If Chris Mooney didn’t seem so serious, I would think this was a joke. He’s predicting that George W. Bush will use the State of the Union Speech to stake his claim as “the Science President.”
A while back I blogged about an idea floated by Morton Kondracke: That George W. Bush should try to become the “science” president by emphasizing, in his State of the Union speech, themes of global scientific competitiveness and the need to ensure that the good old USA is leading the pack. Well, it now seems official: According to the Boston Globe, in his speech tonight Bush plans to highlight Norman Augustine, a former Lockheed Martin CEO who “last year led a congressionally mandated National Academies team that issued a report warning that America is ‘on a losing path’ in the global marketplace.” Why are we falling behind? If you believe the NAS, it’s because of inadequate scientific and mathematical training for our high school students, not enough funding of basic scientific research, etc etc.
That’s right. George “Let’s teach intelligent design” Bush. George “Let’s censor climate scientists” Bush. George “Let’s watch while particle physics withers away” Bush. George “Let’s slash funding for basic research” Bush. George “Let’s politicize the scientific decision-making process and suppress results we don’t like” Bush. George “Let’s divert research funding to my Moon-Mars boondoggle” Bush. George “Most anti-science President ever” Bush.
I understand that, after staking his claim as the Science President, Bush will present himself with a coffee mug that says “World’s Greatest Leader, Ever.” And a pony.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Whither physics? To wither away
January 31st, 2006 at 1:10 pm
True enough. The blogosphere self-corrects again.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:22 pm
and lets waste billions on a missle defense system whose basic premise violates basic physics.
Elliot
January 31st, 2006 at 1:43 pm
I was thinking that if he’s going to dub himself the Science President, he might also dub himself The Feminist President. The two are about equally accurate.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:55 pm
and the fiscally responsible president as well…
January 31st, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Elliot,
How does missile defense violate basic physics? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t; it’s just very hard (as the limit of hard goes near impossible).
January 31st, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Elliot,
How does missile defense violate basic physics? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t; it’s just very hard (as the limit of hard goes near impossible).
Sean,
P.S. Was getting php errors for a regex statement. Why is quantoken banned? Or maybe I misundertood the regex.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Sorry about the dupes! Just think of me as the science blog comment poster…
January 31st, 2006 at 2:37 pm
missle defense as currently proposed implies that you can distinguish the real target from dummies by way of their infrared signitures. It is impossible to do this based on the infrared alone. references available.
Elliot
January 31st, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Bush Jr is far from my favorite ’science president’, but its not like we’ve had a very good ’science president’ for a long time. Between Clinton and the whole SSC fiasco, and Bush sr and the NSA budget cuts etc
I view both parties as having irrational beliefs
Repubs have issues with ‘god’, so stemcell research, ID, and the like are problems. They also tend to slash governmental aid for fundamental research (which really can’t solely be taken up by the private sector as there is no payoff).
Dems have issues with postmodernism fog, nuclear power, overzealous environmental regulations (lumbering policies, genetically engineered food) and well im a climate skeptic so lets jsut say I think thats controversial (at the very least I think Kyoto was a mistake).
January 31st, 2006 at 3:21 pm
I doubt anyone would take any statement he makes seriously. So the more he claims he has anything to do with science, the better for science.
After all, this is the dude, who promised peace in the middle east and is on the road to nothing but a nuclear revolution….
oh, wait…his physicists genes are speaking…maybe he has something up his sleeves…
wait…that was just a pretzel!
January 31st, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Hmm, I doubt anyone would take any statement he makes seriously. So the more he claims he has anything to do with science, the better for science.
After all, this is the dude, who promised peace in the middle east and is on the road to nothing but a nuclear revolution….
oh, wait…his physicists genes are speaking…maybe he has something up his sleeves…
wait…that was just a pretzel!
January 31st, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Please, it’s Science Preznit!
January 31st, 2006 at 4:10 pm
“There are WMDs”
“Terrorist are operating out of Iraq”
“I believe we will be greated as liberators”
“We don’t torture”
“I am a science president”
It’s perfectly coherent.
The issue at hand is not wether it is true in some sense, it’s not obviously enough false that a sufficient media reality and corresponding statement can be established through repetition and the other usual channels.
Decision are by neccessity based on the perception of reality rather then on reality, these decisions in turn create (part of) reality.
Therefore controling the perception of reality is for many purposes equivalent to controling reality. This has been and continous to be the underlying mechanism of Bush’s political success. And it’s been why the political success has not been hampered in proportion to his failures in reality, it wasn’t build on achievements in reality to begin with.
On a positive note, I guess this means that Bush et al think that science is overall still highly positively connotated. Maybe he’ll upset a sufficient number of scientists by his latest manipulations to create enough public backslahs that the statement he is constructing will not stand….
January 31st, 2006 at 4:20 pm
From the iht:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/31/news/bush.php
Bush urging development of alternative energy sources
[...]
Bush will also use the address to announce new proposals in health care, fiscal policy and what White House officials are calling “American competitiveness,” which includes investing in math and science education and in job training.
[...]
January 31st, 2006 at 4:36 pm
I’ve been thinking about our potential new “Science President.” My initial reaction was total and complete disgust and distrust. But perhaps any publicity for science is good publicity, just like the old Hollywood adage. Perhaps the nation could engage in a debate about science. Perhaps we might even be tossed a crumb or two. Or perhaps I’m hallucinating and we’ll double our effort to send people to Mars and call it a science program.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Yeah, my first instinct is to assume he has some present to give to his friends, and he chose to wrap it as a science initiative, we shall see.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:05 pm
My attitude is, show me the money. Bush can say whatever he wants in his State of the Union address—it doesn’t have to be true (cf. yellowcake from Niger). Tonight is just pomp and circumstance; the real test is what science policies get implemented. However annoying it is to imagine Bush wrapping himself in the mantle of science, if it does spur the development of viable alternative energy sources, that can only be a good thing. (Five years into the Bush II dynasty, I’m a pragmatist and will take what I can get!)
January 31st, 2006 at 5:11 pm
As a foreigner of capitalistic system that run through the veins of societies, what value the common wo/man as a citizen of the state?
I think he will talk about “healthcare” and how he wants to make this available at a “decent price” to you all?
Also, he will talk about staying the course in IRAQ?
Some food for thought.
Oil “profits” existed before the natural disaster became the basis for increasing that profit margin and having an excuse to fix things damaged. Statistical evidence found in my own country raises this perspective, also, is there for you to look, as I did, within your own government recordings. I speculate that, unless otherwise confirmed. What was the profit margin before Katrina, and now?
Oil is used now to fuel inflation. Poor people struggle while the oil make some rich. Using “religion” to fuel a society is not a good thing, and the lessons we see in the middle east is that such religion not take over the minds and hearts to garner illusions about about a heaven, while disasterous deeds take hold of one’s reasonings.
Securing natural gas reserves, means inflating the price in order to secure profit margins. Is this right, or wrong?
I would like to see the veins that run through these countries adjust themselves, and think more baout th estruggle of th ehuman being as we progress society not send it down avenues that feed the decay of a society.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:17 pm
I am amazed that posted when I decided not too, because I thought it better here? If you like, please delete that post and let this one stand.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:18 pm
My working group is waiting to hear any day if the NASA Dawn mission will be given a green light or a cancellation (our fully-to-spec built Italian, German, and American instruments are presently sitting at the spacecraft company in longterm storage). It would be a beautiful and tragic piece of irony for Bush to give a speech about US scientific competitiveness if, at the time he talks, his space agency cancels a project with international partners, hundreds of millions of dollars/euros spent, and years of many people’s time.
January 31st, 2006 at 7:41 pm
NIH pay lines are currently around 10%, that is 10% of projects get funded (the pay line is 9% for my institute). Under Clinton, the NIH pay lines got as high as 25%.
It is thus considered one of the worst times in recent memory in basic biological research.
January 31st, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Memo to Science President – learn to correctly pronounce “nuclear”.
January 31st, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Nucular
January 31st, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Samantha: Interesting NIH percentages. It’s what many new investigators suspect, despite being told by more established people that the pay lines are still at 20%. Perhaps those people are referring to bio-weapons research, or things that can be connected to bio-weapons (bio defense?).
Kristin: your p.o.v is dead on. But don’t be surprised if there’s a Bush III. As you know, everything’s changed since…..
January 31st, 2006 at 9:53 pm
His only references to Science—
“And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hard-working, ambitious people — and we are going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce the American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our Nation’s children a firm grounding in math and science.
First: I propose to double the Federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next ten years. This funding will support the work of America’s most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.
Second: I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit, to encourage bolder private-sector investment in technology. With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life — and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.
Third: We need to encourage children to take more math and science, and make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We have made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers, to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science … bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms … and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America’s children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world.
Preparing our Nation to compete in the world is a goal that all of us can share. I urge you to support the American Competitiveness Initiative … and together we will show the world what the American people can achieve.”
…
…
“A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research — human cloning in all its forms … creating or implanting embryos for experiments … creating human-animal hybrids … and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator — and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale.”
January 31st, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Bush the Father, Bush the Son, Bush the Holy Ghost.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:49 pm
If someone missed it and wants to know what Bush actually said – as opposed to speculations of our male feminist friends who he could have said – read
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-is-genius.html
January 31st, 2006 at 11:03 pm
re: “Nucular”
“…While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.”
And this doesn’t make it right!
In Canada, not too long ago, we had a Prime Minister who fractured both official languages… but the real problem is when a leader just doesn’t understand the complexity of the problem he faces… so simplifies on the wrong basis in order to “model’ a solution… and ends up with a solution that is modeled on something that just doesn’t exist… in anybody’s reality… and CAN”T work as no one can truly believe that it can work…
The House Divided can stand and applaud (for, or in sarcasm) as it did, but I don’t think Bush, unfortunately, did anything but promote his lame duck status tonight.
And whether you are for him or against him, the USA in this state is not a better place.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:05 pm
[...] Sean « The Science President [...]
February 1st, 2006 at 2:14 am
Lubos,
Your naive assessment amazes me. He ALWAYS says a lot of things… then he does what is good for his buddies in the energy business and his friends at PNAC.
Perhaps the fact that American is not your native language provides a challenge to your ability to seperate reality from total B. S. I’d sure be likely to misunderstand a speech in Czech.
A genius???…. the bar must be pretty low to qualify.
Elliot
February 1st, 2006 at 9:47 am
The most specious claim President Bush makes about supporting science is his smoke and mirror approach to science education. He says we need the brightest and most creative minds to keep us out in front of new development and technology, but his policies as carried out through “no child left behind” are antithetical to this agenda. Science literacy requires teaching methods (constructivism and inquiry) that emphasize conceptual learning over rote knowledge aquisition. Even though inquiry is clearly stressed in national and most state standards, it is nearly impossible to devise standards based testing that encourages this constructivist apporach to teaching. Scinece educators are stuck trying to use good pedagogy while somehow preparing students for inherently ineffective and biased tests. Any good science knows that constructivism works, but that they are risking their jobs or at least promotions if they don’t slant their practices towards the test. Once again, President Bush’s policies are implemented with our without “expert” input.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:32 am
Re: #7, 8, 10: Besides the question of decoys, the trouble with missile defense concerns the basic physics of ballistic flight and intercept. Making plausible assumptions about response time and rocket velocities, it is very difficult for a rocket to reach another rocket. Even if the interceptor gets there in time, what exactly does it do to stop the inbound missile? You can’t just wish away the momentum. (There are also myraid engineering challenges, such as ensuring software reliability.) See Daniel Kleppner et al.’s article in the January 2004 Physics Today and Richard Garwin’s article in the November 2004 Sci Am.
George
February 1st, 2006 at 2:58 pm
My initial reaction the “Science President” was one of horror and I confess to a deep dislike of Dubya. HOWEVER we need to try to do something positive, and do it by taking a leaf out of the republican play-book. The chances are that your congressperson doesn’t have a clue about what is meant by basic science and so we need to help him/her define it and support it. Therefore, write to your congressman/woman and say how heartened you were by GWB and explain the importance of basic research and say exactly what it is for you (Cosmology, String Theory, … ) Talk about how you have gone to elementary and high school classes and talked to rapt XXX grade students about the mysteries of the universe. Do it on letterhead and then phone, and keep phoning the congressmans office to emphasize how important it is … and how we need money for post-docs, graduate students, computers …… . Try to get a group of your colleagues to have an “audience” with your Congressperson……
Before you post another word to a blog, WRITE TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES and get them behind this. It is probably a quixotic waste of time, but think of it as a poor-man’s form of Pascal’s bet. If the republicans are met with endless moaning then it will certainly come to nothing, and we will have the satisfaction of being correct but impoverished ……
February 1st, 2006 at 3:00 pm
“Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers, to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science … bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms”
I wonder how 70,000 science teachers are going to like being trained in teaching intelligent design. This flies in the face of the support that Bush gets from the religous right and I can’t imagine he will actually follow through on it.
February 1st, 2006 at 3:29 pm
George,
Yep. It was compared by Senator Dick Durbin to hitting a hole in one into a moving hole on a green with a hundred other moving holes. All at 18,000 mph. Needs to be in the right hole the first time.
Nicholas,
Good idea. My rep is Judy Biggert who actually has Argonne AND Fermilab in her district so you would think she’d be on board.
Elliot
February 1st, 2006 at 11:24 pm
[...] The Science President | Cosmic Variance (tags: Science President USA @) [...]
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:57 pm
[...] Back here in the U.S., on Monday the Bush administration is releasing its FY2007 budget proposals. An outline of the DOE budget lists an 8% increase in HEP spending to $775.1 million, as well as full funding for RHIC. The NSF should also see a sizable increase as part of the so-called American Competitiveness Initiative. The folks over at Cosmic Variance are experiencing some cognitive dissonance. [...]
June 27th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
[...] Sean « The Science President ID Infects the UK » [...]