A biased scientist

Science is supposed to be objective. This is how it works and the right discoveries are made. If science were subjective, we would still believe that the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe.

Researchers embrace this idea. In the scientific community, manipulating data and falsifying findings is a heinous act. Those who commit such crimes are practically excommunicated by their colleagues. The purpose of science is to find the truth, not the desired result.

Beyond the scientific community, this impartialness has not always been appreciated. Take a look at the commercials you see on TV. How often have you heard something to supposedly be supported by scientific findings? There is a plethora of herbal remedies, diet pills and emotional boosters that fall into this category. Although these products may not be lying, it is unlikely they are telling the whole truth. If a diet pill could be found that would cure obesity, don't you think that every doctor in the United States would be prescribing it? Obviously, there is more to the pills than meets the eye.

Fortunately for Americans, our leaders have adopted this impartial perspective. The U.S. government pays billions of dollars in support of scientific research. The leaders in Congress and the White House have consistently viewed science as a useful tool for advancing society. Unbiased scientific evidence is crucial for policy-making decisions. Or least this is the idea.

To be honest, science isn't the end all, say all, piece of evidence used in most decisions. And this can be a good thing. With people's livelihood at stake, sometimes the best scientific recommendations need to be compromised. However, blatant ignorance of scientific reports and the latest finding can be detrimental.

For the most part, over the past century, the presidents of the United States have accepted science when making decisions. There have been points where the scientific community grumbled, but no open conflict has arisen. In this election year, things have decidedly changed.

President Bush has lost the support of a large portion of the scientific community. His policies have blatantly disregarded several key scientific findings over the past four years. Forty-six Nobel Laureates have adamantly thrown their support behind Sen. John Kerry in an act of protest.

This loss of support is well-founded. Bush has failed to take any action to counteract global warming. Bush envisions a society where the nation uses hydrogen as a new source of clean fuel. This is a great long-term goal, but it does not address the issue in the here and now. With growing evidence that the longer we wait, the worse the climatic problem will become, action is needed. Furthermore, his decision to put a moratorium on federal funding for new stem cell research has stifled a promising new field. Researchers are leaving the U.S. for other nations where scientific progress is being embraced.

Tomorrow the nation will decide what action to take in its future. As a scientist, I encourage you to support Kerry. We as both a nation and as a species cannot wait another four years for change to occur.