How will you deal with the anti-science movements in legislatures?
There are anti-science bills introduced and reintroduced every year, wasting time, money, and people's energy just to avoid pushing education back to the dark ages.
Carl Helrich commented
Right. The President can't affect state legislatures except indirectly through inspiring people. Jack Kennedy did that.
Chris Bayne commented
I'm appauled at the blantant denial of scientific fact that the GOP continues to espouse. Creationism, global warming, contraception, etc...What will future generations say of our willful ignorance of scientific fact. Ignorant and free will never be...
I feel defeated: this passed in Tennessee... exactly what this topic is about
That makes me want to leave this country. :(
@gary You have a legitimate complaint. When I proposed the question, I had in mind the overtly anti-science bills promoting creationism and global climate change denial. The efforts of ncse.com show the bulk of said bills. Then there are the anti-vaccination efforts. And those are just the ones from the top of my head.
I see your complaints about budgetary cuts as valid; I just did not and do not see them under the same umbrella of bills that try to push our education back to the dark ages.
Fortunately, this is an open forum, so you may also add your own topic for voting.
Thank you for participating in a civil discussion. :)
If they are asking about legislation in States like Texas and Tenn the the following video should answer some of the question.
"http://www.youtube.com/embed/9Vu17CFG6g4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>
That is my point.
The democrats stopped that science advancement in 1993 when they controlled the WH and congress.
They also stopped the replacement vehicle (Orion Project) at NASA in 2009 when they controlled the White House and congress.
So what legislation is this question applying to?
@gary what does that have to do with this question ?
The USA was building the world’s largest super-collider underground tunnel (35 mile long in circumference) just south of Fort Worth Texas near a small town called Waxahachie.
This project was started in 1985 during the Reagan administration but was stopped by the Clinton administration in 1993 when it was 90% complete.
Today many of the engineers involved with that project are building a larger super-collider in China.
Incidentally much of America’s technology began moving to China after Clinton signed ‘Most Favored Nation Status’ for China in 1993 after receiving illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese.
Those actions paved the way for American manufacturing to move to China.
We must remove money from politics. Until elections are publicly funded we will continue to be represented by the lowest common denominators dependent on special interests. If all you value is short term profit and maintaining the status quo you are not going to support any innovation that would either fail to contribute to your immediate bottom line or possibly threaten it. I live with a constant sense that we are missing critical evolutionary milestones. It angers and saddens me.
@david that is precisely why this is an important question. innovative leadership matched knowing what can be done is a must to get us out of this rut. I do not have the solution. the desire is to have a president that would have or find such solution.
Or we will end up with more creationism just like what TN approved this past week in its senate. An abysmal decision.
David N Taiwan commented
I notice that the question asks about the anti-science movements "IN LEGISLATURES." This suggests to me you are asking how the president would deal with the anti-science movement in all the fifty legislatures. I'm not sure that he could do anything with the fifty state legislatures. The ONE legislature he has to deal with is the US Congress.
I agree with Anonymous - perhaps you could specifically mention the Oklahoma or TN bills on evolution education. But this ends up being more about states' rights than about science. This question assumes that there is an anti-science movement and also assumes that if there is, the candidate knows what you're talking about.
While spin, deflect, and denial are instruments of politicians in general, the one(s) worthy of your choice would answer this question genuinely.
To look at legislation that became law is to ignore all the efforts of many citizens and organizations such as www.ncse.com (where one can find plenty of information about pending legislation) that work hard just to keep the current scientific position on evolution and climate change.
Sincerely, from the presidential campaign debates, it is already clear what the Republican candidates think and do on this matter. What remains to be seen is what the incumbent has to say.
Grumpy, I would vote for this idea if you could frame around specific legislation that became law. As written, it is too easy for a candidate to spin and deflect by denying that significant anti-science bills ever pass (a lot of bad ideas are proposed in state legislatures, largely as demonstrations of see-I-tried loyalty to some constituency) or provide some bland and meaning-free assurance that we will promote smart ideas that use the best science to keep America great, etc. Make them comment on specific facts and circumstances.
Robert J. Kolker commented
Write my legislator and advise him of my displeasure.