Science Magazine has published a series of questions and answers for U.S. presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry on science and technology policy.
Because the safety, security, and prosperity of people all around the world increasingly is tied to decisions made in the White House, it's vital that we all learn as much as we can about where these candidates stand. Here is what the magazine says:
Politicians are fond of touting research and innovation as drivers for economic prosperity, keys to good health and environmental preservation, and pillars of national defense. Traditionally, these topics are included mainly to provide applause lines in stump speeches. But this year they have become campaign issues, too.The two major party candidates for U.S. president, incumbent Republican George W. Bush and his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, and their representatives have sparred repeatedly over issues ranging from embryonic stem cell research to global warming. But that discourse, played out across several months and thousands of miles, may have been hard for the average voter or international reader to follow. So as it has done in past elections, Science has consolidated the debate by inviting each candidate to lay out his views on a dozen important issues. Their unedited answers follow.
As part of a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization (World Care), CRN can't recommend who you should vote for. But we encourage citizens everywhere to become involved in the democratic process: learn about the issues and the candidates, work with others to see that the process is fair, and above all, vote!
I see, as a 501c3, you can't be partisan yourself, but you can make a point of directing us to other partisan organizations? Because, make no mistake about this, the "Election Protection Coalition" IS a partisan organization, for all that it claims to be otherwise. One need only look at the list of coalition partners, to note that they're all left-wing organizations. Or read the literature, which when it cites any problem with elections, is ALWAYS citing something Republicans supposedly did, never some offense Democrats committed.
Come on, if you're going to try to look non-partisan, at least put some effort into it!
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | October 12, 2004 at 02:03 PM
Brett, an organization can be non-partisan and still receive support from partisan groups. I would hope that all legitimate political parties could agree that the objective of achieving a fair election is one that should be pursued. For the world's greatest proponent of democracy to have a national election stolen is a disgrace that I would not want to see repeated.
Posted by: Mike Deering | October 12, 2004 at 11:11 PM
Mike, yes, it's truth that an organization can be non-partisan, and recieve support from partisan organizations. It's extraordinarilly unlikely that a group which is non-partisan is going to recieve support from only partisan organizations on one side of the divide, though.
But in this case it's not a matter of odds. The "Election Protection Coalition" is only in the business of protecting the election of Democrats from Republicans. You can't kid me on this, I'm too familiar with them. They don't give a damn about stopping Democratic ballot fraud.
And as for national elections being stolen, the Democratic efforts to steal the election failed in 2000.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | October 13, 2004 at 02:54 AM
Get real.
Posted by: Mike Deering | October 13, 2004 at 05:10 AM
See why you shouldn't have injected partisan politics into this? ;)
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | October 13, 2004 at 05:32 AM
You are correct. The responsible use of nanotechnology is not a partisan issue. And a political debate in this forum will not accomplish anything toward that goal. Everyone I talk to has already made up their minds about how they are going to vote anyway.
Posted by: Mike Deering | October 13, 2004 at 06:30 AM
A plea to Mike and Chris.
Let's leave politics at home here.
We CAN'T influence the outcomes of national elections in a nation of hundreds of millions. It's statistically impossible, do the math.
The only political issues that belong here are the serious analysis of the probability of rational nanotech policies in different countries or under different regimes, discussion of the viability of other countries as research centers, and other issues that relate Directly to good MNT policy. Loose focus and you loose efficacy.
Posted by: micheal vassar | October 13, 2004 at 07:58 AM
First, I'd say you can't extricate politics from the consideration of policies to promote responsible development and use of nanotechnology.
Second, you might be surprised at how much influence and impact a small group of people can have, if they are smart and truly committed.
Third, I will try harder to keep partisanship out of our discussions here; but politics is still highly relevant to CRN's work.
Posted by: Mike Treder, CRN | October 13, 2004 at 08:07 AM
HUMAN THOUGHT IS THE NANOASSEMBLER AND WE ARE THE PREY OF OUR OWN THINKING.
Posted by: william mccann | October 21, 2004 at 08:44 AM
WILLIAM, YOU COULD ULTIMATELY BE PROVEN CORRECT. BUT SOME OF US ARE WORKING TO PREVENT THAT EVENTUALITY. WE COULD USE YOUR HELP.
Posted by: Mike Deering | October 21, 2004 at 10:09 AM