Science Idol was a contest sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists to find the best political cartoon dealing with science. They just announced the winner: Justin Bilicki, for this cartoon:
It’s a good cartoon: funny, pithy, and makes its point. But there were lots of other entries, and in the fine tradition of Monday-morning quarterbacking, I have to say I like some of them better… like this one, and this one. Still, most of them are pretty good, and the root mission was a good one: expose and air out political intervention in science. I think we need a lot more vocal opposition to it, and I’m glad to see it popularized in this way!
August 20th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I think that a brain is a large liability in politics, which makes most scientists ill suited for the job. I’m sure that would generate much more vocal support for science if we could find a way to cut out all those facts and get ourselves some pundits.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I love that ‘toon.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Meh. By all means, expose and air out political intervention in science (from both Left and Right I would presume), but given that so much of contemporary science is funded by the government, don’t hope for the intervention to go away. Indeed, all evidence points to the issue growing steadily worse.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Let’s hope we get an administration that releases some of the political restraints under which our governmental scientific institutions (USGS, NSF, EPA, etc.) have been operating.
And how about appointing some scientists back at the helm of the National Science Foundation (or the Not So Fast foundation as our colleagues now refer to their press releases).
August 20th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I prefer the pencil one as well.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:35 am
I find it both amusing and disheartening that the same people who play politics with environmentalism themselves (by pretending a problem does not exist) accuse anyone who believes in global warming or is anti-pollution, etc, as “playing politics with science.”
It’s the most glaring * pot calling kettle black * example I can imagine.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:52 am
[…] Two random pieces of interest from the net. The cartoon below is the winner of the Science Idol cartoon contest. […]
August 21st, 2008 at 4:07 am
I also prefer the pencil one, but I can see why it didn’t win. Whilst the concept is much better, the artwork itself is very basic and unimaginatively executed. If it had a bit more flair and better presentation (maybe within the context of a larger scene), it would have been a winner hands down I think. As it is, the skill+imagination of the cartoonist wins out against just imagination in a cartooning competition.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:14 am
No agenda with that winner, nope.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:48 am
My one criticism of that cartoon is that to say we are destroying the earth is slightly inaccurate. To paraphrase George Carlin in my own words,
The earth doesn’t need saving. Better than anything else it has survived asteroid impacts, a toxic reducing atmosphere, mass extinctions, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, nuclear tests, pole shifts, and is 4.5 billion years old. What the $#@% makes you think it won’t survive humans?
August 21st, 2008 at 7:23 am
SnakeHandler: My concerns is that even if it does go away on the federal level, most people won’t recognize it. Some things have become so tied to political platforms that even if science is allowed free reign again to note findings, people will claim they are politically biased.
If science were given free reign, and government based policy off sound scientific consensus, people would still claim that the cranks and denialists are being shut out and shut down. Whether that’s AGW, Alternative Medicine, Stem Cell research, or Animal Rights, there are plenty of issues where ideology trumps evidence in the minds of many.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:55 am
Scientists blew their chance when working on the Manhattan project… they could have kept the bomb for themselves, and used it to take over the world! Then, the Earth could have been remade into a technocracy… and someone like Phil could just sit around stroking his white persian cat, planning “death ray” satillites.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:33 am
I agree with The Chemist. Without missing the main point that the government has been meddling in the affairs of science (a point well taken), it is humans that need protecting, not this silicate encrusted ball of molten iron. It may seem a minor quibble to a poignant cartoon, but the quibble is well-placed when directed at the larger issue of environmentalism.
So often I hear the attitude that the Earth needs to be saved from evil humans that would do this poor defenseless planet harm. No, the environment needs to remain compatible with human life if humans want to continue living here in health.
If the politics of environmentalism was about keeping the environment ideal for humans, maybe more people would be on the same page. Demonstrating how environmental conservation is just as self-preserving and beneficial as logging jobs or oil revenues might be a way to reduce the government’s desire to meddle so much.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:42 am
Great. All the subtlety of a +3 mace to the face along. And history shows that approach works *so* well. And why doesn’t the guy in the black suit have any arms? I agree with Phil. The other two were better.
When the UCS stops opposing nuclear fuel reprocessing, I’ll view them as something other than an ideological group. They play the “oh noes terrorists” card on that one just as much as the Bush Administration. Meanwhile, France processes away for decades with no problems.
Scientists blew their chance when working on the Manhattan project… they could have kept the bomb for themselves, and used it to take over the world!
Ever read “The Peace War” by Vernor Vinge?
I think that a brain is a large liability in politics,
It’s more that the brain is hampered by the politics. Ideological memes cause mental dysfunctions. Political ideologies are as bad as religious ones in my book.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:51 am
Joe Meils,
Who needs “death ray” satellites when you can have Orbital Mind-Control Lasers? They’re much more fun!
August 21st, 2008 at 9:34 am
I expect that George CArlin knew quite well that the real problem is whether HUMANS will survive our own excesses. If humanity goes extinct, in a few million years the ecosystem may well raise another, possibly more rational, species, who may then wonder how a previous techno species could have been both so smart AND so incredibly dumb,,,as to initiate their own extinction,,,
I truly believe we have the opportunity to spread our eggs far and wide, creating Freeman Dysons Stage Two civilization, one which uses the entire energy output of their local sun, for fun and profit,,,especially the fun,,,
While interstellar travel may prove to be too energy intensive to be practical, that still leaves us with
access to a (solar) resource base greater than 3000 planet Earths and a possible species lifetime exceeding 30,000,000 years.
I hope that would be long enough for this species to grow up,,,
GAry 7
August 21st, 2008 at 11:57 am
The only phrase that annoys me more than “Where there is water, there is life”, is “Humans are destroying the Earth.” That would require a lot more explosives than we have, or the Death Star.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“While interstellar travel may prove to be too energy intensive to be practical”
Not really too energy intensive. If Voyager 1 had been aimed to make it to Proxima Centauri, it would have made it there in about 80 years. And that’s old technology that wasn’t even designed for interstellar travel.
As far as manned interstellar travel, we had designs that would have gotten us to 10% lightspeed all the way back in ‘68. Have you heard of Orion (the original project)?
Granted it would have been an enormous technical feat and the technology for closed-ecology recycling was not there in ‘68. But we’re getting much better at closed systems and if there were a compelling reason (an impending extinction event, or the discovery of a nearby habitable planet) we could build a ship that could reach the Alpha Centauri trinary in approximately 40 years - today.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Joe Meils Says: “… they could have kept the bomb for themselves, and used it to take over the world! Then, the Earth could have been remade into a technocracy…”
“Things to Come” (1936).
- Jack
August 21st, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Such arrogance.
“The earth isn’t going away. We are! Bye, bye!” - George Carlin
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 am
Thanks! Great cartoons
… & sadly only too right.
I reckon they choose the right winner but the scientist caged in the White House is great too.
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:01 am
I think that American scientists get more largesse in both money and rope to research than other governments allow. Yeah, yeah, you’ll point at stem cells. That’s just one big sorespot. I’m commenting on overall number of university and corporate R & D.
Politicians: these days we’re finding difficulty governnings ourselves with this set of politicians; but, we can’t govern ourselves without politicians.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Tyler Durden: I did say “may be too energy intensive”. It all depends on what we eventually learn to control. Using a high powered (solar) laser to accelerate a payload via solar sails is one way to achieve very high velocity. Asteroid colonies, self contained nearly to perfection, might well make the journey to our neighboring stellar OORT clouds, which gives the colony access to essential renewable resources. “Nearly perfect” self containment still requires supplementation but OORT clouds have the right ingredients. ie, H2O, carbon, etc. I expect it will take several centuries of techno progress in space colonies to get it right but if we have sufficient time and other resources, we’ll do it.
What I was trying to point out is that it doesn’t matter if interstellar travel is practical. We have an ENORMOUS resource base in THIS solar system to call upon. We just need to go out and do it,,,
,,,then,maybe, the interstellar access will fall into place,,,
GAry 7
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I fully support colonizing and mining the entire solar system.
I have doubts however that any government is going to do it. It’s very difficult to sell these kinds of visionary ideas to the average taxpayer.
“Mining asteroids? Won’t that cost hundreds of billions of dollars? Why not save the money and just mine stuff here?”
If it will be done at all it will be done by private corporations and eventually private individuals.
However, a threat to the survivial of the human race is something that no one could realistically refuse to hedge against. It may be just the right push out the door we need to go out and colonize the galaxy.
Finding a habitable planet would be almost as good. An entire planet and all of its resources, unspoiled and ripe for the taking - that would attract a great deal of interest and most likely multiple expeditions to reach it.
August 25th, 2008 at 6:56 am
“Not really too energy intensive. If Voyager 1 had been aimed to make it to Proxima Centauri, it would have made it there in about 80 years.”
Since when Voyager flies at about 15 000 km/s away from us (relative to Earth)? You got major blooper, poor boy. Check actual Voyager speed and count needed time again.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Source error - another blog post.
Would be about 75,000 years at its speed of approx. 3.6 AU per year, since it is about 270,000 AU from current position to Proxima Centauri.
However I would note that this probe was simply meant to explore this solar system - a probe designed with current and near-future propulsion techniques could easily be expected to make it in 75 years not 75,000.
September 25th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
[…] Tip : Phil addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fchrislintott.net%2F2008%2F08%2F21%2Fmistranslations%2F’; addthis_title […]
February 8th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I think more accurately, we are destroying species and habitats, and ultimately ourselves. If we manage to drive ourselves to extinction, the planet will no doubt rejuvenate itself. I think a more people- and species-centered approach is needed in place of a planet-centered approach.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Scientists have more important things to concern themselves with than the pursuit of political power.