…and this is a 
I wonder who Marty Chalfie is voting for?
Category: Politics
Posted on: October 14, 2008 2:20 PM, by PZ Myers
Seed and Scientists and Engineers for America are teaming up to promote a youtube challenge — they are collecting videos of scientists stating who they are voting for in the coming election. The first one up is Marty Chalfie, winner of the Nobel in Chemistry this year. Guess who he thinks should be president?
I suspect that the scientific establishment will be showing a profound liberal bias this year, largely because the scientific establishment tends to be pro-reality.
You don't have to be a Nobelist — if you're a scientist, record a youtube video of yourself, tag it with "aVoteForScience", and you too can contribute.
Comments
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | October 14, 2008 2:29 PM
"Scientists tend to be pro-reality" but yet they'll vote for one who has attended the same Christian church for 20 years. Just what kind of reality are you referring to?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 14, 2008 2:38 PM
What with McCain's remarks about bear DNA and overhead projectors, along with his selection of a Creationist for a running mate, this should be a cinch for anyone concerned with science and science education.
Posted by: Jason A. | October 14, 2008 2:41 PM
#1 "Just what kind of reality are you referring to?"
At least, the closest approximation to reality available.
Posted by: Didac | October 14, 2008 2:46 PM
It's completely understandable the endorsement of Prof. Chalfie. Unfortunately, I think it is less an endorsement of Obama than an unendorsement from McCain. The "Bear DNA" plot shows us the way McCain conceives scientific research. Chalfie's research on "touch neurons" development pathway from a roundworm is as easily despised as bear DNA research. The astonishing complexity of both neuronal development and population genetics is totally ungrasped by some ethereal, political leaders. They want results, magic bullets, profits... But, as we search for magic bullets against degenerative diseases, we find that no easy solutions will work out. In order to alleviate suffering we need to grasp complexity, we need basic research and we need new biochemical tools that only a painstaking effort from hundreds, thousands of scientists may develop.
Posted by: James F | October 14, 2008 2:51 PM
Chalfie noted in his video that Roger Tsien and Yoichiro Nambu are adding their names to the letter of Nobel Prize winners supporting Barack Obama - I'm assuming Paul Krugman will do the same, although I haven't seen an updated version of the letter.
Posted by: raven | October 14, 2008 2:51 PM
The Bushco nongovernment has been hard on scientists.
1. Funding has been flat to down in an era of roaring inflation. Oddly enough the lifeblood of science isn't brainpower, it is money. NIH grant approvals are running very low, below 20% or so. The number of US papers published per year is static at best, a good indicator or research activity.
It is a valid question why we can find 1-2 trillion bucks to fight a pointless war in Iraq and 1-3 trillion bucks to bail out WS thieves and idiots and yet not fund our scientific efforts.
2. Censorship. Routinely, anything science finds out that Bushco doesn't like gets censored or simply contradicted. The CDC is getting beaten up for their AIDS prevention efforts, climate change, reproductive biology, stem cells, endangered species, pollution, evolution, and so on. The Theothuglicans live in an Alice in Wonderland bubble, where facts are whatever they say they are.
Most scientists are just keeping their heads down and hoping that the next admin. isn't so hostile to the reality based community that our civilization is based on.
Posted by: E.V., PoT | October 14, 2008 2:57 PM
If you want to rise to the highest level of American Politics, you cannot preclude yourself by abstaining from the culturally sanctioned observation of religion. Whether a politician believes in a personal god is superfluous. Publicly declaring agnosticism or atheism would end a political career for anyone wanting to run for the nation's highest offices. If any candidate does not have a history of attending accepted religious services, vetting would expose him/her and the electorate would take their ball and go elsewhere. You can't play the fucking game if no one will throw you the fucking ball.Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 14, 2008 3:04 PM
Guess who he thinks should be president?
Brewster Rockit?
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/tmrkt/2008/tmrkt081014.gif
Posted by: Patricia | October 14, 2008 3:05 PM
E.V. - OK, I missed the PoT?
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 14, 2008 3:05 PM
Except for Representative Pete Stark of California.
Hooray for Rep. Stark!
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 14, 2008 3:09 PM
At least, the closest approximation to reality available.
The problem is that, for all the current politicians, it's like approximating the value of pi as 3.0
Posted by: Qwerty | October 14, 2008 3:14 PM
Though not a scientist, I will be voting for Obama for similar reasons as he puts reality over ideology. It's McCain's choice of Palin plus the fact that he has embraced all of Bush's policies from the unnecessary war in Iraq to tax cuts that clearly shows his election would be more of the same. I gag when I hear him or Palin talk about reform, or the "maverick" label, or change. As Lucy
Van Pelt says when Snoopy kisser her, "Bleah....!!!"
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 14, 2008 3:16 PM
"suspect that the scientific establishment will be showing a profound liberal bias this year, largely because the scientific establishment tends to be pro-reality..."
Let's talk reality. 10.3 trillion in debt. 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities. An economy based on consumption of Asian wealth. 1 in 6 homeowners underwater on their mortgages. The US military burning up fossil fuel as if it were a nation. A media that serves only two political parties that have essentially merged. A complete destruction of the once vaunted Bill of Rights.
A choice between a warmonger and more Federal Intervention and greater debt...
Weeeee....
Ain't reality grand?
Posted by: BobC | October 14, 2008 3:17 PM
It's obvious Obama would be the best choice for science education.
Obama, talking about creationism: And I think it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry.
The creationist retards of the Discovery Institute are voting for McCain: Senator McCain's Take: Don't Censor Intelligent Design
Posted by: tms | October 14, 2008 3:39 PM
Hey PZ,
Unfortunately, what you're advocating would actually illegal for the corps of federally employed scientists that work for agencies under the administrative branch. The "Hatch Act" specifically prohibits partisan political activities by federal employees. While originally intended to protect employees from political pressure, like most legislation, it too has unintended consequences.
So, as much as I would like to espouse my liberal leanings, this scientist will have to content himself with politics as a spectator sport.
Posted by: patrickhenry | October 14, 2008 3:45 PM
Neither candidate actually knows a thing about science. According to this article: Obama and McCain tackle the high-tech world, they both talk a good game. McCain has a record of being a steadfast supporter of NASA. Obama is too new to have a record. I don't know what either of them can do in the current economic situation.
Posted by: E.V., PoT | October 14, 2008 3:48 PM
Patricia: Self ordained Prince of Typos, since Rev. BDC;OM, KoT holds the top spot. Of course my proper designation might be S.I.*
*(Spellcheck Ignorer)
Posted by: E.V., PoT | October 14, 2008 3:52 PM
It's fun to attempt typing after ECT...Wheeeeeee!
Posted by: frog | October 14, 2008 3:53 PM
tms: see http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm
The Hatch act does not stop most federal employees from political activity off-duty. Expressly according to the Office of the Special Counsel, most (outside of intelligence offices, FBI, elections offices and such) may: campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections and make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections.
It's been this way since '93.
Posted by: Scott Robson | October 14, 2008 3:54 PM
Sounds like a good plan, but what about all those scientists (me included) who work in the US but can't vote because we are not US citizens. Maybe I should make one which adds the clause "and if I could vote"....
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 14, 2008 3:57 PM
My institution of employment has made it clear that if employees undertake any political activities, they should make it clear that they are doing so as individuals, not as representatives of the institution.
Posted by: Patricia | October 14, 2008 3:57 PM
Oh! OK, now I get it.
Posted by: Chris | October 14, 2008 3:59 PM
Good thing this isn't for engineers. I've seen enough of my 'peers' on the wrong side of...everything. :(
Posted by: JohnnyQ | October 14, 2008 4:22 PM
This seems awesome and weird. In my country, it is illegal for a person to state who (s)he will vote for. Is that not the case in the US?
Posted by: Zeno | October 14, 2008 4:24 PM
Fafblog has been stingy with its wisdom in recent months, but Giblets is back this week with the revelation that Obama is black. I had no idea! This information could affect the election.
[Link]
Posted by: SASnSA | October 14, 2008 4:29 PM
That's not the case in the US, as many people here would tell you in no uncertain terms who they're voting for, and precisely and at length why you must be a complete idiot to vote any other way.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | October 14, 2008 4:53 PM
Well, at least he's not onnadem filthy terrorist A-rabs!
(Ew. I think I need a shower now. Even pretending to be racist makes me feel dirty.)
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | October 14, 2008 4:55 PM
Excuse me:
"Well, at least he's not onnadem filthy terrorist A-rab libruls!"
There. That's closer.
Posted by: Father Nature | October 14, 2008 4:59 PM
I share his sentiments, but....it's funny that a Nobel prize winning scientist can't record a better looking video. I've seen video of terrorist kidnapping victims that had better lighting. I know he's not a A/V expert but, jeez, he must know someone who is.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 14, 2008 5:22 PM
JohnnyQ, your system is very strange to me. Where do you live? How do people do political campaigns if they're not allowed to say who they intend to vote for? I'm imagining technicalities: "Vote X because Y", not "I'll be voting X because Y".
Posted by: Costanza | October 14, 2008 7:14 PM
One might play Devil's Advocate and opine that the scientific establishment is not so much pro-reality as it is interested in the candidate whose science funding proposals actually make sense.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 14, 2008 7:15 PM
Just "this year?"
Posted by: frog | October 14, 2008 9:57 PM
bunnycatch3r: "Scientists tend to be pro-reality" but yet they'll vote for one who has attended the same Christian church for 20 years. Just what kind of reality are you referring to?
The kind of reality where a large enough quantitative difference makes a qualitative difference. You know, sigma curves and all.
As opposed to the "reality" composed only of integer additive numbers and lacking multiplicative operators, you know.
Posted by: scooter | October 14, 2008 11:43 PM
These guys should look spiffier, appearance is everything in video.
I'd like to suggest a tasteful attire for PZ's wndorsement.
Perhaps a nice clothespin on the nose adornment would be in order.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | October 15, 2008 4:18 AM
"Scientists tend to be pro-reality" but yet they'll vote for one who has attended the same Christian church for 20 years. Just what kind of reality are you referring to?
The kind that contains more than one fact.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | October 15, 2008 4:33 AM
In my country
Which is ...?
it is illegal for a person to state who (s)he will vote for.
Citation please.
Is that not the case in the US?
You already know the answer.
Posted by: Tom S. Fox | October 15, 2008 10:07 AM
I am sorry, PZ, but that should be "I wonder whom Marty Chalfie is voting for?"
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 15, 2008 10:30 AM
Technically this is correct, but the distinction between who and whom is quickly vanishing from English usage, even among highly articulate, well educated speakers/writers. In a relatively casual thing like (note: like, rather than the technically more correct such as, is a choice here, not an error) a blog posting, PZ's usage is perfectly acceptable standard English.
The who/whom thing is a matter of case, and English is nowhere near as case-oriented as some other familiar languages (e.g., the German I studied in high school and college). This is distinct from syntax errors that go to the fundamental logic of the utterance (e.g., subject-verb agreement errors). The distinction between who and whom almost never affects the listener/reader's ability to correctly understand what's being said.
Plus which, because it's so rarely used, whom has come to sound pedantic in casual conversation or writing. And if you're going to sound pedantic anyway, why not go all the way:
"I wonder for whom Marty Chalfie is voting?"
</grammargeek> ;^)
Posted by: frog | October 15, 2008 2:41 PM
BD: I'd go further -- in contemporary American English, the usage of whom is positively archaic, and therefore generally incorrect.
It's like the ill-usage of missing split-infinitives, where the logic of the split infinitive is much clearer, or the "rule" about avoiding prepositions at the end of sentences: "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."
English ain't German (and it definitely ain't Latin).
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 17, 2008 12:34 AM
For informal speech and writing, I'd agree; in formal matters, whom is still acceptable (as long, of course, as it's used correctly).