With hope and clear skies possibly on the horizon, it is going to be very important for the next president to choose a capable chief science advisor. Sound science is going to dictate many of the directions this country takes in the next few decades. The former president has virtually trampled science and the science advisory system underfoot. Who could be an apt candidate for this key post? Here is a list of a few that I like...and one that I don't...
...Read the rest of the entry on Desipundit
_(cropped).jpg)
3 weeks ago in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
Pray tell, where in the constitution does it say that the federal government shall fund science?
ReplyDeleteUmmm...well it does not. But how does it matter? 59% of research was publicly funded last year. If corporations want to fund all research or even most of it, they are welcome to. Although I doubt if they
ReplyDelete1. Have the billions necessary to do this
2. Feel generous enough to spend those billions on projects that are not going to directly contribute to their next quarter's windfall.
Pray tell, where in the constitution does it say that the federal government shall fund science?
ReplyDeleteIn the same place where it says individuals have the right to own a gun.
And if that doesn't convince you (and why would it? conservatives wouldn't dare question amendment 2) Section 8 has the following: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Much like conservatives' beloved second amendment it is open for interpretation. the public funding of the sciences, if it is held to be for the general welfare of the nation, is then allowable.
Sweetly put
ReplyDelete