Dr. Kiki’s Vote For Science

October 24th, 2008
My addition to the A Vote For Science campaign. Distributed by Tubemogul.

10 Responses to “Dr. Kiki’s Vote For Science”

  1. Ben on October 25, 2008 12:07 am

    If you:

    Support Science
    Oppose Wall Street bailouts
    Oppose pointless wars
    Oppose leaving our grandchildren trillions in debt
    Support Freedom!

    Vote for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr!

  2. News From Around The Blogosphere 10.24.08 « Skepacabra on October 25, 2008 1:25 am

    […] News From Around The Blogosphere 10.24.08 Skeptologist Dr. Kirsten Stanford asks you to vote for science. […]

  3. Jameson Sawyer on October 25, 2008 3:52 am

    Dr. Sanford.. I have no logical choice but to agree with you. As a rational and skeptic-minded man (your study in neurophysiology an interest close to my heart as I have a personal stake in that field having Multiple Sclerosis) Senator Obama seems to me as well to be the sanest choice. I commend your work and would ask that you continue,, but I’d wager you already have those plans.

  4. Luis J. Villanueva on October 25, 2008 11:00 am

    Very well said Dr. Kiki! The US no longer makes stuff, we let China deal with that, so we need to lead in ideas, science and discoveries.
    In addition, an investment in science is a sure thing that will pay off many times over, unlike Wall Street.

  5. DataJack on October 25, 2008 3:46 pm

    Dr. Kiki, that was great, really inspirational.

  6. William Dawson on October 26, 2008 8:20 pm

    I respect your well informed opinion but I think Obama will be bad for science. That may be surprising to hear someone say but if I may quote Niel DeGrasse Tyson, “What Republicans hate most of all is to die broke and science definitely brings home the bacon”. I think his tax plan is horrible for companies trying to develop more efficient energies and motors. He says govt will sponsor things but the govt is broke and wont be able to. Taxing our innovators and entrepreneurs out of business, or at least out of incentive, will not help our economy.

    Methane is the best fuel we have for meeting our domestic transport needs, which requires a combustion fuel b/c no matter how good a scientist is, Lithium can only be ionized so much. No amount of govt spending and pep talk will force Nature to violate her laws.

    We need to be energy exporters if we ever want to have a vibrant economy and only Gov Palin, for all most scientists might shirk at her lack of knowledge of biology, understands CH4 as our key to energy independence and even export economy.

    Sometimes its not the one that talks the best game regarding science that is best for it, its the one that you least likely suspect that is your best ally.

    WE need to boost the private sector with major tax breaks, not hikes, and we need to develop profitable export fuels if we are ever going to make it. Obama, along with Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, Waxman et al would turn us into a govt sponsored, unproductive, un-profitable 3rd world country with their overall plan. That may be with all the best intentions on his part, Im sure. I dont have to tell you what road is paved with ‘god intentions’.

    Vote Science, Vote MCCain/Palin 08.

  7. Kirsten Sanford on October 27, 2008 1:46 pm

    Hi William–

    Thanks for your comments, but I think there are some problems with your argument.

    First, I haven’t seen how Obama will penalize innovation. This is something that conservatives continue to say, but I haven’t seen the numbers to back it up. In fact, the numbers suggest that our national debt will increase more under McCain’s plan than Obama’s. The rub is that both of them have to get their plans past Congress. Good luck doing that without considerable compromise from both of them.

    Second, I don’t know why you are placing your bets on methane. Just four years ago, Bush was promoting hydrogen, and that has yet to prove itself. Any energy plan that puts all our eggs in one basket won’t help us become energy independent anytime soon. Especially if that basket requires a complete overhaul of the vehicle fleet, which methane would. Methane is not the only energy source we need to focus on.

    Third, trickle-down economic theories don’t work as well as people would like them to. Taxation does not mean that innovation will disappear, or that our economy will fall even further. What we really need to focus on is reducing the national debt, and how that can be done without cutting valuable programs or raising taxes I have yet to see.

    And, finally, tax-breaks and government sponsorship sound kinda similar. How can you logically separate fiscal conservatism from reduction of government in this case? They go hand in hand.

    I hope you don’t believe that the Democrats in Congress and Senator Obama are really out to turn the US into a 3rd world nation. What good would that do anyone?

    Regardless of political affiliation, most people in public office want to do what’s best for this nation. It’s just that what is best is often seen from different perspectives. That’s not to say that one perspective is right while another is wrong. They are just different.

    While I appreciate your perspective in this discussion and your choice of candidate, please don’t use my website as a place to make nasty comments.

  8. PhilB on October 27, 2008 5:09 pm

    Damn, should have been a “don’t watch if you’re at work and can’t stand up and cheer” warning. 😉

    Very well said.

  9. Ron Amundson on October 30, 2008 3:35 am

    Part of the issue is a difference between basic science and commercialization. It is a rare entity indeed that has the margins and forethought to fund basic science research, the payback period is just way too long to keep the stockholders happy. Thus, there is a real need to either A, provide tax incentives for basic science, or B fund govt labs to a level where such is possible. Under the current administration, while the R-D tax credit is helpful, its primary usage is more aligned with commercialization, than basic science research, and govt lab funding is abysmally low, neither of which is good for real innovation, albeit promoting incremental innovation through policy is better than doing nothing.

    And yes, such basic science is unproductive, and unprofitable for the most part… for many years. A friend spent 25 years in materials science doing research for the sake of research. During the last few years of his career, he traveled the world as his expertise was so much in demand. It takes a different type of investor, or philantrophists, and or the govt. with a very long term focus to fund such, not the 3-7 year requirement of VC’s much less business’ constrained by the next quarters financials.

    There is a place for both for sure… unbounded research for years is a major gamble. Much of the time, said R-D will never reach the breakeven point. By the same token, commercialization efforts when the basic science is misunderstood or is completely missing ,often times has a really nasty way of coming back to bite.

    A proud member of scientists for Obama

  10. Robert Evans on January 14, 2009 7:29 pm

    Climate change? Do you really have the background to speak to these matters? Have you checked the evidence?

    If enough people run around screaming, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”, does that make it true? At the present time, there are two main sources of funding for the sciences: military and climate change. Do you have the intelligence and courage to stand out from the crowd and look dispassionately at the evidence and speak to that? As CO2 has been rising, the global temperature has been falling.

    Please encourage people to vote and consider moving funding to real science using the scientific method.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind