The ‘science’ president? Hardly

I appreciate and agree with the pro-science sentiments the president shared during his State of the Union address, but the notion that George W. Bush has a real affinity for science is laughable.

The president’s fascination with the gee-whiz breakthroughs of modern science may not be new, but it has certainly been more evident in the days since he made unleashing the power of research and innovation a central element of his State of the Union address. As he tours the country promoting his plan to encourage more laboratory advances and improve science education, Bush has been fixated with some of the most tantalizing new technologies in the works.

He visited a laboratory in Minnesota and a high school science classroom in Dallas. He talks about “flex-fuel” cars and solar beams and nanotechnology. (“I’m just beginning to understand what that means,” he said Friday.) He waxes on about the possibilities of cellulosic technologies. (“Big word for a history major,” he said Thursday. “I don’t want to try to spell it.”)

And, like many people about to turn 60 years old, he reflects on how fast technology has been changing the world around him…. “Technology is changing the way we think,” Bush said here Friday.

Well, it may be changing the say some people think, but I’m not all convinced the president is one of them.

If Bush is sincere about his new-found interest in modern science, I’m truly delighted. But I’ll remain skeptical until he changes his mind about teaching intelligent-design creationism in public school science classes, about rejecting all scientific evidence as it relates to global warming, about dismissing and restricting the scientific breakthroughs promised by stem-cell research, and generally stops using bogus science to justify his political agenda. (I’d refer readers not only to this fantastic book, but also to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ report, which included the concerns of over 60 leading scientists and 20 Nobel laureates, all of whom were protesting the Bush White House’s politicization of science.)

Indeed, in light of Bush’s record, it’s not altogether clear why the man is suddenly so interested in science at all. Fortunately, the New York Times clues us in.

President Bush’s proposal to accelerate spending on basic scientific research came after technology industry executives made the case for such a move in a series of meetings with White House officials, executives involved said Wednesday.

In other words, business lobbyists were needed to come up with one of the rare good policy ideas to come out of this White House. As Matt Yglesias noted, it’s a “pretty pathetic approach to running the country.”

Science? We don’t need no stinking science.

  • So he wont listen to scientists but he’ll listen to the people who hire them. That’s like ignoring Wozniak while you ask John Sculley technical questions.

    BTW CB makes my day!

  • I would be shocked if any of this “science money” goes anywhere except to corporate buddies of the Bush Administration. Even Newt G. knew that significant innovation does not come from the corporate sector because the emphasis is short term and profit-driven (and surprisingly he supported the NSF and NIH). The Bush Administration is actually cutting research support through the NSF and NIH and I would bet this will continue. With the possible exception of some bogus university-private sector programs that never have gotten off the ground (because of intellectual property issues).

  • If it takes technology business executives to get Bush at least partially back into the real world, so be it.

    I recall (fuzzily) that back around the time of the Selma march for Civil Rights, a “group of 100” business executives visted the White House to put pressure on the government to get rid of its ties to Jim Crow. G.E. executives said things like “you’re excluding 12% of our market for Frigidaires” or some such. I read at the time that the visit had more to do with turning Administration officials against the old New Deal coalition with Southern Democrats than all the TV images of dogs snarling at blacks and black sympathizers. I’ve read very little about it ever since.

    It’s true that forward-looking corporation (e.g., Levi-Strauss) were way out front on gay rights, long before politicians (who are always looking over their shoulders and thus afraid to lead) and most churches (most of which have institutional, rather than Christ-like, values – see priestly pederasty).

    FWIW, I agree with #3 about the probable consequences of Bush’s new-found “reality”. Anyway, Bush’s brain in so fragile he can’t hold onto a thought unless the team provides him with props, so next week it’ll probably be some other photo-op.

  • Bush talking about nanotechnology made me laugh. Here in NY, Charlie Gargano, Bush pioneer, is the head of the state economic development agency and the vice chairman of the Port Authority so he gets to spend billions of dollars virtually unchecked. The way he spends development money, you’d think Charlie believes that nanobots can be floated on a barge down the Erie Canal. Whenever Charlie wants to throw a few million to his pal, Mario Posillico, he builds another addition on to the SUNY-Farmingdale “biotech” center.

  • If Bush needs proof of evolution he should look at his stupid monkey face in the mirror – it’s ample enough for everyone else.

  • If you ever get a chance to talk to anyone in the federal government who actually works with science, research and related policy, you’ll find that information perceived to challenge the Republican agenda (beliefs) is routinely supressed. The problem, of course, is that science is reality-based whereas the Republicans create new realities. When they collide, guess which prevails.

  • Someone wrote that facts are conspiring to make Bush look bad. Bush’s interest in nanotechnology maybe extends to a Crichton novel while he’s looking for other reasons not to fund science. His policy on nanotechnology was against those little machines that gang up and kill people.Actually though, new ways to kill people might appeal to the War President. Let’s get Crichton to tesify before the Senate on this.

  • It’s amazing that anyone can believe Bush would support science when in the same speech he used conservative-code to announce his support for a complete ban on embryonic stem cell research.

  • Bush has turned the corruption of our government into a science.
    “Technology is changing the way we think (about taking over democratic institutions) ,” Bush said

  • The hell with bothering about this cult-of-personality bullshit. And the hell with Bush. I hope his favorite shirt shrinks in the wash.

    It seems to me it wasn’t too long ago that municipal governments and town councils all over the country were signing resolutions against the Iraq war or against the patriot act. Why aren’t we talking about starting projects? Why aren’t town councils all over the nation adopting resolutions that their police departments will not ever arrest any person for wearing an anti-war t-shirt, at a public event or otherwise? Let’s get down to business, let’s talk about turning things to our advantage and getting this country ready to choose the Democrats in ’06 and ’08. Bush and his people are on the way out. Let’s make sure it really happens.

  • I think the relationship is Bush is like science.

    Just look at my reasoning:
    Bush is repuled by science
    Science is repuled by Bush
    In science alike things (electricalmagnetic charges) repel

    see what I am going for.

  • He doesn’t really believe in “that new fangled tegnology”. Shrub (IQ 81) doesn’t comprehend electricity let alone anything that derives power from it. He doesn’t have to believe in anything. He just has to read. The only technology his administration (Cheney-Rumsfeld) cares about is spy-tech, weapons systems and media control. The rest is all spin to raise his poll numbers. I hope the future for these cruds involves the International Criminal Court.
    Can someone mention if Attorney Criminal Gonzales will be on C-span 1 or 2 tomorrow. I want to set a recorder, but I’m not sure of the channel.

  • Comments are closed.