Subscription Center
This primary season quiz tests your knowledge of the hopefuls' notable quotables on stem cells, evolution, climate change, the Internet and more
| January 31, 2012 | 12
See what we're tweeting about
scicurious Should neuro-products be regulated? http://t.co/mxHp2j7pym
DrJudyStone Sick: #Anti-abortion leader compares #rape to car accidents--women should buy extra insurance to cover cost http://t.co/pKJIs4ZUte DrJudyStone Pope Francis: "To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy.” http://t.co/AAMuFFNrrn
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
12 Comments
Add CommentI'm guessin' Santorum for 4,6,8,9.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul for 1,5,7. (Has to be 7 because he mentions his medical background).
Romney for 10.
Gingrich for 2 and 3.
I got a 4/10 not too great- (not that I've been following the politics that closely)- but it says the average is 0/10.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMust be faulty code SciAm is using. Even if people did completely random picks it should average 2/10. Do not believe the 0/10 average unless I'm the first to hit submit.
Neither one is the true author; they are all quoting from someone else and they do not understand a word they are saying. ...Republicans hate science and clean energy...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamesDavis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRepublicans hate people who use false science to control the lives of others.
Yes ... it is true that all conservatives hate science and are only trying to make themselves rich at the expense of the less well off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course there is no possible way that a conservative might actually have both a grasp of science and be socially/fiscally conservative.
Just more propaganda designed to turn people against the red side of the aisle rather than running on the strength of your own accomplishments.
We may all be better off if our elected officials did the few simple things that they are mandated to do and left the rest of the decisions to us. I know this is a crazy thought but oh well.
The comments aren't all that surprising, they are politicians after all. There are a few politicians who are properly informed on science but they seem to be a rare breed. I especially liked Romney's howler "I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this8/10 WOOHOO! Top 99.7 percentile...or is it 0.3 percentile...whatever. The fact remains that the Republican Party suffers from Anti-Science Syndrome. How come SciAm showed Romney's first waffling comment on climate change but then they failed to mention his later comments when he walked back everything he had said on climate change?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess when Rush Limbaugh said "Bye Bye Nomination!" when Romney acknowledged the scientific reality of human-caused climate change, his pollsters knew he had to change positions on this issue...fast! This is nothing new to Romney and he's had plenty of practice changing his positions on abortion, cap-and-trade, firearms, immigration and a whole host of other issues when it was convenient for him.
In a related note, it's troubling how un-elected entertainers like Limbaugh and Grover Norquist have such a profound influence on GOP policy. At least all the lefty media personalities are somewhat disappointed with how conservative President Obama has turned out to be. The Democratic Party has moved to the right and the Republican Party as moved off a cliff!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe we should play the same game with Obama?
Who said Hope and Change and delivered neither?
Who said "Here's another 500 million for Green jobs"
And delivered none, but lost all the money.
Who said "I will close Gitmo".
And it's still open?
Who said "sorry" to Iran?
The blatant political pandering inherent in Scientific American makes their reporting of anything faintly political tainted.
The Editors need to grow up a bit.
Which president was stonewalled by the most partisan and childish Congress in generations? Which president was handed an economy hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month and has turned the economy around and now it has produced 24 consecutive months of private-sector job growth? Which president was handed a monstrous structural deficit caused by profligate defense spending, irresponsible tax cuts for people that don't need them that also do very little to stimulate the economy, and giveaways to the pharmaceutical industry? Which president suffered a groundswell of opposition merely because of his skin color? Which president has been caricatured as a witch doctor, Hitler, Stalin and an UnAmerican "Other" that has no right to do his job because of silly conspiracy theories concerning his birth certificate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the face of all this, the Stimulus added over 2,000,000 jobs and ended the recession within a year of its passage. Osama bin Laden is no more, along with Kadaffi, Mubarak and a whole host of Al Queda wannabees. GM and Chrysler are back to profitability and American manufacturing is growing. Oil and gas production is growing, despite what you hear in the right wing propaganda.
We have plenty of people out of work and plenty of infrastructure that needs rebuilding. What's so hard about spending money now, when the government can borrow at rates BELOW INFLATION (meaning we MAKE money by borrowing right now!) to put people to work, revitalize our economy and build lasting prosperity just like we did to get out of the Great Depression? We can end Afghanistan soon and downsize a lot of our overseas bases. We can restore the top tax brackets to what they were in the ROARING 90s or even the %50 rate seen in those commie Reagan years! How about we treat ALL income equally and stop giving capital gains special treatment? Why do rich investors need to pay lower taxes than their secretaries? Finally, lets make polluting industries either pay the FULL costs that their waste imposes on society or lets at least make them install the best pollution control equipment possible...
I swear, it's like a who's who of who can say the dumbest things, scientifically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin, you attempted tangent is incredibly transparent. Obama's statements have nothing to do with scientific comprehension.
"Yes ... it is true that all conservatives hate science and are only trying to make themselves rich at the expense of the less well off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course there is no possible way that a conservative might actually have both a grasp of science and be socially/fiscally conservative."
Evosburg, how many Democrats are running around, denying evolution and climate change, or tossing around the words "geoengineering" without even bothering to read the research on the topic, or perpetuating "human life begins at conception" nonsense, or turn their nose up at the entire ecological branch of sciences?
How many sources on the left are engaged in an ideological war on science and professionalism, who don't skip a beat accusing ALL scientists in entire fields of science of being corrupt, and toss around words like "scientism", and imply that all people are "family values" and folksy "common sense" to get by?
Of course, these are also the same people who don't apply the most basic scientific reasoning to their economic positions, perpetuating hypotheses that have never once predicted a single behavior of economics in 100 years of trying, while snubbing well-demonstrated models that have fit the evidence and been predictive for decades.
It's no wonder only 6% of US scientists are Republicans.
Maybe there are areas where Republicans have legitimate points in politics, or maybe there aren't; I'm not going to make judgements of that here, but both the grasp of and regard for science demonstrated by these people is atrocious.
Your racist comments astound me. The fact that the President is caucasian is irrelevant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this