There is still some science sneaking into the coverage of the election in the United States. At lot of it paints Obama in a better light than McCain.
Wired notes that in an “unusual move” Obama released a new ad on Sunday specifically focusing on his science and tech policies. It includes mentions of doubling basic research funding and making the R&D tax credit permanent.
“If America recommits itself to science and innovation then we can lead the world to a new future of productivity and prosperity,” says Obama in the ad. (Watch it here on YouTube.)
In an opinion piece in the MIT paper The Tech Catherine Havasi, leader of MIT for Obama, writes:
Obama plans to “increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade.” He also stresses that he wants it to become easier for young researchers to become involved and successful in science by “increasing research grants for early-career researchers.” In addition, he plans to increase the number of NSF graduate fellowships, so his victory could directly affect you. Add this to the ways that Obama’s policies would positively impact every American.
Joseph Maurer, Class of 2012, is having none of that, saying: “I support McCain because like any good MIT student, I understand the value of incentives.”
Keith Yost, an MIT grad student, also backs McCain. He writes: “Vote on the strength of a candidate’s policies, not the strength of their marketing. Vote rationality in 2008.”
Other election news from last week
Lawrence M. Krauss, of Arizona State University, attacks McCain over his science record and his statement that grizzly bear DNA research is “a waste of money”:
The DNA study allowed researchers to pinpoint bear numbers and locations and to document how their population is changing, all essential data if the bears are to be protected from extinction. That may not be the highest item on a presidential agenda, but to claim that it is a waste of money is outrageous.
(LA Times.)
Jerry Coyne, of the University of Chicago’s Department of Ecology and Evolution, attacks Palin over her fruit fly research comments:
As a geneticist, I’ve worked on fruit flies in the laboratory for three decades. I know the fruit fly. The fruit fly is a friend of mine. And believe me, Sarah Palin doesn’t know anything about fruit flies.
Christopher Hitchens, in a hugely vitriolic piece, attacks Palin and McCain’s “appalling contempt for knowledge and learning”:
With Palin, however, the contempt for science may be something a little more sinister than the bluff, empty-headed plain-man’s philistinism of McCain. We never get a chance to ask her in detail about these things, but she is known to favor the teaching of creationism in schools (smuggling this crazy idea through customs in the innocent disguise of “teaching the argument,” as if there were an argument), and so it is at least probable that she believes all creatures from humans to fruit flies were created just as they are now.
(Slate.)