Ok, now ‘the people have spoken’, and what does it mean for science? This is a good article about a couple of the key committee chairs that will likely change and their potential impacts to items such as NASA and supporting new technologies like alternate fuels and effects of global warming.
I’m not going to get into who I’d like to see chairing the committees or whether I agree with their scientific opinions. But I am going to comment on how varied their opinions are. In my opinion, it is sad how funding for such key technologies can come and go depending on who wins the elections.
I have a problem because I think some of our congressmen are ignorant. I find it humorous that politician A believes strongly in a scientific principle and when the other party wins that principal is put aside and the money is used for something else. Let’s face it one of them is surely lacking on scientific knowledge. I’d hate to believe that their scientific knowledge is ‘influenced’ by their campaign funding source. After all just because they spend 60-70% of their time asking their key supporters for money doesn’t imply that they are influenced by who pays their bills.
All of this said, apparently my frustrations on the up and downs of funding science is really a complaint about how our political campaigns are funded. The recent Supreme Court ‘Citizen’s United’ case that recognized corporations as political entities, also allowed for un-named people to spend tons of money influencing campaigns. That decision only reinforces my belief that those rich people don’t have any effect on our political decisions.