Tag Archives: election impact on science

Impact that latest elections could have on US science hotspots and brief comment of UK bugdet

There’s some interesting commentary on the US mid-term elections and its potential impact on various types of science by Dan Gilmour in his Nov. 3, 2010 posting (on his Salon blog) notes,

The Democrats weren’t the only big loser in yesterday’s election. Science got clobbered, too.

Fueled by disdain for government interference with business and tanker loads of cash from the energy industry and its allies, the Republican party has been moving steadily into the denial camp on global climate change, or at least deep skepticism. And it’s practically an article of faith among the tea-party activist crowd. A recent survey from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed a yawning gap between Democrats and Republicans over the issue, with just 38 percent of Republicans believing that the earth is getting warmer — a belief that drops to 23 percent among tea party Republicans.

By every account, the Republican takeover of the House is likely to derail any possibility of serious action on climate change during at least the next two years, longer if President Obama is defeated for reelection in 2012.

Gilmour goes on at more length about the ‘attack’ on science. The British journalist Andy Coughlan offers a more measured but still pessimistic view in his Nov. 3, 2010 article for The New Scientist,

President Barack Obama suffered a serious setback in the US midterm elections, with the Democrats losing control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans but hanging onto the Senate by a whisker.

Alongside the anger directed at the president, the elections were battlegrounds for ideological disputes over how to tackle climate change, abortion rights, and whether American children should be taught about biblical creationism alongside evolution.

Coughlan goes on to break it down by state and by science, for example, California and a proposition about greenhouse gas emissions,

One of the most significant results was the defeat in California of Proposition 23, a proposal bankrolled by the Texan oil giants to suspend the state’s pioneering law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

California’s famously green conscience shone through in the vote, defeating the proposition by a resounding 58 to 42 per cent, according to the latest results available. The Los Angeles Times was in no doubt that the “oily club” from Texas was sent packing through being outspent and out-organised, campaign-wise by wealthy philanthropists and celebrity backers.

Chief architect of the original global warming law in 2006, and outgoing Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, was jubilant at the result, according to The Bay Citizen, and took the opportunity to criticise the administration for failing to follow the example set by California.

Presumably the elections in the US will result is some not just to legislation that affects science but also science funding. I find it interesting to contrast the situation as it currently exists in the US with the situation in the UK where scientists achieved 0% reduction in a federal budget that featured serious cutbacks in every other domain as the UK continues to grapple with its economic woes. It does seem that the Science is Vital campaign, (mentioned in my Oct. 19, 2010 posting) was effective. From the Oct. 27, 2010 news item on the Nature website,

An unexpected bouquet of white lilies and roses greeted David Willetts, Britain’s minister for science, when he arrived at a press conference on 20 October to announce the government’s plans for research spending over the next four years.

In better times, he might have been met with a barrage of rotten fruit. The research base will continue to be funded at its current level, £4.6 billion (US$7.2 billion), for the four-year review period — which amounts to an effective cut of 10% if inflation projections are factored in. In addition, an essential funding stream for large projects will probably be substantially cut, along with research in many government departments.

I’m not sure what to make of it all but it does give me food for thought as I wait for Canada’s next federal budget and/or election.