posted 07-28-2004 10:25 PM               

quote:

---

Good afternoon. More than 40 years ago, in a time of Cold War challenges -- but also a time of hope, possibility and new frontiers -- America sent me on a journey into space that not only changed my life, but changed our nation's view of earth itself.

A few years ago, I was privileged to make another journey into space, aboard the space shuttle Discovery, this time with 83 scientific research projects on board -- projects to benefit you and your children right here on earth. The world I saw from the heavens was no less spectacular the second time around. And while I am exceptionally proud to have represented America on these journeys of discovery, I am concerned.

I am concerned about the erosion of America's commitment to the twin pillars of our success in the 20th century -- leadership in education, and leadership in scientific research. It was education and research that helped American scientists eradicate deadly diseases like polio and smallpox that had plagued humanity since the dawn of time. It was education and research that enabled us to produce the technology necessary to win World War II.

It was education and research that fueled our post-war economic boom; with so many veterans studying under the G.I. Bill, it generated a whole new base for new technology, new types of business and good, middle-class jobs. It was education and research that gave us new opportunities to study in this new and unique laboratory of space, and that helped America put my friend Neil Armstrong on the moon, and win the Cold War.

In short, a commitment to leadership in education and research underpinned America's rise to greatness over the past 100 years. Our strength was built on sound public schools in every community, strong universities with the best labs, and a commitment to the ever-curious, questing spirit of America that is still unlocking the secrets of the universe through top-flight science. And it will be future education and research -- from earth and from space that will create the new industries and new jobs that increase our standard of living and will determine our leadership position in the world.

Unfortunately, under the current administration, that bedrock American commitment to leadership in education and research is eroding. Other countries are fast gaining ground on us, investing more and more in their education, producing more and more of their scientists, and threatening America's greatest competitive strengths -- knowledge, innovation, and creativity.

As America's next president, my friend John Kerry is not just going to talk about these issues. He is going to take decisive action to guarantee American leadership. I know this because I know John Kerry. I have worked with him closely in the Senate. I have traveled with him. I have seen his commitment to this great country, and to its even greater future.

So join me! Join John Kerry! With your help, we can build that stronger America together, and continue expanding the frontiers of knowledge, opportunity and human possibility. Thank you.

---

posted 07-30-2004 01:59 PM               

Post-9/11, these traits and national priorities should be ~more~ important, not less, as we face a determined ideological foe in al Qaeda. These very traits were the ones that helped us, after Sputnik, to win the space race and ultimately to end the cold war.

In fact, I sometimes think of Sputnik as the (nonviolent) 9/11 of two generations ago--Sputnik dramatically announced the Soviets' technological superiority, its superior imagination, and sparked a profound superpower conflict.

The United States then thought its national security was at stake, and certainly feared for its international primacy. So the space race was a struggle every American understood. And it became a priority because of this rarest thing in American national life: consensus.

In the process, the space program came to express everything that was good and brave and smart and determined about a free society. It created goodwill abroad. It made the United States safer and more secure.

But the Soviet Union was a state actor, accustomed to conventional conflict; al Qaeda is a shadowy movement and its tactics asymmetrical. The Soviet Union had rational leaders (for the most part) who worked in government offices. You could reach them on the telephone. Their ambassadors sat in the U.N.

OBL is probably in Tora Bora guarded by tribal bandits. He is not a responsible actor. He is resourceful. But so are we, or could be.

So what role does the space program have in the wake of 9/11, with homeland security (and not superpower confict) front and center?

I think it's in that mix Glenn describes so well above. Public schools that teach and inspire. A wonder-producing space program, drawing on international applicants, dreaming great dreams. This kind of space program could generate goodwill abroad and pride at home.

posted 07-30-2004 03:43 PM               

Sounds promising. What else is he going to do, besides talk about these issues?

"He is going to take decisive action to guarantee American leadership.

What sort of decisive action taken by Kerry will guarantee American leadership and how do you know he knows what to do?

I know this because I know John Kerry.

And what are those decisive actions again?

Thank you.

posted 07-30-2004 04:09 PM               

In this case, Glenn is using his national security credentials to bolster the case for Democratic leadership. No big whoop. GOP strategists do the same thing with their own cast of heroes, icons, and military figures..

posted 07-31-2004 10:43 PM               

quote:

---

By Mr. Glenn:

Unfortunately, under the current administration, that bedrock American commitment to leadership in education and research is eroding.

---

A quick fact-check reveals that education and research spending has not only greatly increased under the Bush administration, but has accelerated faster during Bush's first 4 years in office than at any time during the 8 years of the previous Democratic administration.

posted 08-01-2004 12:51 PM            

There has been an alarming rise in the number of White House initiatives which deter accurate scientific research on ideological / theological grounds, such as initiatives to limit stem cell research, remove information about the global warming threat from a 2003 Environmental Protection Agency report, order changes to a report that described damage that would be caused by oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and deleting basic health information from government Web sites.

Bush has also proposed budget cuts in the National Science Foundation, the EPA and Veterans Affairs Department. White House documents show the administration is prepared to cut the NIH budget by 2.1 percent in 2006. Funding for non-biodefense programs will fall by seven percent. The Union of Concerned Scientists, made up of a good number of internationally recognized scientists including many Nobel Prize winners, has spoken out in concern that the current administration distorts scientific findings and tries to manipulate experts' advice to avoid information that runs counter to its political beliefs. Bush has proposed budget decreases at nine of the 12 federal agencies with the largest R&D portfolios, with only the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) staying ahead of inflation. Projected increases in NASA and DHS obscure the steep cuts in all other nondefense agencies.

Although the space exploration programs at NASA will benefit from large funding increases, all other R&D areas will decline dramatically over the next five years, including Earth Science (down 15.9 percent), aeronautics (down 16.2 percent), and Biological and Physical Research (down 11.8 percent). So even NASA is going to be hurting in many of its major areas of excellence.

Most of the R&D funding programs facing steep cuts over the next five years look to be the ones most "ideologically unsound" in the eyes of the White House: Department of Energy (DOE) programs will see dramatic decreases such as: energy R&D (down 21 percent by FY2009), fossil energy R&D (down 22 percent), and energy conservation (down 26 percent). At the Department of Commerce, the Bush Administration would eliminate the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), as well as cut the budgets of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by 10.5 percent and 17.3 percent respectively by FY 2009.

Stories such as:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1046363,00.html

do nothing to reassure me. Real science, such as the effects of lead poisoning on children, are being hidden and removed from reports because it does not fit with the wishes of favored lobbyists. John Glenn is right on this one.

posted 08-01-2004 04:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:
John Glenn is right on this one.

---

That would seem to depend more on which side of the political spectrum you fall.

For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists is a self-described activist group whose anti-defense and anti-business screeds embody the very antithesis of the scientific ideal of objectivity.

The UCS "report", among other things, criticized the Bush administration for picking people to serve on advisory committees based on their ideology. The UCS quoted Clinton-era EPA pesticide chief Lynn Goldman as saying, “The Clinton administration did not do this....They did not exclude people based on some sort of litmus test.”
That is flat-out false however. The Clinton administration was sued for excluding global warming skeptics from meetings of a federal advisory committee preparing a report on global warming.

It's not a distortion of science if one Administration is simply using another group of scientists (reaching different conclusions) to shape their policy, just because that policy may run counter to what another Administrations' might be.

As for specific budget cuts, from a tactical point of view, if an Administration is going to propose a budget, and knows Congress beefed up spending in a particular area in the previous allocation, submitting a request for that beefed up total and then adding on top of it would appear to be irresponsible. Therefore, a tactically minded President desiring to keep some controls on spending would likely submit budget requests similar to what Bush has done; requesting relatively high levels, but bearing in mind Congress will likely tack on even more, regardless of what is asked for.