With less than two months left before the next U.S. president is elected, ScienceBlogs wanted to dedicate a space to campaign politics. A Vote For Science is a group blog that will focus on the candidates' science policies. It is managed by many interested ScienceBloggers, as well as guest blogger Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists.
The Scientists and Engineers for America's SHARP network allows you to click on the map to see where your candidates stand on important science issues.
An Op-Ed by Senator Orrin Hatch (R; Utah) in the Miami Herald objects to the fact that President Obama chose to downgrade the head of the ONDCP (Seattle Police Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske is the Obama nominee) from the Cabinet to a "presidential appointment in the Executive Office of the President".
The ONDCP's principal purpose is to establish policies, priorities and objectives for the nation's drug control program. The goals of the program are to reduce the use, manufacture and trafficking of illicit drugs, as well as drug-related crime and violence and drug-related health consequences. To achieve these goals, the drug czar is charged with setting the national strategy.
By downgrading this important strategic position, the president effectively cuts this position's authority off at the knees. The result is the drug czar lacks the clout to speak directly to the president and attend cabinet meetings with the secretary of Homeland Security and the attorney general.
Okay, as you can probably tell, I have a lot of homer interest in things related to substance abuse and dependence. My professional work is only indirectly related to public policy issues but nevertheless it is hard for me not to have some interest in policy. Certainly, my appreciation for the scope of our many problems related to drug abuse, including the hidden masses of people who struggle along with addiction without blowing up, is better than average.
But still. I watched the Presidential campaign last year with an eye for the drug-abuse policy stuff. In the end I was happy that it was such a minor part of the campaigning. Drug abuse is most certainly a problem. But we have other ones too...and it is no crime for a Presidential administration to place a primary focus elsewhere. I think the voting public's failure to agitate for more explicit statements from Obama (and McCain and Clinton..) on various drug-policy issues shows that they agree as well.
Ultimately, I think it is perfectly okay to downgrade the Drug Czar's clout and standing. Just so long as he has some productive role and manages to listen to the science...unlike the last guy. It is a fair trade to lose Cabinet status if the ONDCP stops generating idiotic positions such as the one against using opiate antagonists to rescue over-dosed heroin users. The family and friends of people like this poor soul would appreciate a saved life a lot more than some poorly-supported handwaving about "encouraging drug use", wouldn't they?
I caught a bit on National Public Radio this morning but was distracted and pulling into my destination so all I really caught was "Do we need a Culture Czar?".
Now as it turns out this is really about creating a Cabinet level position for the Arts. The web blurb reads:
The idea of a Cabinet-level official for the arts has gotten some buzz lately. After all, many other countries have ministers of culture. High-profile artists such as Quincy Jones think it's necessary in the U.S., but not everyone agrees.
US President-elect Barack Obama will seek to reverse Bush administration policies when he enters office on 20 January, his transition chief has said.
John Podesta said executive orders by President George W Bush on issues such as stem cell research and oil drilling were at odds with Mr Obama's views.
Plans to pass a raft of last-minute regulations are also being watched. ...
SEA has put together a list of state ballot measures that involved science including info on what the end result was. The list can be found here and below. It was particularly interesting that Colorado rejected an amendment to the state constitution that defined "the moment in which an egg becomes an established "person."" Also heartening was the passing of the Minnesota constitutional amendment to "allocate funding for protecting Minnesota's water sources, environment, cultural heritage through an increased sales and use tax rate."
California, Proposition 7
By 2010, government-owned utilities must generate 20% of their electricity from renewable energy. By 2020, all utilities must be to levels of 40% and 50% by 2025.
To assist people in purchasing certain vehicles and to fund research in alternative fuel and renewable energy, $5 billion in bonds from California's General Fund would be allocated
A proposition which would require investor-owned electric utilities to use renewable sources of electricity to a level of at least 2% of retail sales by 2011 and 15% by 2021.
The day is finally here. You've heard it from everyone, but I'll pile on...VOTE! Our final tally on the YouTube AVoteForScience challenge is 30 something videos from scientists endorsing Obama....and not one video from a scientist endorsing McCain. That seems to reflect a general consensus on the issue of who is better on science policy issues. It's too bad, really. It would have been nice to see a good justification for voting the other way if such an argument could be made on science issues. Here are two entertaining videos from the submissions.
We have our first submission from a couple! Bernice and Loyal Durand, two theoretical physicists from the University of Wisconsin have both endorsed Barack Obama. I think it's great that a couple would speak out about the importance of science together. Shouldn't be natural to vote together as well? Maybe this election day we should all take the tiny step of making sure all our loved ones vote.
In the latest issue of Science, an article on grass-roots efforts by scientists in the last weeks before the election brought up a startling point, that there have been a lot of letters to the Editor and OpEds published in newspapers either endorsing Obama or pointing out the errors of the McCain campaign rhetoric on science. What is absolutely amazing, is that there has not been a single letter or OpEd by a scientist endorsing McCain. Not ONE? Here is a partial list of OpEds and letters that have appeared. This is by no means a comprehensive list. In fact, these are almost all in battleground states. This is a really unusual thing to happen in an election and should be appreciated for sheer volume, not to mention the amount of thoughtful time put into writing these things.
Our latest AVoteforScience videos are up and a new article in Science talks about the effort and other grass roots efforts this year. I will note that Science forgot to mention that the AVoteForScience effort was done in partnership with Seed Magazine/ScienceBlogs. In fact, it couldn't have been done without them.
Of particular interest will be the video by Murray Gell-Mann who received the Nobel prize in physics in 1969. Murray reads the letter from he and 75 of his fellow Laureates in science encouraging the public to vote for Obama.
This is unbelievable. The Nobel Laureates for Obama effort just sent me an updated letter with an additional 11 names bringing the total to 76 Nobel laureates in science endorsing Obama. That completely eclipses the previous record of 47 endorsing Kerry and it is more than have ever endorsed anything in history.
Now, this is no group of sycophants, these are some of the greatest minds of our nation, so it is really impossible to view this as some sort of partisan blindness. I can't help but think that the recent ridiculous comments of both McCain and Palin on science have something to to do with the new additions, but to their credit, they limit their statement to science, something they know a little about. For those of you have been asking, I do not know of a single Nobelist in science who has endorsed McCain/Palin.
Here are the latest videos in our AVoteForScience YouTube Challenge. They include videos from Dr. Jose Morales at Columbia University, Dr. Robert Dottin of the Center for Study of Gene Structure and Function (below) and beloved scienceblogger and marine scientist Sheril Kirshenbaum. You'll never guess who they are voting for this year? Now there is one little issue. Sheril has decided not to tell you who she is voting for. Hoy coy. Perhaps some polite nudging in the comments will get her to tell you.
Here is Robert Dottin...
With less than two months left before the next U.S. president is elected, ScienceBlogs wanted to dedicate a space to campaign politics. A Vote For Science is a group blog that will focus on the candidates' science policies. It is 
This is unbelievable. The Nobel Laureates for Obama effort just sent me an 
