Charles Darwin has again spoken from the grave. In February I reported how Darwin endorsed Obama in the primary against Hilary Clinton (The Tree of Life: Charles Darwin Endorses Obama as the “Natural Selection”) (note – his candidacy took off immediately after the 2/5 endorsement). And Darwin is getting in his own November surprise for the election tomorrow. Darwin spoke through a variety of media (I am using this term in reference to the plural of medium – people who speak to the dead .. but I am not sure whether media or mediums is the plural) and said
“This one is such a complete no brainer. Obama is so far and away the fitter candidate. Plus if Palin and McCain do not believe in my greatest work, well they can …” (we cannot print the rest)
So there it is. Of course, most living well known scientists who have made public statements also endorse Obama, but getting Darwin’s support is an extra feather in his cap.
Wow. Again, wow. Genome Technology Magazine has dedicated in essence an entire issue to Open Access and they have a whole series on interesting things to say about it. In addition they are making the issue available under a Creative Commons License so everyone can check it out. Among the articles are:
Nature has an editorial (America’s choice : Article : Nature) on the US Presidential Election that is worth looking at. For those interested in the Cliff Notes Version they end the piece with
“This journal does not have a vote, and does not claim any particular standing from which to instruct those who do. But if it did, it would cast its vote for Barack Obama.”
For more detail, I think the key point is here:
On a range of topics, science included, Obama has surrounded himself with a wider and more able cadre of advisers than McCain. This is not a panacea. Some of the policies Obama supports — continued subsidies for corn ethanol, for example — seem misguided. The advice of experts is all the more valuable when it is diverse: ‘groupthink’ is a problem in any job. Obama seems to understands this. He tends to seek a range of opinions and analyses to ensure that his own opinion, when reached, has been well considered and exposed to alternatives. He also exhibits pragmatism — for example in his proposals for health-care reform — that suggests a keen sense for the tests reality can bring to bear on policy.
They basically reiterate my concern for the McCain-Palin platform regarding science but they do not really go far enough. McCain and Palin have expressed decidedly anti-science positions recently (well, Palin has expressed them previously too). And thus it is not simply what advisors they surround themselves with but whether they would listen to any of them. Sadly the hints are that McCain and Palin will not listen to scientific advisors on many issues. Obama has made it clear that he will. Not that he puts science above all else (nor should he) But at least he will listen and make rational decisions that include science as a component. McCain and Palin seem dead set against “evidence” of any kind much of the time (note – McCain still exhibits occasional glimpses of the reasonable person he used to be on some issues like Global Warming – but these are few and far between).
Hat tip to Oliver M. for sending this around …
Just a quick one here. All those interested in Open Access should look at this editorial on PLoS Biology from the PLoS Biology staff PLoS Biology – PLoS Biology at 5: The Future Is Open Access
So – I was having breakfast with my daughter this morning and she was in a funky mood. She wanted some stories so to make life easy and not get up, I opened up the only thing near the table to read – a copy of Nature Biotechnology that I received for free in the mail (not sure why) – and was going to show her some pictures of things. And there was a review of my friend and colleague Pam Ronald’s book “Tomorrow’ Table.” And so I told my daughter that this was a story about a book by my friend Pam and reminded her about how we had gone over to Pam’s house and how she worked in the office next to mine. And then I asked my daughter if she wanted to see Pam’s book, which I had in the office and she said yes. And so I got the book and then we told stories about Pam. So – here in living color is a picture of my daughter and Tomorrow’s Table the book and the review of Tomorrow’s Table on my table, today.
Just got some links to a collection on outdoor art in Davis from people at DavisLife magazine.
Sarah Palin today has followed up her attack on fruit fly research by condemning much of the NIH Budget and a variety of other scientific earmarks. At a town hall meeting yesterday while campaigning in Guam, Palin said
“We asked federal agencies to give us a summary of key words relating to research projects and we found an enormous number of them focused on homosapiens. I kid you not.”
“You probably are a homosapiens no? Or have many friends that are? What we need to do is spend money on helping people change and not on studying these homosapiens”
I generally shy away from non sciency topics here but occasionally a few slip in. And as I was filling out my absentee ballot I just felt I had to post something about California’s horrendous Anti-Gay-Marriage Proposition 8. Originally, I was going to post a picture of my no vote on my absentee ballot but then I read this New York Times article about how many states have laws that say something like
“No person shall photograph, videotape, or otherwise record the image of a voted official ballot for any purpose not otherwise permitted under law.”
So instead of a picture I am going to simply put words here. And since a picture is worth 1000 words, here are mine.
No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8.
Jonathan Eisen's Lab 