http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/54458/What About Congress?
Electing a proscience president is only half the battle.
By Michael Stebbins
Science has been repeatedly kicked in the face by a callous and arrogant administration for the past seven years. OK. Now that we have that requisite, albeit trite, statement out of the way, let's seriously consider the 2008 elections.
The never-ending presidential campaigning has left us all a little parched for substance; it has sparked a nauseating stream of vapid speculation and junior-high-level balderdash. To their credit, several media outlets, scientific organizations, and advocacy groups have launched Web sites that detail the science and health views of the presidential candidates during the early primaries and called for candidates to address science issues. But substance is not the only thing currently lacking in the campaign coverage. We've been completely ignoring the 470 congressional races also taking place.
A failure to act responsibly is a dereliction of duty to the constituents who elected them, regardless of party affiliation. When it comes to Congress, the scientific community has much to be angry about. For example, just this past year, individual members spent much effort parroting an ultimately hollow call for supporting American innovation through science education and funding. Scientists often talk about President Bush's failures to support science, but it's Congress who drafts the final numbers and they have not significantly increased science funding since the end of the doubling of the NIH budget. In the end, Congress passed a collective spending bill that funded science across all agencies at lower levels than the president's budget proposal.
snip
There are obvious examples of members of Congress undermining science, including misrepresentation of the promise of adult stem cell research over embryonic stem cell research, failure to significantly increase automobile fuel-efficiency standards for 30 years, and ridiculous denials of global climate change. But there are less obvious, and perhaps more insidious problems. These include cases in which congressional offices have launched enquiries into individual scientists who happen to work in areas that some Congress members find distasteful (such as spread of sexually transmitted diseases). And instances in which representatives supported discredited education policies (such as intelligent design and abstinence-only education).
snip
Since there is no current source for unbiased, nonpartisan information, the scientific community should do what it does best: Create one. To facilitate this, Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA) launched the Science Health and Related Policies Network (SHARP,
http://sharp.sefora.org) a Wikipedia-like Web site that tracks the science and health positions of current members of Congress and candidates. If each reader adds a fact or two to the site, we can create an unparalleled resource for holding representatives responsible for their actions. You don't need to join the organization to participate, but you have to participate in the process if you want to see change.
If we can smash atoms, sequence genomes, probe space, and unravel disease, we can figure out how to make a difference in Washington, DC.
Michael Stebbins is the director of biology policy for the Federation of American Scientists, president of the SEA Action Fund, and the author of Sex, Drugs and DNA: Science's Taboos Confronted.
I saw this article today in The Scientist, a news magazine for scientists, and it made good points about the importance of elections beyond the presidency. Science has taken a big hit under the chimp and there is alot of work to do to restore scientific research in the U.S.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
