61 Nobel Laureates in Science Endorse Obama

[not_so_new]

This sort of slipped under the radar here...... and pretty much everywere else.

A group of 61 Nobel Laureates have gotten together to endorse Barack Obama for President. Their letter and the signatories are below. This is the largest number of Nobel Laureates to ever endorse a candidate for office, more than endorsed either Gore or Kerry.

http://scienceblogs.com/voteforscience/2008/09/61_nobel_laureates_in_science.php

[corplinx]

This reminds me, a certain nobel peace prize winner has been astroturfing through TV ads for wecansolveit.org. Its basically a non-nuclear fake grassroots org for non-coal energy. Purely tangential but I did see the commercials lately and then found it was another Al Gore endeavor after digging.

I think Nobel scientists would most likely skew Obama since McCain represents Bush in their eyes. Not that Obama has a pro-science record of substance to point to.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'll be filing this along with 400+ professors and experts claim 9/11 was an inside job.

[Tony]

Why should I care what respected men of science, reason and knowledge say about Obama when he is clearly a godless anti-american commie muslim? We need more men of god like McCain, Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden in this country.

[Cain]

I'll be filing this along with 400+ professors and experts claim 9/11 was an inside job.

These are not random professors from 'round the world out of tens of thousands. These are scientists who have made important contributions to our understanding of the universe and ourselves. Do you "file" reports from the National Academy of the Sciences or the Royal Society alongside the claims of conspiracy theorists? Now maybe we should not take this endorsement seriously because these people are likely to place an inordinate emphasis on science at the expense of other values, or whatever, but your too-casual dismissal smacks of Palin-like reasoning. Shorter Cain: Remove your head from your ass.

[not_so_new]

These are not random professors from 'round the world out of tens of thousands. These are scientists who have made important contributions to our understanding of the universe and ourselves. Do you "file" reports from the National Academy of the Sciences or the Royal Society alongside the claims of conspiracy theorists? Now maybe we should not take this endorsement seriously because these people are likely to place an inordinate emphasis on science at the expense of other values, or whatever, but your too-casual dismissal smacks of Palin-like reasoning. Shorter Cain: Remove your head from your ass.

I feel the same thing.

Noble Laureates in Science are a fringe group? What happened in our nation that science is held in such contempt? When I was a kid people used to look up to scientists, they were respected.

Anyway, to me THIS is why I feel the endorsement is important.

"Our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk," the letter states. "We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve out economy."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/nobel_laureates.html

[Cleon]

I'll be filing this along with 400+ professors and experts claim 9/11 was an inside job.

Regrettably, there is not a smiley that accurately conveys the expression on my face when I read this post.

Therefore, please consider my reaction to be a combination of all of the following:

:confused::eek::boggled::rolleyes::nope::(:jaw-dropp

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Regrettably, there is not a smiley that accurately conveys the expression on my face when I read this post.

Therefore, please consider my reaction to be a combination of all of the following:

:confused::eek::boggled::rolleyes::nope::(:jaw-dropp

Winning the Nobel Prize in chemistry, physics or medicine no more qualifies one as an expert in political leadership than a PhD in theology makes one an expert in analyzing structural collapse.

This "61 nobel laureates" is a shotgun blast of appeal to authority just like the "patriots question 9/11" site is, and you know it.

[Cleon]

Winning the Nobel Prize in chemistry, physics or medicine no more qualifies one as an expert in political leadership than a PhD in theology makes one an expert in analyzing structural collapse.

This "61 nobel laureates" is a shotgun blast of appeal to authority just like the "patriots question 9/11" site is, and you know it.

Wrong. And it's obvious that you didn't actually read the letter in question.

No, I take that back. Lumping people like Leon Lederman in with fringe conspiracy theorists goes way beyond "wrong."

[UserGoogol]

Winning the Nobel Prize in chemistry, physics or medicine no more qualifies one as an expert in political leadership than a PhD in theology makes one an expert in analyzing structural collapse.

This "61 nobel laureates" is a shotgun blast of appeal to authority just like the "patriots question 9/11" site is, and you know it.

Winning the Nobel Prize in chemistry, physics, or medicine make you an expert in science. Science is by far one of the most important things that government has to deal with, both in terms of funding research and in using research to guide policy. In that this is all the letter makes any specific approvals of Obama regarding, they aren't really stepping beyond their area of expertise. (Granted, winning a Nobel Prize does not make you an expert in every aspect of science, so this isn't of absolute importance, but they can certainly claim more authority than a PhD in theology talking about structural engineering.)

[not_so_new]

Winning the Nobel Prize in chemistry, physics, or medicine make you an expert in science. Science is by far one of the most important things that government has to deal with, both in terms of funding research and in using research to guide policy. In that this is all the letter makes any specific approvals of Obama regarding, they aren't really stepping beyond their area of expertise.


Exactly, to make that point clear for some folks. Here is the quote from my earlier post.


"Our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk," the letter states. "We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy."

[dudalb]

I have to side with Sword of Truth a little on this. A scientest, when it comes to politics opinions are no better then a layman's.
And if the Scientests had endorsed McCain, a lot of you would be making that objection.

[dudalb]

Why should I care what respected men of science, reason and knowledge say about Obama when he is clearly a godless anti-american commie muslim? We need more men of god like McCain, Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden in this country.


You know, Tony, you seem to be imitating the religous fundys in one thing:Your hatred and comtempt for anybody who disagrees with you.

[Tony]

You know, Tony, you seem to be imitating the religous[sic] fundys in one thing:Your hatred and comtempt[sic] for anybody who disagrees with you.

:v:

Don't whine when you get called out for your alliance with fundies and the anti-science crowd.

A scientest [sic], when it comes to politics opinions are no better then a layman's.

You miss the point. Its not about politics, but about the politics of science. And yes, in that context, scientist's opinions are better than the layman's. Perhaps more than anyone, scientists understand how critical science is to our future as a country and species.

And if the Scientests[sic] had endorsed McCain, a lot of you would be making that objection.

What other psychic abilities do you have?

[dudalb]

BTW I support Obama, I just don't think because a guy is a great scientest it makes his politcal opinions better then anybody else's.
ANd thanks for proving my point about how intolerant you are toward people who might nto agree with your politics.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Wrong. And it's obvious that you didn't actually read the letter in question.

No, I take that back. Lumping people like Leon Lederman in with fringe conspiracy theorists goes way beyond "wrong."

I read it. They want funding and they think Obama is the one who will give it to them.

I still don't buy it.

The defining technologies of the modern age have all either come from individual enterprise or military development or a combination of the two (especially once the military has recognized the potential of the new development and started kicking in money). Aviation, rocketry, nuclear power, computers, the internet all came from a combination of these two sources. Yet Obama has promised to gut military R&D.

The "Nobelists for Obama" list energy first among the problems facing our society, yet Obama has also promised a global ban on the production of the only energy source that could completely replace fossil fuels. I can't take people seriously who casually reject nuclear power.

So yeah, it's an appeal to authority, and not a very good one at that.

[Tony]

BTW I support Obama, I just don't think because a guy is a great scientest it makes his politcal opinions better then anybody else's.


Me neither. But it does mean his opinion is better in the realm of science, which is what you're unwilling to understand.

ANd thanks for proving my point about how intolerant you are toward people who might nto agree with your politics.

Believe what you want. I dont care if you're wrong.

[UserGoogol]

I read it. They want funding and they think Obama is the one who will give it to them.

I still don't buy it.

The defining technologies of the modern age have all either come from individual enterprise or military development or a combination of the two (especially once the military has recognized the potential of the new development and started kicking in money). Aviation, rocketry, nuclear power, computers, the internet all came from a combination of these two sources.

There is a difference between science and technology. Technology is of course very important, but there's more to science than just pumping out inventions. Part of it is just that science is generally a nice thing to have around, but even if science is going to be useful in the short term it can be useful in informing what should be done rather than merely making useful things.

Yet Obama has promised to gut military R&D.

The "Nobelists for Obama" list energy first among the problems facing our society, yet Obama has also promised a global ban on the production of the only energy source that could completely replace fossil fuels. I can't take people seriously who casually reject nuclear power.

Can you cite some examples of him saying this? He's sort of said the opposite, in that he specifically endorses strengthening DARPA in his Science fact sheet (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/FactSheetScience.pdf) (was he talking about weapons research, perhaps?) and supports nuclear power in his Energy sheet (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf) (although admittedly more tepidly than I might like).

[RandFan]

I was going to refrain but, oh hell...

Hey, I've got an idea, why don't we just give these folks supreme authority to make decisions for us? What good is democracy, a system subject to the whim of the comman person, when there are people far smarter to make decisions on our behalf?

Wasn't Mao's mistake his stance against intellectualism? Let's take the opposite approach and let the most gifted folks of science run our lives.

[Pardalis]

I was going to refrain but, oh hell...

Hey, I've got an idea, why don't we just give these folks supreme authority to make decisions for us? What good is democracy, a system subject to the whim of the comman person, when there are people far smarter to make decisions on our behalf?

Wasn't Mao's mistake his stance against intellectualism? Let's take the opposite approach and let the most gifted folks of science run our lives.

Although I agree the OP suggests a bit of an "appeal to authority", I wouldn't mind what you suggest in the above, at least, it would be a nice change from what we've always had to deal with: incompetent and scientific illiterate leaders.

[RandFan]

Although I agree the OP suggests a bit of an "appeal to authority", I wouldn't mind what you suggest in the above, at least, it would be a nice change from what we've always had to deal with: incompetent and scientific illiterate leaders.Stalin and Mao were a nice change also. At least for awhile.

I agree with you that the incompetency and scientific illiteracy are appalling and it is fair complaint.

And to be fair my suggestion is somewhat of a strawman as no one is advocating such. I just think we should be careful not to willingly turn over what is most important to us. I recommend Shcharansky's The Case For Democracy.

I suspect that these individuals are more favorable to the traditional pied pipers. But I'm not making a decision simply because they think it is a good idea.

[corplinx]

300 Generals have backed McCain. Since the primary job of the president is Commander in Chief and not Chief Scientist, logically that is a more pertinent endorsement.

Personally, I find Obama's science positions troublesome. He voted for ethanol subsidies the week after the UN report. He waffles about on nuclear despite all the evidence for it. If you want a candidate who makes all of his decisions based on logic, reason, and evidence, you ain't got one.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

There is a difference between science and technology. Technology is of course very important, but there's more to science than just pumping out inventions. Part of it is just that science is generally a nice thing to have around, but even if science is going to be useful in the short term it can be useful in informing what should be done rather than merely making useful things.

Science should always be about first, improving peoples lives. We don't know where the big breakthroughs will come from or what practical applications they will lead to. So "pure" research is always good too. But the primary objective remains the same.

Can you cite some examples of him saying this? He's sort of said the opposite, in that he specifically endorses strengthening DARPA in his Science fact sheet (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/FactSheetScience.pdf) (was he talking about weapons research, perhaps?) and supports nuclear power in his Energy sheet (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf) (although admittedly more tepidly than I might like).

Like any other politician, he's said one thing to one group of people and other things to others. Here is Obama promising to gut military R&D and ban nuclear fuel production. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb6EE3C7uWE)

This contradicts what he has said in his facts sheets that you linked to, and therein lies the problem. Which is the real Obama? I believe the video represents what is closer to his heart than the boilerplate fact sheets. I don't trust him and I don't believe him when he says otherwise.

[Tony]

Personally, I find Obama's science positions troublesome. He voted for ethanol subsidies the week after the UN report. He waffles about on nuclear despite all the evidence for it. If you want a candidate who makes all of his decisions based on logic, reason, and evidence, you ain't got one.

Has there ever been one?

[not_so_new]

300 Generals have backed McCain. Since the primary job of the president is Commander in Chief and not Chief Scientist, logically that is a more pertinent endorsement.


If this were the case then I guess GWB isn't getting involved in a plethora of science funding debates in the White House then?

:rolleyes:

Obama and to some degree McCain both talked about this in the first debate.

To paraphrase, the primary job of the president is to protect the nation as Commander and Chief. The general assumption of the population is that this happens at the point of a gun but it is wrong to rely on force from the outset.

Strong national defence starts with trade, economics and leadership but what do we have to trade now that we are moving toward a service based economy? Science is and has been a staple of America's leadership in the world for many years but that gap has closed significantly in recent times.

Placing an emphasis on scientific research is good for national defence on many fronts.

Here is one of the reasons WHY they support Obama related to his scientific agenda and why I do as well.

Calling the Bush Administration's science policy "disastrous," MIT professor and Nobel laureate Robert Horvitz joined a conference call to speak in support of Obama's science policy, which includes elevating the role of White House science adviser to a senior-level position and reversing the ban on using federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research on cell lines created after August 9, 2001.

That is important to me and to them, this is one of the key areas of concern with this election in my eyes.

[UserGoogol]

Science should always be about first, improving peoples lives. We don't know where the big breakthroughs will come from or what practical applications they will lead to. So "pure" research is always good too. But the primary objective remains the same.



Like any other politician, he's said one thing to one group of people and other things to others. Here is Obama promising to gut military R&D and ban nuclear fuel production. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb6EE3C7uWE)

I think that's a strained interpretation of what he's saying. Regarding cutting military R&D he says:

I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institue an independent defense priorities board to assure that the quadrennial defense review will not be used to justify unneccesary spending.

This doesn't say that defense R&D should be cut in absolute terms, but that research into combat weapons and "unproven" missile defense should be cut. This provides a lot of room for military research funding to stay level or be strengthened without "gutting" anything. (Other defensive technologies, non-weapon tools for battlefields, pure science that the DoD funds, and whatnot.) As you already said, The Internet initially came from DARPA but would not at all be touched by those restrictions.

The ban on fissile material is pretty strong, but since it's such a ridiculously strong statement taken at face value (if nothing else, implementing it would be ridiculously unfeasible, the first reason that comes to mind being that France derives the overwhelming majority of its electrical power from nuclear and without their cooperation such a plan would be difficult) and one which goes against the fact that he has been fairly regularly (but tepidly) saying that he supports nuclear power. (He said it in a 2007 primary debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE), for instance.) It seems that the far more likely interpretation is that he was just being sloppy with his language and did not qualify between weapon-level fissile material and the lower grade power plant fissile material. This interpretation (which I openly admit still makes Barack Obama's look somewhat bad) is also bolstered by the fact that in this fact sheet/speech on his website (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/07/16/fact_sheet_obamas_new_plan_to.php) he uses similar language but then goes on to make that distinction clear.

[dudalb]

I was going to refrain but, oh hell...

Hey, I've got an idea, why don't we just give these folks supreme authority to make decisions for us? What good is democracy, a system subject to the whim of the comman person, when there are people far smarter to make decisions on our behalf?

Wasn't Mao's mistake his stance against intellectualism? Let's take the opposite approach and let the most gifted folks of science run our lives.



One of HG Wells more bizarre ideas (along with his many good ones) is that the way to solve all out problems was to give absolute power to a scientific elite. It's the basis of his "The Shape Of Things To Come" both the novel and the film.
Of course this ignores that axiom about power corrupts,absolute power corrupts absolutely, which history has shown time and time again has a lot of truth to it.

[corplinx]

Has there ever been one?

Carter was probably closest.

[gdnp]

I was going to refrain but, oh hell...

Hey, I've got an idea, why don't we just give these folks supreme authority to make decisions for us? What good is democracy, a system subject to the whim of the comman person, when there are people far smarter to make decisions on our behalf?

Wasn't Mao's mistake his stance against intellectualism? Let's take the opposite approach and let the most gifted folks of science run our lives.I have an idea. Why don't we refrain from intellectual discourse and instead create straw man arguments?

Come on, RandFan. No one is suggesting that we cede our decision making authority to a bunch of scientists. Still, the opinion of experts in their area of expertise is not an appeal to authority. If Economists endorse someone's economic policy, if generals endorse their military policy, if former secretaries of state endorse their foreign policy, it means something. Take it for what it's worth, but don't dismiss it as meaningless.


The "Nobelists for Obama" list energy first among the problems facing our society, yet Obama has also promised a global ban on the production of the only energy source that could completely replace fossil fuels. I can't take people seriously who casually reject nuclear power.

So yeah, it's an appeal to authority, and not a very good one at that.


Like any other politician, he's said one thing to one group of people and other things to others. Here is Obama promising to gut military R&D and ban nuclear fuel production. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb6EE3C7uWE)

This contradicts what he has said in his facts sheets that you linked to, and therein lies the problem. Which is the real Obama? I believe the video represents what is closer to his heart than the boilerplate fact sheets. I don't trust him and I don't believe him when he says otherwise.

I think you misread what Obama was saying. I think he was using the term "fissile material" to refer to highly enriched or weapons-grade uranium. He is not a nuclear scientist. I have far more scientific training than Obama, but I had to go to the web to learn the definition of fissile. So unless you have some other evidence where he has stated more unambiguously that he opposes nuclear power I would believe his fact sheets reflect his position.

[RandFan]

I have an idea. Why don't we refrain from intellectual discourse and instead create straw man arguments? :) To late. I allready called myself out. But there is a point to the post.

And to be fair my suggestion is somewhat of a strawman as no one is advocating such.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I think you misread what Obama was saying. I think he was using the term "fissile material" to refer to highly enriched or weapons-grade uranium. He is not a nuclear scientist. I have far more scientific training than Obama, but I had to go to the web to learn the definition of fissile. So unless you have some other evidence where he has stated more unambiguously that he opposes nuclear power I would believe his fact sheets reflect his position.

All nuclear fuel is fissile material, but not all fissile material is nuclear fuel. Banning it all would put an end to peaceful nuclear power generation the same way banning hydrocarbons drilled out of the ground would put an end not only to napalm but most of modern civilization as well.

Various eco-activist groups are aware of this distinction and they don't care. They ignorantly paint all things nuclear as irredeemably evil. The Sierra Club even goes so far as to oppose fusion development.

Until such time as I hear the Sierra Club or Greenpeace crying that Obama has stabbed them in the back, I will not trust any claimed conversion Obama claims to have had on nuclear energy.

[Tricky]

Personally, I find Obama's science positions troublesome. He voted for ethanol subsidies the week after the UN report. He waffles about on nuclear despite all the evidence for it. If you want a candidate who makes all of his decisions based on logic, reason, and evidence, you ain't got one.Has there ever been one?


Carter was probably closest.
I have to agree with corplinx on this. Carter was less of a politician than any other president we've had in the last fifty years. As a result, he was somewhat ineffective as a president. When the first oil embargo hit, he suggested we cut back on our energy usage in our homes. He led the way by cutting back energy usage in the White House. He didn't look for somebody to blame. Idiot.

He also had a pretty good grasp of nuclear energy, having worked on nuclear submarines, but Three Mile Island (and The China Syndrome) scuttled any plans he might have had to make nuclear energy a mainstay of the US energy program.

He was and is a great person. He has done more as an ex-president than any other president since (maybe) Hoover. Sadly, he wasn't a great president, in that he couldn't convince others to follow his lead. And he was rational. He looked for real solutions, not political solutions. As a result, he was a failed politician.

[LawnOven]

I get the impression that republicans just don't like anybody who has ever accomplished anything in their life expressing their political opinions, unless that accomplishment involved shooting or getting shot at.

[Beerina]

Most of these guys have studied politics and the economy at least as hard as they've studied interior decorating and small engine repair.

[kallsop]

Obama strongly supports the ethanol boondoggle. Tell me again how he has a grasp of science?

McCain has consistently been against federal subsidies for ethanol production.

That's a wrap.

[corplinx]

Obama strongly supports the ethanol boondoggle. Tell me again how he has a grasp of science?

McCain has consistently been against federal subsidies for ethanol production.

That's a wrap.

McCain has not. He switched to be against them. However, I will concede that it was a tough decision. He didn't even come close in Iowa because of it. However, the reports about food shortages world wide started rolling in and the UN later called for a ban on subsidies on food crops for ethanol.

McCain needs to hammer him on this during the economic policy debate. He needs to point his finger at him and say "these subsidies make your milk 3.50 a gallon, they make your meat loaf cost more, they make your sodas cost more, Barack Obama is not a friend of the working man, helping factory farm conglomerates stuff their coffers at the cost of your grocery bill".

Maybe Obama will luckily flipflop on the issue like he did telecom immunity. I love flipflops when they flip from a retarded policy position to one that all evidence shows to be the correct one.

[gdnp]

This is how reality intersects with politics. Had he come out against ethanol 5 years ago he might not currently be Senator from Illinois, which grows a lot of corn. Had he come out against ethanol 2 years ago he would have lost the Iowa caucuses and we'd be looking at Clinton-McCain right now. The question is, once he is president will he reassess and reverse course if in fact the subsidies are causing more harm than good? I hope so.

[not_so_new]

Most of these guys have studied politics and the economy at least as hard as they've studied interior decorating and small engine repair.

So they should stick to what they know then, science, scientific funding, public perception of science, scientific education and science's contribution to the economy right?

Because you might want to go look at what their endorsement actually says.

[UserGoogol]

Most of these guys have studied politics and the economy at least as hard as they've studied interior decorating and small engine repair.

So? What makes you think that those issues are more important than science? Science is extremely important to a civilized society, if scientists weren't off in the ivory towers fighting against ignorance politics and the economy would just be people in a field full of mud trading clods of dirt with each other.

This is merely one issue, and it's an issue on which neither of the candidates are exactly great, (i.e. ethanol subsidies, although that seems more like pandering than ignorance) but I can't understand how people in this thread can treat science as if it was some minor little side-topic unimportant to the presidency.

[corplinx]

This is how reality intersects with politics. Had he come out against ethanol 5 years ago he might not currently be Senator from Illinois, which grows a lot of corn. Had he come out against ethanol 2 years ago he would have lost the Iowa caucuses and we'd be looking at Clinton-McCain right now. The question is, once he is president will he reassess and reverse course if in fact the subsidies are causing more harm than good? I hope so.

Unfortunately, all we can judge him by is his record and statements. He hasn't been afraid in the past to make tough choices. He criticized black churches for being anti-gay.

I can't see any evidence that Obama will change positions on this issue, especially since he needs to win all those states 4 years later again.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I have to agree with corplinx on this. Carter was less of a politician than any other president we've had in the last fifty years. As a result, he was somewhat ineffective as a president. When the first oil embargo hit, he suggested we cut back on our energy usage in our homes. He led the way by cutting back energy usage in the White House. He didn't look for somebody to blame. Idiot.

He also had a pretty good grasp of nuclear energy, having worked on nuclear submarines, but Three Mile Island (and The China Syndrome) scuttled any plans he might have had to make nuclear energy a mainstay of the US energy program.

I remember reading this on a dead tree product some years ago and on-line verification has been difficult to find, so I can't be 100% certain and if someone has better or more recent information on this, by all means correct me.

But I believe it was Jimmy Carter who canceled development of neutron deactivation technology. Neutron deactivation has the potential to all but eliminate radioactive waste by bombarding unstable isotopes with neutrons so that they transmute into stable isotopes of heavier elements.

The long term storage of radioactive waste is the biggest single problem facing the nuclear industry and if Carter was the one who killed it, then I would hardly call him "enlightened" as regards to nuclear energy.

[gdnp]

During the discourse in the skepticism and politics (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124922) thread, unnamed posters were accused of "shouting down" those that claimed that the Nobel Laureates endorsement was an appeal to authority. Well, here in full is the text of their letter, which was linked in the OP:

An Open Letter to the American People

This year's presidential election is among the most significant in our nation's history. The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.

We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.

During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country's scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support. The government's scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations. As a result, our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.

We have watched Senator Obama's approach to these issues with admiration. We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation's competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take - through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research - to meet the nation's and the world's most urgent needs.

Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal investments in science and technology are crucial elements in successful governance of the world's leading country. We hope you will join us as we work together to ensure his election in November.

Here is a brief summary of the fallacy Appeal to Authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html), with a longer discussion at the link:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

So in the interests of skeptical thinking, I would like to hear why those who made the charge think that this is an appeal to authority. I don't think it is. First, the authors are stating their opinion, not making a statement of fact. Second, they do not simply say "vote for Obama because we say so", they spell out their reasons why they think he is the correct choice. Third, they comment on issues within their areas of expertise: political influence in science funding and the distortion of scientific results for political purposes. Therefore, their opinions should carry more weight than those without similar expertise.

Rebuttal?

[gdnp]

I remember reading this on a dead tree product some years ago and on-line verification has been difficult to find, so I can't be 100% certain and if someone has better or more recent information on this, by all means correct me.

But I believe it was Jimmy Carter who canceled development of neutron deactivation technology. Neutron deactivation has the potential to all but eliminate radioactive waste by bombarding unstable isotopes with neutrons so that they transmute into stable isotopes of heavier elements.

The long term storage of radioactive waste is the biggest single problem facing the nuclear industry and if Carter was the one who killed it, then I would hardly call him "enlightened" as regards to nuclear energy.

here is a link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080922100148.htm) to a science daily article on the process. I remember hearing about it a decade or more ago, and then nothing.

[Tricky]

Correct, gdnp. This is why it is more correctly called "false appeal to authority". An appeal to a legitimate authority is what you do when you ask your doctor about a health question.

If Nobel laureates in science say that Obama is better for the science environment, then I would say they are a legitimate authority. But just as all doctors will not agree on health questions, all Nobel science laureates will not agree on which candidates are the best for the science community. Having a big block of them agree without significant rebuttal from other Nobel science laureates, though, is pretty dang legitimate.

[corplinx]

Nobody argued that Carter was perfect on scientific based reasoning for policy decisions, just that he was the best modern president in that respect.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Correct, gdnp. This is why it is more correctly called "false appeal to authority". An appeal to a legitimate authority is what you do when you ask your doctor about a health question.

If Nobel laureates in science say that Obama is better for the science environment, then I would say they are a legitimate authority. But just as all doctors will not agree on health questions, all Nobel science laureates will not agree on which candidates are the best for the science community. Having a big block of them agree without significant rebuttal from other Nobel science laureates, though, is pretty dang legitimate.

The Nobelists apparently believe that Obama is the best choice because they believe he will throw the most money at them.

The assumption is that government funding is the best way to persue scientific research.

While they are all without a doubt brilliant physicists, chemists and doctors, they aren't economists.

[RandFan]

I'm voting for Obama. If I wasn't I'm honestly not certain how significant the laureates decision would play on me. It makes me a bit more confident but not that much. I suspect that these Nobel Laureates are more likely to share the ideological perspective of Obama than McCain. I'm not sure how significant that is. I think there is good reason to be skeptical of the endorsement but I think it is more significant than many.

[Tricky]

The Nobelists apparently believe that Obama is the best choice because they believe he will throw the most money at them.

The assumption is that government funding is the best way to persue scientific research.

While they are all without a doubt brilliant physicists, chemists and doctors, they aren't economists.
It is true that many aspects of science these days rely on government funding. It's how we got to the moon. It is how we search for cures for cancer. It is true that the pharmaceutical companies will fund research too, but only if it results in something they can sell you. They won't fund promising new therapies and techniques unless there is a profit to be made.

The job of government is to look after the people it governs. As such, scientific research is quite naturally the ally of good government.

It requires money for scientists to research. They have to make a living too. They can't just do it out of a sense of Nobelist oblige.

[not_so_new]

The Nobelists apparently believe that Obama is the best choice because they believe he will throw the most money at them.

The assumption is that government funding is the best way to pursue scientific research.

While they are all without a doubt brilliant physicists, chemists and doctors, they aren't economists.

There are lots of valid arguments that can be made against this endorsement from these Nobel Laureates, yours is not one of them. And I don't mean that as an attack.

Scientists in many ways, at least at this level, are businessmen and women. They have to find funding for their research and they have to calculate how to use these funds with proper budgeting. They know more about running a small or medium size business than you and others are giving them credit for. They don't live in an "all science all the time" vacuum.

Also without funding many research projects would fail. A lot of funding does come from government sources (but certainly not all).

Lastly, if you look at the letter you will see that there are PLENTY of other things that they are worried about outside of money. They clearly say "through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research..."

I see 4 out of 5 points there that are clearly not economic in nature.

[gtc]

They can't just do it out of a sense of Nobelist oblige.

I don't know whether to groan or laugh.

[gdnp]

I don't know whether to groan or laugh.

Neither did I. So I nominated it for pith instead.

[gdnp]

Lastly, if you look at the letter you will see that there are PLENTY of other things that they are worried about outside of money. They clearly say "through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research..."


I was just about to make this very point. The scientists are criticizing the politicization of science (modifying AGW reports, banning embryonic stem cell research), not just whining about inadequate funding.

[Tricky]

Neither did I. So I nominated it for pith instead.
You are too kind. I'm just glad people got the joke.