Scientists and Engineers for Change

Pharyngula posted about a new independent political organization: Scientists and Engineers for Change (Chris Mooney has a good summary of the group's founding press conference).

I really like this group.

What they're doing, functionally, is saying, "Let's forget about Iraq, terrorists, and what each candidate did in the 1970's; let's just look at science and engineering issues." And, looking at these issues, they conclude that Bush has been a disaster.

Doing science and training scientists is expensive, and with the ever-growing number of questions to address (nanotech, stem cells, genomic sequencing, computer science algorithms, etc.) we need enhanced funding to explore all of them. But that's not what the Bush administration is planning:

"Over the next five years the [Bush] administration plans to cut research in the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, NASA, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, and USDA." (link)

Thus, if you care about science and technological progress, and you want America to retain its position as one of the technological and scientific leaders of the world, then George Bush is not the man for the job. In my opinion the lack of scientific stewardship by Bush is enough, on its own, to eliminate him as a potential president, but even if you disagree with me on that, at least keep the scientific and technological positions of each candidate in mind as you make your own choice.