nancyh: I hope Obama will be good for science. Reading through his proposals so far, aside from non-specific promises to increase funding for NSF, DoE, and NIH (same as McCain), his most specific policy (also like McCain) is to make the R&D tax credit permanent. They both wax philosophic on the issue...though I'd argue McCain's statements belie his true feelings about scientific research. Neither one seems to understand the complex interplay btwn basic research (often done at universities), early development and proof-of-concept (often done at institutions like national labs, NIH labs etc), and private R&D which is really D to deployment. I obviously don't know for sure, but I know a fair bit about scientific funding and how politicians fundamentally misunderstand our nations' research complex.

orangeone:

Are you physicist? I'm asking not to be rude but b/c I'm not entirely sure how to interpret your statement. It's difficult to disagree with facts, but most experimental results are subject to interpretation. That's why it's called the Discussion section. This is partially b/c the experimental design and data collection introduce all kinds of uncertainties and biases. It's also b/c how a particular observed behavior fits into the framework of a theory is usually unclear. For example, if we assume spiral galaxies are gravitationally bound and stable, we see that stars and gas in the outer parts of is orbiting around the center faster than can be explained by the amount of matter we know about. Does that mean our theory of gravity is wrong? Or that there's extra matter we don't know about? After several decades of discourse and thousands of papers positing many different possibilities, the majority of the scientific community tends toward the latter. But there's no definitive proof. And listening to the people who continue to hold that we need a modified theory of gravity is important. Even if they're wrong, it's a reminder that we don't really know the answer. And there's value in hearing their counter arguments b/c it can reveal faults in the "consensus" view. This is why I shudder when politicians co-opt scientific theories and reduce them to sound bites...they simply cannot disclose the complexity and nuance that deeply understanding most of modern science requires.