Comments on: 61 Nobel Laureates can’t be wrong

By: Lo que la victoria de Obama puede significar para la Ciencia « La Singularidad Desnuda

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:08:51 +0000

[...] hubo una clara toma de posición de numerosos grupos científicos a favor de Obama. Por supuesto, ganar el premio Nóbel no otorga omnisciencia, aunque algo de clarividencia si es de [...]

By: JS

JS — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:19:00 +0000

if you happen to be a physicist and support Obama:

http://picasaweb.google.com/combopak/PhysicistsForObama#5260612642253420450

By: David McMahon

David McMahon — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:18:42 +0000

For the record, I already did “absentee voting” and voted for Obama. That being said, I couldn’t care less what “Nobel Laureates” endorse. Nobel prize winners are just ordinary people like I am, and because they happen to be successful at some obscure scientific calculation or measurement, that doesn’t mean their judgment in political or life affairs has any relevance or carries any more weight than say, Sarah Palin. Scientists need to get over their arrogance.

By: 15 seconds of fame | Cosmic Variance

15 seconds of fame | Cosmic Variance — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:50 +0000

[...] In two weeks the United States will pick a new President. This is certainly one of the most important elections in recent memory. We are a nation facing economic and environmental catastrophe. And although these issues are clearly linked to science and technology, the voices of scientists are, as usual, somewhat muted (notwithstanding 67 Nobel Laureates [including all of this year's American laureates] endorsing Obama). [...]

By: Back to Politics… « blueollie

Back to Politics… « blueollie — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:32:42 +0000

[...] Personally, I like it that we have a smart person at the top of the ticket and I love it that 61 Nobel Prize winners in science have endorsed him. [...]

By: George Smiley

George Smiley — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 04:24:57 +0000

Eugene @ 11: I should be more explicit. You don’t know the quantum efficiency of Nobel endorsement. That is, you don’t know the rate at which Obama-supporting Nobel laureates are willing to sign an endorsement letter. Perhaps the quantum efficiency is only 56%, and they all support Obama…

By: George Smiley

George Smiley — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 04:20:30 +0000

Eugene @ 11: Gell-Mann is now a signatory, and the overall list is now up to 65 Nobel Laureates, with 50 living U.S. Laureates not having signed. At least one of these is unable to sign (or abstain) due to health issues, and there is not a comparable letter signed by McCain supporters.

By: clazy

clazy — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:35:41 +0000

Looks like I messed up the first link. Go here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07303/pdf/tab38.pdf

By: clazy

clazy — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:34:44 +0000

Actually, 61 Nobel scientists are wrong. The letter says: "During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country's scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support." I suppose it's arguable that "parts" have been damaged, but the letter doesn't offer any specifics that would allow me to determine how "vital" they are, and the fact is, R&D funding has increased massively over the entirety of the Bush administration. The last few years have been lean, but in the first several, the numbers doubled on both the civilian and defense side. You can see the figures for yourself here and here. The whining of these guys is embarrassing.

By: mathematician

mathematician — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:26:22 +0000

I have ZERO confidence that science will improve in America with Obama being president. Obama’s education platform is nearly identical to that of McCain’s, except Obama is determined that keeping kids in failing schools is worth it as long as kids don’t have to be subjected to the horror of daily prayers going on in private schools. That, and he wants more money for the epic failure that is no Child left behind.

And I still don’t see any discussion on either side about getting more American students into math, physics, engineering programs. More than likely with both candidates we will continue the proud tradition of being the world leader in entomology, ecology, and evolutionary biology – and continue being the laughing stock when it comes to sciences that actually matter.