QOTD

Newt Gingrich just now at SFN 2007 when asked about the Bush administration's anti-science stance:

I have long ago given up on trying to explain this administration.

Newt is nowhere near as much of a wanker than most of the rest of his party. Sure, he opposes embryonic stem-cell research and doesn't believe teaching creationism in public schools is a big deal as long as it's not taught as a science. And yes, he dodged the question about how we can expect his party to stand on our side when 60% of them believe in creation by stating that 90% of the American public is in favor of increased science spending. And then there was the question about Iraq funding straining the federal budget and taking away money from science funding...his answer: as a percent of GDP, military spending is far lower now than at any time since Pearl Harbor and the Medicare budget is a far greater worry anyway.

But he is in favor of greater dialog between science and culture and society and this is especially the case for, as he calls it, "brain" science: though we tend to be reductionist as a result of what we do every day, policy matters to people everywhere. In rural parts of the country, methamphetamine addiction is rampant and young adults have taken to cutting themselves, prisons are overflowing and most of that is in some way related to neuroscience. A greater dialog would also involve bringing in non-scientists who want to help contribute to the field (i.e. amateur inventors). He believes that as a fiscal conservative the best he can do is favor massive expansion of research funding (tripling NSF and eliminating the "inappropriate" flatlining of NIH funding since it should be our goal to make sure everyone lives healthy until a high age and then dies cheaply (that saves on Medicare and boosts US industry, hence it's fically conservative). Moreover, he believes that a significant (at least 10%) proportion of the NIH budget should be set aside specifically for researchers under 40. This is what most of us (at least those of us under 40) like to hear, since it really is tight out there for us. His vision is that scientific knowledge will expand by at least 4 - 7 fold over the next 25 years since we're on the verge of an era similar to when Edison and the Wright brothers were around. And up to two thirds of that expansion could happen outside of the US.

Which brings us to one question that came up a few times: what should scientists do? Hire K-street lobbyists to be heard? His solution is to make ourselves known to politicians. Simply challenge them to either listen to us or to prepare to face an opposition effort to unseat them. And oh yeah, scare them about how China will surpass us soon! It sounds like good advice, but what happens when constituents just don't get it or don't care? For instance, if a large percentage believe in creationism, they might not be all that enthusiastic about supporting an opposition effort lead by an evolutionary biologist.

So which Presidential candidate does Newt think is the best for science? In his view, at the latest since World War II, science has been viewed by the public as a tool for advancing freedom. In order for that to remain the case, he suggests ideas he describes as "radical":
--re-examine K-12 math and science (schools in his view are factories for producing boredom amongst students and bringing in money).
--"Adolescents" should no longer be viewed as such. Anyone between 12 and 17 should be able to receive prizes for exceptional achievements rather than be encouraged to watch MTV. [I'm not sure what the point of that was...he might have been re-stating something he said before I walked in].
--Support "young" (under 40) researchers. To do that, the peer-review process would need to be reformed; [although my personal view is that it probably wouldn't need to be reformed nearly as much as he might be thining.]

And so who does he endorse for science? No one. The culprit are campaign financing and the media. Sounds like a Newt!