances of “likely misconduct” over a three-year period, or about three cases per 100 people per year.
Extrapolating Results
NIH research grants support an estimated 155,000 scientists. Extrapolating the survey results, the researchers estimated that the 201 instances of misconduct over three years translated into about 1,000 cases of fraud that go unreported to government or institutional officials.
Research fraud happens even though the scientific community uses measures such as replicating original research, and evaluating it through a peer review system, said James Wells, a study author and director of research policy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
“Replication of research happens at a slow rate, and there’s great pressure for personal advancement, for getting money,” said Wells, the director of research policy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in telephone interview. “The respondents did indicate that they thought the high level of job pressure is the biggest driver.”
About a quarter of what the observers believed to be misconduct in the survey was by postdoctoral fellows, and about 22% was by a professor or senior scientist.
To contact the reporter on this story: Elizabeth Lopatto in New York at elopatto@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: June 18, 2008 14:21 EDT
June 20th, 2008 at 12:42 am
The scientist also have an obligation to deliver. Only when we deliver will people stand up and listen to us and provide the adequate funds for future explorations. We do not have a birth right to seek the unconditional support of the government unless we show them some concrete results. Till then, we shall be at their mercy. And there is nothing wrong about the president not listening to the advisor or the scientific community as we haven’t shown any concrete results till date.
The understanding of Mars has been painfully slow. Let us speed up and provide a clear Yes or No answer to the existence of water and life on Mars. Till then, there is no point in converting the views of either the President or the Government.
Its all up to us to make or break it.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:04 am
As much as I love Phil, PZ, and other popular scientists along the lines of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene and Ken Miller, I think that with the issue of climate change looming large, needing urgent action, and likely to be a focus of the incoming administration’s attentions (I HOPE!) the best choice would be someone prominent in a related field. How about Ralph J. Cicerone, current Pres. of the National Academy of Sciences?
Also this keeps Phil, PZ, and the rest of the hipper, more media savvy science advocates available and active where they are at their best: educating and communicating science to the masses.
Oh, and Deepak, put down the crack pipe. Science doesn’t/hasn’t delivered? Really? You use “we” so I’m guessing you consider yourself among the set “scientists”. And you think you’re not doing society/the nation/mankind any good? The only way I see that being remotely true is if your last name is Chopra and you’re experiencing a moment of intellectual honesty after some heavy introspection.
And with NASA’s current budget and other constraints in mind, please enlighten us on how you would speed things up and provide us all with that definitive answer sooner. BTW, did you see the news? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080619.html
June 20th, 2008 at 3:24 am
(Returning to sobriety)
Of course we already knew Mars had ice. I’ve even seen its polar ice caps through my little 150 cm telescope. It’s never been that much of an issue. (?)
Having recently snoozed through a National Geographic episode on abiogenesis, which generally gratified me by suggesting that our forebears had to have been extremophiles, I can confidently doubt that a small planet like Mars could harbor life (for values of “confidently doubt” on the order of “chances of LA teams winning anything”: Lakers? Angels?)
June 20th, 2008 at 4:25 am
I would recommend either you, Phil, for the position, however, that would mean you wouldn’t time to maintain the site, blog, and not to mention the cool videos!
However, I bet several members of the forum would make a good team.
Depending on who’s in office might detirmine if they keep their jobs, though, as it might rely on how reality based the thinking of the politician is.
June 20th, 2008 at 4:53 am
Here’s a nasty thought to consider:
How much science such as astronomy is funded depends on the amount of discretionary funds available, which in turn is directly proportional to the economy. Since I don’t think either McCain or Obama has a clue, we’re looking at a bumpy four years.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:41 am
The President needs this?
Well, hell! How about the rest of us?
(Sorry, I’m in a poor mood today. But for some reason, I keep missing the old “Future Life” magazine, and [to a lesser extent] “Omni.”)
Nice that Obama might have a science advisor. Maybe then he won’t be so anti-space program.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I’m as loony lefty as the next man (unless he’s David Icke)…
On the comments about reducing the political content on BA – well, this IS Phil’s site, and he can do whatever the hell he likes with it, but here’s my advice, as I’ve been in a similar position myself in the past. People like most of their sites to be pretty focused, topicwise.
Clearly, Phil has a GOLDEN blog here – it fills a particular niche…debunking quacks, and, well, “bad astronomy”.
Phil also has a strong political orientation – if anything, not as far left as I’d like, but there you go.
May I suggest starting a second blog, skewed more to politics – one more focused on the relationship between Poliitics and Science? He could link to it once a week to give it a “push”, and see how many BA readers will follow. Those that want BadAstronomy (even the six fingered conservatives) may do so, and possibly learn something. It will also prevent these threads from being filled with comments such as “Keep politics out of BA”…which is important feedback, no argument.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:52 am
*Yawnnnnnnn* More Bush-bashing…
I won’t miss that when McCain is President. Of course, it’ll just turn into “McCain” bashing, since the lefties just can’t stand anyone who isn’t just like them, doesn’t believe exactly like them, and don’t believe in silliness like anthopogenic global warming, or is that climate change… It’s so hard to keep track of junk science these days… Next thing ya know, Space.com will be publishing articles about Planet X!
Robert
June 20th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Mars has ice. hmmm.
The statement is made based on photographic evidence of the sublimation of a whitish material over the course of several days. I cannot believe that a scientist would assume that this photographic evidence settles the matter.
Fortunately, the NASA spokesperson did not use the phrase “water ice” in referring to the substance. The term ice was used, which could be another frozen substance. I don’t believe photographic evidence is conclusive scientific proof of water ice. This announcement is premature. There could also be the question if the photographs are truly showing a sublimation process or if some other process is at work.
There are other possibilities here, and until the conclusive tests are performed there can be no proof. Hopefully, we will have those in the next few days and that will indeed settle the matter. But this story is not about proof. It is about the excitement of the observations made to date and PR to a public that accepts what they are spoon fed.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
lefties just can’t stand anyone who isn’t just like them
Which is why they’re known for their racism, homophobia, anti-intellectualism, and xenophobic desire to shoot and bomb “foreigners”.
/sarcoff
June 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Robert:
Do yourself (and your descendants) a favor and try getting your information on climate science from climate scientists instead of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. Google the person I mentioned above, Ralph J. Cicerone. (I recommend the 9th hit). Try reading the IPCC reports. See what the government has to say about it. Check out sites like RealClimate.org or ScepticalScience.com. Global Climate Change is underway, human activity is largely to blame, and action is needed A.S.A.P. to hopefully mitigate it’s worst effects in the near and not so near future. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree. The current administration agrees. McCain agrees. The oil industry and energy companies agree. the majority of religious leaders agree. Just about every nation on earth agrees. The only dissent is from a smattering of scientists, many with questionable ties to special interests or no experience in the field, and a couple of talking heads whose jobs and ratings depend on their being sensational, contrarian, and anti anything even remotely liberal rather than factual, reasoned or open-minded.
It’s over, Robert. The claims of the deniers have been shown to be unsubstantiated. (I refuse to call you and those like you “skeptics” as you have yet to show that you are open to evidence or at all willing to change your view in accordance to the facts.) The only substantive debates left are about what the effects will be, when will they occur, and what to do to avoid the worst of them and possibly turn things around in a couple of generations.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
D’oh!…
Sorry I missed the bold tag there folks. It was supposed to close after Robert’s name.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Yeah, Y2K was “settled,” too. Well, except until it didn’t happen… yeah, yeah, for every “source” you come up with, I can quote one, too!
Why don’t YOU spend some time on http://www.realclimate.org/?
Or try reading the UN report, not the part the politicians wrote, but the actual content…
Oh, and when you can tell me for sure if it’s going to rain this afternoon, come see me about the next decade…
Robert
June 20th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Excellent refutation there, Robert.
/snark
Oh, and if there was any doubt left, that you don’t know the distinction between weather and climate shows just how little you understand IRT this topic.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
embrangle,
It is very unlikely that it’s anything but water ice. CO2 ice doesn’t hang around for days at the local Phoenix temperature.
See here for details.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:08 am
“Global Climate Change is underway.”
Send me a postcard when it isn’t.
I point my telescope at the sky at least once a week and spend a lot of times crawling around in the bushes looking for bugs with my son. In other words, I love science.
But I have to admit the scientific atmosphere around global warming is starting to freak me out a bit. People seem to forget that the IPCC is relies a lot on computer modeling that have so far had a very disappointing track record for accuracy. Surface temps in the last decade, lack of significant warming in the troposphere, ocean cooling, the list goes on. The IPCC’s models have been pretty mediocre.
I think reasonable people can agree that the theory needs more proof. And until then we should tone down the demagoguery.