Image: Flickr/AmericanSolutions
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The contenders for the Republican nomination in the 2012 U.S. presidential election may appear to be a fairly uniform group of middle-aged white conservatives, but when it comes to issues of science, technology and overall geek cred, none of these candidates is cut from the same cloth. In fact, Newt Gingrich nudges out Mitt Romney and Ron Paul in Scientific American's overall ranking, based on the former Congressman's engagement in issues related to energy, the Internet and military weapons, combined with his mastery of top online tools such as Twitter and a healthy appetite for science nonfiction.
Paul is a geek contender based on his appeal to libertarian-leaning Silicon Valley, combined with his support of online freedoms, although he fails science when it comes to accepting evidence for anthropogenic climate change and evolution.
Romney accepts evolution, accepts at least the phenomenon of climate change, if not the science showing that it is human-caused, and has deeper ties to Silicon Valley. He also has thought extensively about energy, technology and engineering issues to the point that he explicitly favors a federal program for advanced energy research.
All candidates were ranked with up to five stars in three broad categories: "Geekiness" is an evaluation of whether or not the candidate qualifies as a geek. "Associations" encapsulates the degree to which he or she has been attached to causes and people in science and technology. And "policies" sums up the degree to which the candidate engages those subjects in his or her platforms.
Read on for a deep dive into the GOP candidates' personal histories, public statements and policy proposals, which gives a unique window into their understanding of the issues closest to geeks' hearts and of how the universe works.
# 1 - Newt Gingrich
The two things you need to know about Gingrich's geek cred is that one of his nicknames is Newt Skywalker and that he once made the cover of Wired—back in its early, weird days—in a feature written by none other than technology investor and commentator Esther Dyson. Bob Walker, a Gingrich booster and former chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Science (now the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology), said that Gingrich "would probably be the most knowledgeable president on technology issues ever elected."
Calling Gingrich a science-fiction nerd is like saying that vampires have seen a modest resurgence in young adult literature. He has repeatedly expressed that Isaac Asimov's seminal Foundation trilogy (about "psychohistorians" who use mathematical models to predict the future) made a deep impression on him in his youth.
Gingrich has written so much and spoken so often that it is possible to confuse the volume of his pronouncements with their frequency, but some of his ideas appear to come straight from the science fiction he has read. He has proposed using lasers against North Korea, putting mirrors in space to increase agricultural productivity, colonizing the moon, reviving a Star Wars–style orbiting missile defense system and solving climate change through geoengineering. Whereas other candidates wring their hands over the threat of Chinese currency controls, he has warned of the threat to the U.S. of that most science-fictionesque of all weapons, the electromagnetic pulse.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
39 Comments
Add CommentGood Lord in Heaven, or wherever you think he/she/it is located! What planet did these sub-humans, or Neanderthals, come from? You can sum up all the GOP candidates in one short sentence: "Mentally Retarded and Totally Out Of Touch With Reality".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is frightening when a presidential candidate quotes and believes that science fiction, fiction, and cartoons are real and want to implement their fictional technology and psychology into the federal government. Wow! Peter Rabbit and George W. Bush is very proud of every one of these GOP candidates.
How does being a fan of science fiction make someone qualified with regards to Science? Does reading romance novels make one a casanova? Does reading adventure stories make one daring?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't a better way to promote his credentials be his opposition to the cancelling of the SSC in 1992? Here are his words:
"And the truth is we are not really sure what we will find out, because that is part of the genius of
this particular experiment. This is at the absolute frontier of our knowledge of the universe. It is our absolute frontier of our knowledge of physics. But what we do know is that if we walk off from this project leaving it to the Europeans to dominate the outer ridge of science, if we walk away sending a signal to the Japanese that their future is with Germany, Italy, or Switzerland but not with the United States, if we decide that cheap ignorance is better
than an investment in the future of science, then we will have shaped for our children and our grandchildren a real weakness." - 1992 house debate on SSC termination
I find myself less concerned about the vicissitudes of the Republican candidates (who I won't be voting for of course) than the absolute rubbish that science is becoming. We live in a weird time where all the outside criticisms of science are mostly rubbish (climategate, etc.), and yet there is so much wrong in the scientific community we now ignore, I suspect out of fear it might be used against us and also because we're lazy. The commoditization of papers and those nonsense metrics meant to determine "scientific worth". The increasing emphasis on technology as opposed to knowledge. And yes, absolutely illogical and sensationalist or partisan (which I believe this story to be) scientific "news" articles.
Politics at its worst - being "antiscience" and "antilogic" appeals to the voters these people need to become elected. It says more about the state of the voters than the politicians. Either way it's very disheartening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe denies climate change, and is willing to see havoc done to the environment for personal gain. So whatever scientific knowledge he might possess, the value of same doesn't stack up well against the negatives at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe's got a bad character.
I found this article mildly comforting, but find our electoral process discomforting. Being represented by only the rich, the active, the loud, the talented, the organized and the popular does not properly represent the poor who cannot contribute money to a cause, the inactive who do not write to congress, the polite who do not impose, the untalented who cannot articulate quickly, the unorganized who lack amplification and the unpopular who fear condemnation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not think that Ron Paul is for Net Neutrality and Gingrich calls it "government theft".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anyone analyzed Adolph Hitler by the same criteria? Seems like he would score pretty high on "Science-Savvy", too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! I didn't know the comically named "Scientific American" was just another another tentacle of the far let DNC. Pretty sad really.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuntsman tweeted in August, "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." This set him apart from the field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt does seem, however, that he's getting reeled back in: "Because there are questions about the validity of the science, evidenced by [an unnamed] university over in Scotland recently, I think the onus is on the scientific community to provide more in the way of information, to help clarify the [climate change] situation...If there’s some disruption or disconnect in terms of what other scientists have to say, let the debate play out within the scientific community." I'm just curious where exactly he's drawing the line--or, perhaps, where his campaign contributors are drawing the line--between honest differences of opinion and FUD.
I am expecting to live in a NAZI state in 2013.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Has anyone analyzed Adolph Hitler by the same criteria? Seems like he would score pretty high on "Science-Savvy", too."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI especially liked the idea that Hitler may have believed in the hollow earth theory and sent a research vessel to search for an opening in Antarctica. He also supposedly sent an expedition to the Baltic to test if the Earth's surface was actually the interior of a concave sphere by attempting to spy on the British fleet by pointing the telescope toward the sky to look across the expanse of the Atlantic.
If Newt has doubts about Evolution and Man induced Climate change, my vote goes to him. Neither of those two theories have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Evolution is purely observational. No link between species has been found. I might add that Darwin himself had doubts about it. If you care to read 'Origin of the Species' you will discover that over half the work is devoted to an attempt to rationalize the doubts (no data is presented, it's only words). There are several problems with it that Evolutionists turn a blind eye to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd Global Warming theory depends upon flawed computer models that couldn't possibly account for all of the factors that affect climate. For every GW scientist there are a dozen top scientists who are not GWers.
I'm surprised SE has joined the GW band wagon. I would have thought SE would be more skeptical and look more deeply into the problem than it has done.
Reading between the lines on his changing positions on evolution and global warming it is obvious that Gingrich is simply and opportunist. Like most professional politicians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quality content that once could be found gracing the pages of SA is now available exclusively in SA's Briefings e-publications for subscriptions totaling ($19.95 * 5) + $79. This must be the replacement content...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps Lenedwin would be willing to supply the sources and qualifications of those sources for his claims about the "flawed computer models" and number of top scientists that dispute the findings of those scientists that find Global Warming to be an undisputed fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis incessant sowing of doubt by GW deniers using various tactics has been well documented and discredited by James Lawrence in his well documented book THE INQUISITION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE.
"How does being a fan of science fiction make someone qualified with regards to Science?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I would regard it as a far better recommendation than being a fan of mediaeval history, for example. It also implies a certain open-mindedness which I think your Republican candidates generally fall down on big-time - unless, of course, they're exclusively Robert A Heinlein fans.
But seriously, and for your immediate and our indirect sakes, I hope you don't get one of your Tea Party loonies in the White House!
@Lenedwin: I am sorry, that is simply rubbish - all of it! Evolution "a" theory? Nonsense! It is a fact, which more than one theory attempt to explain - very well indeed, for the most part.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists? You mean mainstream scientists generally, and biological scientists in particular? There is NOTHING controversial about evolution in modern science; it is regarded like gravity - something that works, while folk go on debating the finer points about exactly how.
As for anthropomorphic climate change - "For every GW scientist there are a dozen top scientists who are not GWers" - unmitigated balderdash, for want of a stronger word! Tell me, do you READ the magazine on whose site you are posting? Because it obviously hasn't done you very much good!
Thank you, BcdErick , for demonstrating a huge problem with American politics: simply telling the truth about a politician's position is portrayed as partisan and negative. How can telling us that some candidates reject well-established science be labeled as "another tentacle of the far let [sic] DNC"? The article does not tell anyone who to vote for. Perhaps you as a voter do not want a "geek" as President. Perhaps you want a President who denies the reality of evolution or climate change. The only way you can view this as "partisan" is if you accept the reality of evolution and climate change but do not want the candidates' position on those subjects known. But promoting ignorance is against what being "scientific", whether "American" or otherwise, is all about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisanyone who does not accept the scientific fact of evolution is, in my opinion, intellectually unfit to hold a high public office of any kind. the evidence for biological evolution is so overwhelming that it is not a debatable point (the only thing that is debatable are the mechanisms involved). anyone who doubts the fact of evolution is either intellectually lazy (has not examined the evidence), or is too intellectually stunted by their religious beliefs to be taken seriously. the latter type of people are dangerous because they demonstrate that their religious beliefs will take precedence over uncomfortable facts. the former type of people are dangerous because they are willing to form strong opinions based on insufficient or bad information. in either case, none of the candidates in the republican field are worthy of being mayor of wasilla let alone president of the united states. christina knight
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have seen new species form in the lab and in the wild -- in real time. What is more, portions of the fossil record are fine enough to record speciation. In fact, there are examples in the fossil record of transitions from species to species to species etc. leading to new genera, families, orders, and even new classes. (Mammals and birds are examples of a taxonomic "class".)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you follow the link, Gingerich claims cockroaches "stopped evolving". That is incorrect. The species that exist now are not the ones that existed tens of millions of years ago. However, what Gingerich displays is an ignorance of natural selection. Natural selection comes in 3 forms: directional, stabilizing, and disruptive. We tend to think only about directional, which causes changes within a species and from one species to another. However, once a species is well-adapted to a niche, then any changes will make it LESS adapted and be discarded. In those situations, stabilizing selection acts to keep a species the same.
Correction. In my comment I refer to SE I meant SA (Scientific American).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne can find numerous sources denying GW on the internet. Admittedly not all have data that would stand up to scientific scrutiny but some do. And there are enough of them to balance the for and against and probably enough to tip the balance in favour of against.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2 sources I found convincing
1)The work of Dr. Bob Carter of James Cook Uni in Australia. Dr.Carter is a 'hands on' researcher who has studied climate change over the past several thousands of years based on core sample evidence.
2)A documentary by Martin Durkin called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.
Another source 'Global Warming. Another look at the numbers' shows that if Water Vapor is included (which has a much greater effect than CO2) then the Human contribution is infinitismal (0.38%). However, I understand that the IPCC 'model' does not include water vapor !!.
And the Godwin award goes to......!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to make one requirement:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order to be a candidate for President of the United States, he or she must submit a copy of the science classes attended and the grades he or she received. This includes all education levels).
I want to make one challenge:
The United States of America needs women with gumption to come forward and run for the Office of President of the United States.
I want to ask one question:
Why do we let Iowa decide who we are going to vote for?
This is exactly the kind of "cutting edge" political commentary that made me cancel my subscription back in the Eighties. Sad to see how much things haven't changed since then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question is not whether global warming exists (likely, we are in a warm-trending interglacial period) or even whether mankind's CO2 contribution is a significant factor in any warming (possible, but totally unproven), but whether draconian statist wealth-redistribution schemes run by unaccountable bureaucracies is the solution to an undemonstrated problem. To call people who question the need to put posturing hypocrites like Al Gore in charge of the world economy "deniers" is ideological ad hominem, not true science in any sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbcdErick, could not agree more with you. How sad to see a once great SCIENTIFIC journal reduced to the DNC's mouth piece.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGosh. So *those* are GOP candidates? Most of them scientifically illiterate (and this is a polite way of saying it). Wow. Poor United States.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(now that I think of it, I'm not sure our Swiss politicians are a lot more scientifically literate; actually, I fear they are not. But at least evolution and global warming are not an issue here)
I agree that wealth-redistribution schemes are probably not a good solution. But playing down the role of mankind in global warming (hey, CO2 levels, ever heard about them?), even if it is not proven, is even less a solution. Let's try to think instead about intelligent solutions to a possibly real threat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment implies that we don't already have a system of "draconian wealth redistribution" or that the world's economy isn't already in the control of "unaccountable bureaucracies."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have seen in our lifetime the single greatest redistribution of income in history, from the poor and middle class to the richest 1% that make up the new American aristocracy. Our government is completely in the control of corporations (which are now considered people in our country) and the uber-wealthy.
It is only called class warfare and income redistribution when someone has the temerity to point this out.
Is there some reason why attitudes towards science and technology are so overwhelmingly important that no consideration whatsoever need be given to these candidates views on fundamental human rights? Some of these candidates have gone so far as to oppose abortion in cases of rape and to speak of gays as subhuman animals. Is Scientific American so blinkered that it thinks net neutrality is more important than fundamental human rights?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, Gov. Jon Huntsman is the winner. He acknowledges mankind's role in climate change and has served as a chief executive with his family's cancer foundation in Utah. He also recognizes that the US is falling far behind China in terms of science education and seems to correct this. Quite honestly, he is far superior to Obama as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the subject of evolution of man, I have only one comment. The cavemen came after the flood. It is obvious that if people had to stay alive on a boat for 1 year, they would come out of it without the technology they left behind to a world where they had to start over without electricity and everything they took for granted in their former world. They probably had a similar world to the one we have today. Pull the plug, take away the ready-mades and what would our world be like today?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. Could the liberal orthodoxy of this article be any worse? Talking about candidates "accepting the science showing human causes of climate change"? This is supposed to be "Scientific" American? One doesn't a priori accept a conclusion in science. There is plenty of research that casts doubt on anthropogenic causes for global warming: solar activity, cosmic rays affecting cloud cover, the fact that the medieval warm period wasn't associated with any increase in CO2. If there is any party that is anti-science, it is the Democrat party since they have a litmus test for their candidates. That is profoundly anti-science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul is a physician, an obstetrician; he passed courses in physics, physical chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, biostatistics, physiology, cytology, histology, anatomy, pathology, pharmacology, etd., and he rotated through every clinical course (from surgery to psychiatry) that medical schools and post-m.d. internships and residencies require. It's hard to beat 8 to 10 years of post-graduate education for geekiness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe commentator, "poihths" is appalled that Santorum and others "oppose abortions in cases of rape." We don't kill the rapist; why kill the innocent unborn child? The fact is that many scientists and physicians understand that an individual human life grows inside a pregnant woman's womb and many would restrict abortions to cases where the mother's life was threatened, or where it was impossible to save both lives. Moreover, I've read and heard the testimony of rape victims who bravely have carried to term and raised their offspring and who have thanked God that they did. I've heard their offspring, ex., a beautiful young wooman on television, thank their mothers for their courage. On another note, there is no contradiction in favoring human rights for all, but opposing special rights for some. Many rational scientists, even many geeks, oppose such avant garde social engineering programs as homosexual marriage and affirmative action. But I do agree with "poihths", that treating any group of human beings as "subhumans" should be condemned. Are the unborn human beings or "subhuman"?oo?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou all make me sick. The topic was about the possibility of having a base on the moon by the end of this century. We should not only build a base on the moon but mine helium-3. It can easily be extracted on the moon. It is estimated that the amount of helium-3 that would be put in about the size of a space shuttle one trip. Could be enough fuel the Entire United States for one year, with free cheaper energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur future depends on our getting resources from space. All our resorces on earth came from space. Millions of years ago asteroids bombarded everything we have ever mined on earth.
After we set up a moon base h-3 mine we will build a fuel station and a Giant plat-form in earths orbit that will be needed to build the ship that is capable to take us to MARS.
But forget about Mars we need to go to the nearest earth asteroids and mine them, next. One asteroid is estimated to having more natural resorses than ever mined on earth.
So please get back on track. Make this scientific ameerican more ....LETS SAY scientific and not political.
They said science non-fiction and not fiction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, denying evolution is disputing way too much evidence but he is correct that AGW is just made up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this