A postdoc by day and a scientific activist by night, Nick Anthis isn't letting his research in protein structure and function get in the way of defending scientific and social progress.
First, the good news, though. Phil Plait (of the Bad Astronomy Blog) reports today at The Huffington Post that the House just passed HR 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. As he notes, scientists have plenty of reasons to be happy about this:
Scientists in government agencies (NASA, NOAA, FDA, etc), laboring for years under the heavy cloud of scientific suppression, can now feel safer if they want to call foul. And call foul they will, since there has been cripplingly obvious, sweeping, and routine suppression of scientific findings for the past few years.
There's no need for me to repeat the list here.
The bill passed by a margin of 331-94. So, why am I banging my head against the wall?
Interestingly, not a single Democrat voted against this bill on the House floor. Not one. Yet 94 votes against it were cast. Guess which party those Representatives belonged to?
Listen. It's not that I want to continuously berate the Republican Party day after day on my blog, but when its members refuse--in the face of overwhelming evidence--to vote in favor of protecting scientists from flagrant Bush Administration political interference, can you really blame me?
Update: Chris Mooney has more.
Sphere: Related Content
Comments
My point exactly. Yet I am accused of being anti-Republican on my blog. Funny, huh? If the Republican party would go back to being pro-science instead of anti- then I would be happy to support those decisions. But it's stuff like this that makes me want to scream at people to wake the frak up.
Posted by: Phil Plait | March 15, 2007 11:06 PM
My thoughts exactly. It was the current attitude towards research that finally drove me out of the Republican party 6 years ago
Posted by: Matt | March 16, 2007 9:49 AM
Wow, how more biased can you be? A bill in which scientists are only a small fraction of those affected, are used as your basis to denounce opposition?
Right...
Posted by: E.T.Cook | March 16, 2007 7:30 PM
Am I biased toward scientists? You bet your ass I am. And, if the Republican Party continues to display the same sort of hostility toward scientists, you can also bet that I'll continue to be on them like white on rice.
Posted by: Nick Anthis | March 16, 2007 8:29 PM
E.T. Cook must be a government minder. Or worse, a government minder wannabe. These anti-science neanderthals may eventually be the downfall of our once great nation.
Posted by: shawking | March 17, 2007 7:53 AM
E.T. Cook should read the article:
"The House soundly rejected an amendment from Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho) that would have stripped all protections for scientists from the legislation. Instead, the legislators included an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) giving scientists the right to present their research at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals."
If it was up to the Republicans, the scientists would have been specifically eliminated from the bill. Anti-science, thy name is Republicanism. Pathetic.
Posted by: cranky | March 17, 2007 7:57 AM
I try really hard not to be anti-Republican. I know there are plenty of good people in the GOP, and the Democrats aren't exactly perfect. But why oh why can't the Republican party go five minutes without doing something evil?
Posted by: Brandon | March 18, 2007 6:02 PM
Most of us here have spent our professional life trying to use our intelligence for, in some small way, the betterment of our species. Unfortunately, the modern Republican incarnation has chosen to throw the products of our (and the rest of science and intelligent thought) work to the wolves in order to secure the last bits of Luddites that constitute their base of base. It's frankly hard for me to understand how anyone of sound mind -- save the "dismal scientists" of the University of Chicago and the uber-wealthy -- support the GOP any longer.
Shorter message? Any party that is anti-science is one that I will actively work against, regardless of name.
Posted by: FishGuyDave | March 19, 2007 12:40 AM