August 28th, 2007
12:30 PM ET
9 years ago

GOP candidate: Science war is a myth

Brownback spoke at Armstrong's cancer forum Tuesday.

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (CNN) - Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback said Tuesday that, contrary to what Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton claims, there is no war on science being waged by the Bush administration.

"I absolutely disagree," the Kansas senator said. "That is not taking place."

Speaking at Lance Armstrong's LIVESTRONG Presidential Cancer Forum in Cedar Rapids, Brownback pledged he would "actively fund science."

Brownback went on to say that he "believes in" stem cell research, but that he does not "believe you should kill a young life to do this... I believe all life is sacred."

The Kansas senator's comments came in response to what happened Monday at the Democratic forum, when Sen. Hillary Clinton said President Bush is at the helm of what a "war against science."

"What really bothers me," Clinton said, "is that we are on the brink of so many medical breakthroughs right now [and] the current administration has literally called a halt to the war with cancer."

- CNN Iowa Producer Chris Welch

Filed under: Iowa • Sam Brownback
soundoff (53 Responses)
  1. David, Salinas, CA

    Chip –

    As I’m sure you are well aware, there have been no major changes in the solar system in the past decade. The system is in motion, as is the consensus of scientific thought. Astronomers changed their definition of the term planet, not their concept of how the system works. You’re right to note that science is constantly updated to match new discoveries and current data. That’s one of the things that distinguishes it from religion.

    But some things in science are well-established, and there is no scientific movement to deny evolution or set the age of the earth at 6000 years. It is the attempts by Republican lawmakers to try to limit scientific inquiry by imposing their religious beliefs (or corporate justifications for polluting) on scientific research that is at the center of this debate.

    You are continuing to be part of the problem.

    August 30, 2007 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  2. SD, Cleveland, OH

    Chip writes: And just how many planets are in our solar system, the same as we thought 10 years ago?
    That seemed to be supported by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community, seems there's been a little backtracking on that one.

    You're comparing apples to oranges. New objects are contantly being found in the universe including our own solar system. The change in the number of planets is due to new discoveries and a new classification system. Scientists easily could have claimed that there are still 9 planets in the solar system just the same as many religious people still deny evolution.

    But scientists took new discoveries into account and made judgments based on new facts.

    Those who use religion to defend their position ignore or argue against new facts or discoveries so that their views won't have to change.

    Adaptability vs rigidity. That's the difference.

    August 30, 2007 10:38 am at 10:38 am |
  3. Chip Celina OH

    David, SD

    My last post on this.

    You are continuing to be part of the problem.

    My original post on this thread called into account another poster's use of the word "factual" in bold for all to see.

    Did you disagree that half-life calculations are short-term spectral observations for which extrapolations are made? Thereby, basing the 'factual' answers on an assumption. No doubt a well formed hypothesis, but not verified by empirical evidence. Your quote "approximate 4.54 billion year age is now part of the standard scientific model." Is true, no argument here, but two terms you use, approximate and model, refute the term "FACTUAL" which I tried to address in my original post.

    In seimology we use tons of velocity models to compute travel-times. These models are under constant revision. Always looking for a better way or more accurate representation. Some models give better results regionally, some teleseismically, some are better for P phases, some for S, separate models are used for surface waves and there are multiple methods for their formulation.

    I am well aware (as you note) that new discoveries are being made daily that reshape our thinking. So, to make the statement that the final answer is ...
    is irresponsible.

    To say that since we have a new definition we can change the number of objects we call planets, but that other areas (e.g. age of Earth) are not open revision based on additional information we not only limit ourselves, it's disingenuous.

    I will concede the point that the debate on this thread is about funding that is clouded by political beliefs and I strayed from that point.

    Have a good day,


    August 31, 2007 11:49 am at 11:49 am |
1 2 3