I just did an online commentary for The Guardian's science site about just how bad Bush's presidency has been on science, and particularly stem cell and climate policy. It starts out like this....
The presidency of George W Bush is waning and laming. The time has come to think about the future and when it comes to policies for US science and to the use of science in US policy, let's put it bluntly, pretty much anything will be an improvement.
...and it only gets meaner from there. So I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Click here to read the whole thing.
- Log in to post comments
Dude: "Lame" as an intransitive verb? Shame.
Dude: Inability to think creatively about language? Shame.
Seriously, I appreciate comments about my grammar in the rare case of an obvious mistake, but this is perfect license to take with the concept of a lame duck presidency.
"Lame" as a transitive verb makes perfect sense. It means to cause someone or something to become hobbled. That's what has been happening to U.S. science in the stem cell area.
I've reviewed an important book on that subject called Cell of Cells: The Global Race to Capture and Control the Stem Cell by Cynthia Fox. Click my name for the review.
I wouldn't be too sure that the next administration will be better then the current one in terms of its science profile. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see any Republican president going against the Republican base on stem cells or doing anything substantive about global warming. Does Mr. Mooney think that President Mitt Romney, who was not what one might call friendly toward stem cell research as governor of Massachusetts, would be any different in the White House? How about President Fred Thompson? Like pro golfer Phil Mickelson, I suspect that the Democrats will find a way to lose.
B.Obama got my attention immediately by oppposing the slaughter and attempted pillaging of Iraq. But Hillary came out with an argument about USA's health economy being at a competitive disadvantage to Canada's because of inferior laws. I now think Hillary has a more sophisticated health analysis and may best serve an aging American population, not to mention a world troubled by its 20th century shephard not providing any geopolitical or environment leadership to date in this century. Having Bill and Gore as advisors is good.
I still don't see why the American public thinks its okay to "kill all military age males in Falluljah" but that they will "never forget 9-11". Is it only American lives that matter?