The Next President of the USA must Be Scientifically Literate

Is it imperative that the next president be scientifically literate?

  • YES

    Votes: 38 74.5%

  • NO

    Votes: 12 23.5%

  • DON'T KNOW

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Total voters
    51
Anyone that becomes elected will always have people either in their Cabinet

or on call for any type of scientific (or other areas of expertise that they

don't know about) to discuss those problems with them intelligently.
 
cosmictraveler said:
Anyone that becomes elected will always have people either in their Cabinet

or on call for any type of scientific (or other areas of expertise that they

don't know about) to discuss those problems with them intelligently.
Click to expand...

Do you think that is true of Bush ?
 
Myles said:
Do you think that is true of Bush ?
Click to expand...

Yes, but many time advisers and Cabinet members are they themselves

influenced by certain businesses to ensure thiose businesses are getting the

better deals or the better word in to the President.
 
A president should be wise, astute, be a strong statesman and have a coherent vision that is good for his country and also the world at large. How would literacy in science help?
 
cosmictraveler said:
Yes, but many time advisers and Cabinet members are they themselves

influenced by certain businesses to ensure thiose businesses are getting the

better deals or the better word in to the President.
Click to expand...

Bush is clearly uncomfortable with science, presumably because of his religious background. I understand that he takes the Bible to be literally true .

If you are looking for a totally honest politician, I'm not sure you'll find one. I cannot imagine a government which is not swayed by lobby groups but I cannot see what this has to do with the need for a scientifically literate president.
 
tablariddim said:
A president should be wise, astute, be a strong statesman and have a coherent vision that is good for his country and also the world at large. How would literacy in science help?
Click to expand...

Because the president will be making decisions with regard to issues such as climate change, energy, stem cells, nuclear proliferation to name a few. His decisions will have worldwide implications. Being scientifically literate will give him a better understanding of the issues; otherwise he may side with those of his advisors and lobby groups who make the most noise.
 
Myles said:
That's it exactly. Being a scientist is not a pre-requisite; having an informed person's understanding of science is
Click to expand...

In that case, yes, it is highly necessary. This disqualifies most of the Republicans.
 
I think the problem could be easily resolved by having a scientific representative in the government. Some one with credentials and experience
 
The liberals have no one who even knows what science is. God knows Hillary would be a joke. Romney is probably your best pic for the GOP.

Most politicians don't give much credence to science. And many cut funds for scientific projects/research. There's already a Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science and a White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Part of the problem is most scientists are liberals who are vicious to Republicans. See how this could be a problem? I think the problems started around Nixon when anti-war scientists turned on him. Remember when he abolished the entire White House science advisory team by executive order, fuming that they were all Democrats? :D

W has been a friend to science allotting millions for projects--even those he personally opposed (fetal stem cell research which has proven useless.)
 
S.A.M. said:
I think the problem could be easily resolved by having a scientific representative in the government. Some one with credentials and experience
Click to expand...

Yes, as long as he is listened to and understood. I don't think this is happening at present. Having said that, to understand a science-related issue requires some degree of understanding of science, so I believe a future president should qualify on this score. Advisers don't make final decisions.
 
S.A.M. said:
I think the problem could be easily resolved by having a scientific representative in the government. Some one with credentials and experience
Click to expand...

President's Science Advisory Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1951 President of the United States Harry S. Truman established the

Science Advisory Committee as part of the Office of Defence Mobilization

(ODM). As a direct response to the launches of the Soviet artificial

satellites, Sputnik 1 and Sputnik 2, on October 4 and November 3, 1957, the

Science Advisory Committee was upgraded by President Dwight D.

Eisenhower to the President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) and

moved to the White House on 21 November 1957.
 
sandy said:
The liberals have no one who even knows what science is. God knows Hillary would be a joke. Romney is probably your best pic for the GOP.

Most politicians don't give much credence to science. And many cut funds for scientific projects/research. There's already a Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science and a White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

What has the DOE achieved to date. ? The US had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table at the recent conference on climate change. Delegates refused to commit to any targets for a reduction in CO2 emission. As I understand it, they will think about it for another couple of years.

It's about time people woke up and realized that the problems facing the world cannt be solved by individual nation-states. International co-operation is the only way forward.

A couple of years or so ago I saw president Bush being inteviewed on the question of global waring. His rseponse was: " I will do what is best for America". What a stupid, selfish attitude. It may have won him some support back home but it did nothing to enhace America's reputation abroad.


Part of the problem is most scientists are liberals who are vicious to Republicans. See how this could be a problem? I think the problems started around Nixon when anti-war scientists turned on him. Remember when he abolished the entire White House science advisory team by executive order, fuming that they were all Democrats? :D
W has been a friend to science allotting millions for projects--even those he personally opposed (fetal stem cell research which has proven useless.)
Click to expand...


Is it pure coincidence that most scientists are iberals, if what you say is true ?
 
cosmictraveler said:
President's Science Advisory Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1951 President of the United States Harry S. Truman established the

Science Advisory Committee as part of the Office of Defence Mobilization

(ODM). As a direct response to the launches of the Soviet artificial

satellites, Sputnik 1 and Sputnik 2, on October 4 and November 3, 1957, the

Science Advisory Committee was upgraded by President Dwight D.

Eisenhower to the President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) and

moved to the White House on 21 November 1957.
Click to expand...

That simply shows that the presidents you mention had more insight than the present incumbent, based on his track record
 
Myles said:
Bush is clearly uncomfortable with science, presumably because of his religious background. I understand that he takes the Bible to be literally true .

If you are looking for a totally honest politician, I'm not sure you'll find one. I cannot imagine a government which is not swayed by lobby groups but I cannot see what this has to do with the need for a scientifically literate president.
Click to expand...


I don't think he takes the Bible to be literally true at all otherwise he would

have canceled many programs that are being done against Gods will

already! Remember that Congress can override any vetoes.




Lets say funding for stem cells was needed. Bush asks his advisor's what

they think is the best course of action. If enough pressure from the

scientific community is put on then that funding could be given out to

certain businesses researching the project. Other companies wouldn't get

anything. Or no one, as in this case , gets anything using fetus stem cells.
 
Last edited:
Most liberals believe in evolution. Most conservatives believe they were created by God.
Most liberals are for "protecting the environment". Most Conservatives like big oil.
Most liberals support cloning. Most conservatives are repulsed by the idea :eek:....

President George W. Bush's current scientific adviser is John Marburger, a longtime democrat who has a good relationship with W and is proud of the administration's science record. W is constantly giving funding increases but he put his foot down on dead baby cloning.:eek:

My government has a history of investing in the capabilities and trusting the judgments of its scientific community. This has brought us sustained economic progress and unquestioned scientific leadership within the global intellectual community. :)
 
Myles said:
That simply shows that the presidents you mention had more insight than the present incumbent, based on his track record
Click to expand...

If you would please go to WIKI and search "science advisor's to the

President" you will find more information about Bush's own that he chose.
 
cosmictraveler said:
I don't think he takes the Bible to be literally true at all otherwise he would

have canceled many programs that are being done against Goods will

already! Remember that Congress can override any vetoes.




Lets say funding for stem cells was needed. Bush asks his advisor's what

they think is the best course of action. If enough pressure from the

scientific community is put on then that funding could be given out to

certain businesses researching the project. Other companies wouldn't get

anything. Or no one, as in this case , gets anything using fetus stem cells.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info. On this side of the pond most of us believe Bush is a born-again Christian. It seems from what you say that we may be wrong.But I seem to remember that he asked for God's guidance before invading Iraq.
If so, God lied about the weapons of mass destruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top