No human endeavor is independent of any moral framework whatsoever, including scientific endeavors, but to extrapolate using a rational, secular moral framework to Nazism is more than just a stretch–it is a complete distortion. I’ve heard the same argument as you’ve put forward here being promulgated by the evangelicals at home as the rationale for abolishing stem cell research, denying women the right to have an abortion, and denying terminally-ill people the right to choose the time and method of their own deaths.

Ethics has a place in the public sphere, but religion, and the ‘morality’ that comes from it, do not. Keep your religion to yourself, please.

The only specific field mentioned in your summary is stem cell research. What about NASA, particle physics, and climate science?

“A word of caution though might be that a government can be “too” scientific as well, using it to justify the unpopular or morally inconsiderate, which would equally lead to its dismissal, which is what I’d suggest the UK is/was in danger of becoming wrt to GM, Abortion, human genetics, CJD, IVF and simply the headline cost of science (agree with your husband) against the cost of a hospital.”

I disagree. We need *more* science in the govt, not less. If a scientifically-sound policy pisses some people off because they view it as ‘morally inconsiderate’, too fucking bad.

It was the show they wanted to show the new president to understand science better. Looked interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7619202.stm

Should be on-line somewhere…

Obama has the ethic of education burnished in him, though he’s flaky on other stuff….
He knows that he got to the presidency because of his educational advantages.

The core problem with America is its introversion and misplaced self-confidence that comes from it’s education, not just science but most of the public school system -it’s just not been invested in.

Some of it might be down to the corporate world using popular culture to breed a world where aspiration is about becoming rich quick, whether through fame or starting an internet company, or simply distracting with other trivia while aspiring to no more than doing a job only because it pays the bills.

If policy was based on science then America would already be the world leader in alternative energy and pushing the other G8 countries on the Global-Warming cause, rather than the last, and only caring about alternative fuel because Petroleum might be “foreign” -even Obama has repeatedly talked of “borrowing from china to pay for oil from the middle-east that pays to attack us in america” .

America and Science have been distracted in part due to the role of science directed by the Department of Defence, which has positives and negatives, but is narrow. As well as the self-interest of legacy and short-sighted companies where only the immediate funding/votes value is considered by the elected representatives.

Most bright kids look at careers that will pay, which science isn’t always guaranteed to do. Fortunately, the U.S. also has the best V.C. industry in the world and lots of expensive medical insurance to fund medical research (though europe/asia manages fine without that).

An issue that will be quite quick and easy to correct is the fact that the Bush administration were allowed to edit and conceal the inconvenient truth, but then how many summits did Al Gore come back from deemed a failure by green campaigners.

Just as President-elect Obama’s election has lifted the horizon of many children and adults of what they are [potentially] capable of becoming, the same needs to be done, just as it used to be, to widen the possibilities, with aspiration and engagement, of alternative jobs and education to include what are now considered “harder” or “boring” subjects that might not necessarily lead to early retirement, travel or power.

A word of caution though might be that a government can be “too” scientific as well, using it to justify the unpopular or morally inconsiderate, which would equally lead to its dismissal, which is what I’d suggest the UK is/was in danger of becoming wrt to GM, Abortion, human genetics, CJD, IVF and simply the headline cost of science (agree with your husband) against the cost of a hospital.

Yours kindly,

Shakir Razak