US President Barack Obama may be faltering in the general polls, but not so among his fellow Nobel laureates.
In an open letter, 68 winners of the Nobel Prize in the scientific fields are throwing their support firmly behind the president — who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 — saying he has "renewed our faith in science-based decision making and …championed investment in science and technology research that is the engine of our economy."
In contrast, Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president and former governor of Massachusetts, whom the letter never identifies by name, "supports a budget that, if implemented, would devastate a long tradition of support for public research and investment in science at a time when this country's future depends, as never before, on innovation.
"He has also taken positions that privilege ideology over clear scientific evidence on climate change," the letter adds.
Romney, while acknowledging that the world is getting warmer and that human beings contribute to the warming trend, also says that science is still unclear about the reasons behind global warming and more research needs to be done.
Among the signatures on the letter are those of this year's Nobel winners in chemistry, Robert Lefkowitz of Duke University and Brian Kobilka of Stanford University. "I feel the Obama administration has been doing a good job of supporting basic research given the restraints of the economy," Kobilka tells The New York Times.
While he says that he isn't sure what Romney would do as president, the choice of Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate worries him. Ryan proposed a budget as chairman of the House Budget Committee that could slash funding for the National Institutes of Health.
"I think it's important for the country for us to keep funding basic research, and that's why I signed on," Kobilka says.
In 2008, when Obama ran against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for the White House, 61 Nobel science winners signed a similar letter endorsing Obama, the Times reports. One of the signers of that letter, Martin Chalfie who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 2008, organized this year's letter.
"As a nation we must continue the investment that revolutionized agriculture, invented the Internet, gave us modern medicine, and enabled a strong national defense," the letter says. "Abandoning this tradition would be a devastating step backwards. If you believe, as we do, that America's future is bound in essential ways to science and innovation, we urge you to join us in working to ensure the reelection of President Obama."
I am so glad that our
I am so glad that our distinguished Nobel laureates have together taken a position on this vitally important issue. Thank you for your wisdom and leadership on behalf of science and human kind.
Mardi de Veuve Alexis
Senior Advisor for Strategic Partnerships and
Administrative Director, ITRC Partnership
Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope
This is another important
This is another important reason to vote for President Obama. Romney would owe his office to the religious right. This would be like GW Bush all over again. We cannot afford to once again put religious interpretive philosophy in charge of the rational scientific process. Also, Romney may understand business, but ask the good folks at Dade Behring and other science-based companies ruined by Bain if he understands science-based business. Search Dade Behring and Bain to see the results.
I'm Azike Fleming. I feel
I'm Azike Fleming. I feel this is just the right thing coming at the right time!
Either that or a typical case
Either that or a typical case of a cadre of people disposed to be impressed with themselves imagining a foundation for their own prejudices. If I read this:
http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/
I see unequivocal recogniztion by Romney that any kind of promising future is ineluctably predicated on strong scienfitic research. Plus a lot more thought given to the interrelationship of all of society's resources, opportunities and needs. From Obama, I read platitudes.
Perhaps the Laureates should deliberate on restrategizing academic research so that they, among the top 10% or so of grant awardees, no longer take 90% of the money. After all, if the small labs and some 90% of the intellect in the scientific community are driven to be baristas, where then the wellspring of ideas which frequently inspire (and which are sometimes poached and capitalized upon by) the big labs?
Romney can SAY anything, and
Romney can SAY anything, and maybe he actually believes it. But by examining the actions of Democrats vs. Republicans in terms of funding and the implementation of science in policy making it's obvious who the better choice is. I agree with the Nobelists.
As long as Federal Reserves
As long as Federal Reserves can print dollars faster than it looses it's vaule, both Obama or Romney will be able to finance 40-50% of entire federal budget from Fed printing press. I wish good luck for anyone who thinks that either Obama or Romney can create wealth from nothing!
The Nobel Laureates are
The Nobel Laureates are repeating the unproven mantra that climate change (global warming) is caused by human activities. About 1,000 years ago Greenland was green and then froze. Michael Lerman, Ph.D., M.D.
There are always
There are always right-wingers who complain about
the elite making the decisions that affect us all.
The problem is that most of these people think being
educated is what makes the elite. The fact is the
educated are for the most part not the elite.
Here the elite means the industrialist, bankers and billionaires who lobby and influence politicians and
Congress to get their agendas implemented.
The elite maybe educated but, most of the educated are by no means the among the elite.
Any of you "genius" laureates
Any of you "genius" laureates care to tell us what Obama did to Earn his Nobel? Or,why even a fifth-grader would listen to the drivel of such political illiterates. $500 million wasted on Solyndra, alone,could pay for a lot of research; it was squandered on a political donor. Other examples abound. People that do research for a living shouldn't have any trouble researching THAT.