"We will restore science to its rightful place"... as?

"We will restore science to its rightful place as an esteemed but subservient branch in the scheme of things."

I think Obama himself was talking about science addressing these challenges: infrastructure, health care, and energy.

Here is the quote in context:


Obama may have been implying that science had been undervalued in the Bush administration.

You may be right. But how would you phrase it if you had to say, "we will restore science to its rightful place AS..."

In other words, what is the definitional statement which defines Obama's view of Science's "rightful place" in his administration?

And beyond that, what do each of us think Science's rightful place is in the broader society?

As so many countries are leaping ahead of us in science and medicine I appreciate what Obama said. Bush didn't believe in stem cell research so everyone else jumped past us.

Thats not true.
Bush sid that the federal govt wouldnt pay for the research.
There is a big difference in that and what you said.

You realize that means universities, research institutes and everyone else who does stem cell research is affected by such actions. It also means the government and humanity will not reap the benefits of such research.

Nick is correct. This is essentially the same as banning it, as the vast majority of the theoretical science work being done is done so in university labs and most of it is funded by government grants, especially the DoD. There's no way to show profitability in basic research on a year-to-year basis, so it becomes a drag on a private company that is hard to explain to shareholders.

Cycloptichorn

"We will restore science to its rightful place...as a facilitator of progressive notions."

Science will improve HEALTHCARE, and combat GLOBAL WARMING!

Is this to suggest that during the last eight years Science was somehow prevented from working to improve HEALTHCARE?

Much was made of the Bush Administration's ban on federal funding of stem cell research beyond existing cell lines as evidence of W's desire to return us to the Dark Ages.

Note that cell stem research was not banned, nor was federal funding of any stem cell research, and yet opponents of the Administration ranted and raved that the policy was essentially the extinguishing of the light of Science in our society.

And yet when Bush promoted the ideas of a lunar base and a manned expedition to Mars (unquestionably endeavors that promised to cultivate new scientific blossoms), the Left ridiculed him.

If Bush never issued the ban, we would not be much further along than we are today in terms of realizing the promise of stem cells as a cure for human disease.

There is no guarantee that stem cells will deliver on the promise. It has never been a case that if only we spent X millions of dollars on embryonic stem cell research we would now be able to cure Parkinson's.

Many other nations "fully" support stem cell research and yet there still aren't any cures.

In reality the issue of stem cell research was never one of science, but of values and politics.

One cannot discuss embryonic research without bumping into abortion right.

If we accept that embryos are deserving of the distinction of human life and therefore rightfully exempt from scientific experiment (particularly when that experimentation destroys them), then we encroach upon the "pro-life" conceit that a human fetus is nothing more than a lump of tissues and deserving of no special legal consideration.

In typical elitist fashion, the Left chose to defend their values and politics by asserting that those who disagreed with them were ignorant fanatics, not only incapable of appreciating the rationality of science, but afraid of it.

Do a little research and you will find that there have been quite a few medical breakthroughs in the last 8 years -- despite the fact that the Bush Administration banished science from America.

As for science and alternative fuels...the 2008 Bush Administration budget contained $2.7 billion for pure research.

Of course since the fall of 2008, anything less than $20 billion seems like pocket change, but $2.7 B hardly represents a banishment of science.

Obama's speech contained quite a few gratuitous shots at his predecessor despite his call for an end to partisan bickering and new politics.

His comments as respects science was simply red meat for his base.

As the primary driving force behind our species' and more specifically our country's development.

Cycloptichorn

So the countries that have "leaped in front of us" are not going to share the results of their research with humanity?

I knew it!

Dirty Frogs!

Science is not the only source of knowledge. Mankind has been growing intellectually many centuries before the emergence of the scientific method, but that method is the most efficient for the acquisition of material knowledge. It cannot be ignored. A child died recently because its Christian Science parents would not take it to doctors. That is unacceptable. A child is not his parents' property; he has the right to benefit from society's achievements.

I think science should be down in the jungle tryin' to make it pay . . .

Science's place in the broader society is usually determined by political leaders. (Aristotle called politics the "master science" because it prioritizes all the other sciences for a particular society.)

AS a legitimate lens through which to view history and a legitimate place to look for solutions in our future.

I wouldnt. It means differently to many different worldviews. I see it as science no longer held prisoner to a narrow Evangelical Christian religious doctrine, wherein all science is filtered through a Biblical literalists worldview.

Also, Id see the US restored to a position of innovation leadership in science and technology .

Just providing the full quote in the paragraphical context so you folks have it to refer to in your discussion.

Thanks for the replies everyone.


Here's the one that came to my mind:

It's interesting to me to see how different people see Science fitting into the scheme of things. I see it as a very broad foundation which supports our collective perception of reality. Others seem to see it as a more specific tool with a narrower focus (at least as in context to the speech).

It's unclear from that sentence, but to me it seemed that we has making two distinct statements; one about science having it's "rightful" place, and another about using technology to achieve certain ends.

As the Faustian bargain we in West have known it to be since the inception of our culture. A bet. And a bet which we avoid facing up to having taken and being stuck with.

There are no truths outside the Gates of Eden.