Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Most Scientific Presidental Candidate

1

How about some pseudo-science: There have been 16 presidents whose surname ended in N. There have been four presidents whose surname ended in a vowel - all E's. This louche statistic would seem to favor Hillary. Out: Giuliani and Obama. And if Huckabee wants to improve his chances, he should change his name to Huckaby. Just sane.

Posted by GUY de HARUSPEX | January 9, 2008 1:12 PM
2

Gil Grissom is the best choice.

Posted by laterite | January 9, 2008 1:24 PM
3

Unfair to use Edwards' courtroom work against him.

He wasn't the boss -- his client was the boss -- he had a duty to work for the client.
It was the other side's duty to argue against him if his science was baloney. He had no duty to argue against his own client's interest.If he had "pulled back" by not tugging at emotional heartstrings, that would have been unethical.

That's the adversarial system.

Posted by Cleve | January 9, 2008 1:26 PM
4

Reading about the Edwards c-section case really gets me riled up. As noted, most cases of CP do NOT happen because of injury during birth. I had a complicated pregnancy, and I delivered twins vaginally-something that doesn't happen much anymore because of lawsuits like that one! I'm glad my doctors didn't do a c-section due to fear of lawsuits! Unfortunately, it does happen quite often. Many c-sections are medically necessary, don't get me wrong. But it makes me mad that doctors are forced to perform defensive medicine because of birth injury litigation.

Yet another reason for me to dislike Edwards, in addition to his appalling sexist response to Clinton's so called "breakdown."

Posted by Blacksheep | January 9, 2008 1:28 PM
5

"unburdened by ideology"?

He's a Mormon. He's one big ball of ideology.

Just saying.

Posted by LeslieC | January 9, 2008 1:36 PM
6

"unburdened by ideology"?

He's a Mormon. He's one big ball of ideology.

Though it's true he probably doesn't feel burdened by it. That's not to say that he isn't influenced by it.

Just saying.

Posted by LeslieC | January 9, 2008 1:37 PM
7

Obama reminds me of The Professor on Gilligan's Island.

Posted by elenchos | January 9, 2008 1:42 PM
8
... one of the strongest advocates for science in Congress, Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), calls Romney "the best choice for any scientist or engineer."

Ehlers... says that he is heading up a science advisory committee for the candidate.

In what way are Romney's science credentials "muddled"?  Does anyone not working for his campaign have anything good to say about him?

(Even Ehlers' testimonial stinks of empty platitude.)

Posted by lostboy | January 9, 2008 1:46 PM
9

Karin Nelson of NIH, who concedes she has not reviewed the specific cases that Edwards handled.

Nelson sat on a panel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that in 2003 found that most cases of cerebral palsy are not caused at birth.

But they didn't know this 22 years ago, right? Is that Edwards' (or anyone's) fault?

Unfair to use Edwards' courtroom work against him.

He wasn't the boss -- his client was the boss -- he had a duty to work for the client.
It was the other side's duty to argue against him if his science was baloney. He had no duty to argue against his own client's interest.If he had "pulled back" by not tugging at emotional heartstrings, that would have been unethical.

Correct.

Posted by yibba | January 9, 2008 1:49 PM
10

Oops, I messed up the HTML. That last bit was meant to be italic'd and accredited to Cleve at 1.26 pm.

Posted by yibba | January 9, 2008 1:52 PM
11
He wasn't the boss -- his client was the boss -- he had a duty to work for the client. ... If he had "pulled back" by not tugging at emotional heartstrings, that would have been unethical.

Given that he took the case, it would have been unethical.  We're not talking about a public defender with court-assigned clients here, though.  We can make legitimate judgements about lawyers who accept (or worse, pursue) civil cases built on bad or fraudulent science.

Yibba @9 makes a much better point about using a 2003 study to criticize a 1985 case.

Posted by lostboy | January 9, 2008 2:03 PM
12

Can any of you read the individual pieces? I fear they might be behind a subscription firewall. Sorry if so.

Yibba and Cleve--
Valid points. The whole article on Edwards started by noting that a surprising number of scientists and physicians absolutely ruled out voting for Edwards. The misrepresentation of science was the most common reason.

I can understand that stance. Work to which I had contributed was misrepresented during the stem cell debates. It's infuriating. Arguably Bush's actions--misrepresenting scientific research to help his supporters--would be justified with your logic.

Still, with that all said, I still like Edwards as a candidate. I just find Obama or Clinton to be better for American Science.

Posted by Jonathan Golob | January 9, 2008 2:12 PM
13
Why Don't I Have Access?

The content you requested requires a AAAS member subscription to this site or Science Pay per Article purchase. To find out what content you currently have access to - view your access rights. If you would like to recommend that your institution subscribe to this content, please visit our Recommend a Subscription page.

Seriously: The Professor is tall and thin like Obama, and they use similar hand gestures. But mostly they share the same deep voice. Don't they?

Posted by elenchos | January 9, 2008 2:23 PM
14

At least I excerpted the shit out of 'em.

Posted by Jonathan Golob | January 9, 2008 2:34 PM
15

I'd go canvass for Gustav Mahler, but he's been dead for about 97 years. Crap.

Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber | January 9, 2008 2:59 PM
16

Who?

Al Gore.

As if you didn't know.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 9, 2008 4:28 PM
17

I am really happy to see the pro-Obama propoganda machine ratcheting up on the SLOG. It means his supporters must be really scared.

The only quote on the front page of the report is from a Romney supporter, but the body of the report says

Senator Hillary Clinton's speech on the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik was the most detailed examination of science policy that any presidential candidate has offered to date.

It's therefore not surprising that actual scientists have been praising her focus on science.

Posted by Big Sven | January 9, 2008 5:27 PM
18

Finally, the liquid coal quote! Hearing that speech was what turned me against Barack Obama. Made him seem like not only a panderer, but a panderer who lacked finesse.

Posted by Lauren | January 9, 2008 6:01 PM
19

O's environmental rating is 96 or 97, Clinton's is 90, and Edwards' is 63, is what I read somewhere. Possibly here?

Posted by Phoebe | January 10, 2008 12:48 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).