Policy forecast

Is Bush as bad for science as his detractors claim?

Reason's Ronald Bailey gives his take on the Bush Adminstration's stand on current scientific issues.

Global warming:

A plan to assign countries a share of a carbon "budget" may be proposed. If enough time is given to prepare, it could pass.

Stem cells:

Bailey considers Leon Kass, head of Bush's Council on Bioethics, to be a "scientific Luddite". Under his influence, Bush will probably not change his position on embryonic stem cells. [Though he has increased funding for adult stem cell research, and approved funding for research using the existing lines of embryonic stem cells. California has approved a $3 billion fund to pay for stem cell research. And certainly, private funds can be donated to fund research.]

Environment

Despite the hand-wringing on the part of environmental groups, the environment was a very low priority for most voters. Why? The environment is cleaner now than it's been in the past, and it continues to improve.

Politicization of science

In reality, Bush hasn't done any more of this than anyone else. Clinton fired scientists who didn't toe the party line on ozone, for example.

And finally, a bit of advice on scientific policy making:

Facts by themselves do not immediately entail the adoption of particular policies. Many of the scientific "facts" cited by activists arise from contested epidemiological data and controversial computer models. For example, if humanity is significantly warming the planet, it is entirely possible that the best policy is to encourage rapid technological progress and economic growth so that any problems caused by such warming can be dealt with more effectively and fairly in the future. And how does one make the trade-off between possibly harming a few species of birds through the use of DDT, and using the insecticide to prevent the deaths of millions of people each year from malaria? These are political decisions. Suggestive scientific data certainly help guide our decisions, but they do not mandate any particular policies—not even those championed by the most brilliant researchers.