I am a scientist.

I am a scientist specifically because I value an objective view of the universe and I like understanding how things work. Science, by collecting observational evidence and conducting experiments, arrives at an objective description of reality. It describes the world as it is, rather than as we might want it to be. It is self-checking and self-policing; these built-in error-correcting mechanisms prevent personal bias from affecting our understanding.

The self-refereed nature of science also prevents it from straying into regimes for which there are insufficient observational resources to form a tentative conclusion. Scientists are free to hypothesize, but the value of science lies in the fact that the theories of the scientific canon fit all of the presently available data.

In a world of limited information and limited perceptual capability, the scientific canon is the current best estimate at a description of physical reality. To dispute the scientific canon without offering a reproducible counterexample is to diverge from reality.

I am not a politician.

I will never be a politician for many reasons. Most importantly, the art of governance requires making decisions based entirely on personal bias. Politicians are forced to deal with conflicting values, compromise, and negotiation. Often the government is required to take a stand on an issue for which there is no objective view. They are therefore guaranteed of a subjective result, and the ramifications of that result are projected onto a populace, many of whom will not share the government’s subjective view. Of course I have no solution to this problem, but the idea of making such decisions leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

There is an intersection, however, between government and science. Often the issues confronting the government are not merely sociological but are also driven by physical or even mathematical concerns. Consider House Bill #246 of the Indiana State Legislature, which (among other amazing feats) mandated the value of Pi! In fact, the bill implied four different values for Pi, all of which were incorrect (one as high as 9.24!!).

Obviously, this is an extreme case, but it illustrates two things. First, it shows us that there are cases in which the rule of law can intrude upon the turf of science. Second, it demonstrates rather dramatically that contradicting science can be foolish.

The President of the United States has a science advisor for exactly this reason. His or her job is to keep the president informed of scientific intersections with current policy, and abreast of the facts related to the issues at hand. The president is then required to work within the confines of these facts and proceed through the grey areas of executing public policy.

Perhaps using the word “required” is going a bit far. The president would be strongly advised to face the scientific facts that relate to any given issue when making decisions. Unfortunately, these facts may lead to conclusions that are not in line with the stated position of the administration, and furthermore may clearly illustrate mistakes made by the administration.

The scientific thing to do in such a situation would be to update your position to reflect the facts. It’s called revision and it happens all the time in science. New evidence is made available, a theory is contradicted and therefore rescinded. New hypotheses are made, experiments undertaken, and eventually new theories are developed that fit within the confines of the evidence at hand.

A classic example is Newton’s laws of motion. Scientists were so confident in this theory that they had gotten into the habit of referring to it as a “law.” The theory stood for centuries until the dawn of quantum mechanics, when people began to find experimental results that seemed to violate Newton’s laws. A major paradigm shift was required to incorporate quantum mechanics into modern science. I consider the incorporation of quantum mechanics into the scientific canon to be one of the crowning achievements of modern science. It showed an incredible ability to overcome personal intuition and bias, as well as admitting that it was incomplete and not wholly accurate.

Now, let’s turn to an examination of the current president of the United States and his administration. George W. Bush has had to make a lot of decisions on politically charged topics for which there are considerable scientific intersections. Notable examples include stem cell research, environmental protection, and reproductive health. Throughout his four years as president, Bush’s policy decisions have never strayed from his religiously motivated ideology, even in the face of contradictory scientific evidence. Here is a poignant example:

Last December, a panel of 28 non-partisan medical experts was assembled to make a recommendation to the FDA about the medical safety of a drug. They declared unanimously that a drug was medically safe for over-the-counter sales. Normally, the FDA would then immediately approve it for use in the general public. However, after pressure from the White House, the FDA declined to approve the drug, citing inadequate data for girls between the ages of 11-14. This declaration went against the recommendation of the FDA’s own panel of experts and seemed rather odd, until you take into account the fact that the drug was Plan B, a morning-after contraceptive pill.

The conclusion of the FDA was not that the drug was insufficiently ethical for sales over the counter, but that its medical safety data was inadequate. The basis for this statement was not the scientists who had been hired to make exactly that determination, but an ethical protest from the Bush administration. To put it simply, the Bush administration leveraged their personal bias against scientific understanding and the FDA caved. The root of this problem goes all the way to the highest level of our government and was well summarized by Ron Suskind in his New York Times article, “Without a Doubt.”

George Bush has a policy of infallibility.

Open dialogue with the goal of determining the facts is not seen as valuable. Bush boasts of his ability to govern via intuition and faith. Those who disagree with him are politely handed their hats.

As far as I can tell, Bush is a pure ideologue. Nevermind that I disagree with the bulk of his ideals, but his demagoguery flies in the face of established fact and he is OK with that. His routine is to act impulsively and then attempt to change the state of the union such that the decision appears to have been a good one. This is, of course, not a particularly wise way to conduct one’s affairs.

Anyone who is willing to contradict the scientific apparatus based solely on their personal faith has no business imposing rules and regulations on the people of this country. I demand that my leaders work within the confines of reality.

I recognize that much of the job of president involves making decisions for which there is no one “right” answer, and there may be cases in which a mistake is made due to an incomplete grasp of the facts. However, the current administration will not admit to their mistakes and work to make amends. Furthermore, they are openly flaunting their disdain for science and scientific reasoning.

George W. Bush will not be receiving my vote.

It goes beyond my simply not voting for Bush. I believe that his decision-making methodology is dangerous to the United States of America and therefore his position as President is harmful to our way of life. For this reason I will do what I can to prevent him from retaining his office. Not voting for Bush is a start, but voting for his rival is twice as powerful. Voting for anyone other than Bush and Kerry is functionally equivalent to not voting at all with regards to getting Bush out of office. This is the primary reason why I am voting for John Kerry.

I consider myself a political moderate with liberal tendencies. I believe in increased taxes, increased spending for the common man, and a utilitarian approach to governance. However, I break with the left wing on certain issues, namely nuclear energy and military R&D. There are policies drawn out on Kerry’s website that I take significant exception to, and I do not believe that he is much of a representative for me.

In this representative democracy, I have always taken the stand that I will vote when I find someone who I feel comfortable voting for. I’ve been looking for someone who does a reasonable job of representing me within our government. However, because I am so distant from the Average American, a candidate would be foolish to take my position and still think they could win. You don’t see a lot of atheist, pro-environment, pro-nuclear power guys running (why this is is a subject for a later discussion). This is why I have never cast my ballot in an election before.

So here I am with two candidates, neither one of which I feel represents me to any reasonable degree. Normally, I find the “lesser of two evils” approach to voting to be rather repellant. However, in this case, where I believe there is a significant difference in the magnitude of the evil between the two, my disagreements with Kerry disappear into the noise when compared with my deep vitriol towards Bush’s mental processes. My disdain for Bush is sufficient to overcome my distaste for the lesser of two evils approach.

It is interesting to point out that by voting for Kerry, I am voting for a candidate who has a stated position of canceling existing nuclear weapon R&D funding. That is my job. I am voting for a candidate who is very likely to indirectly cause the removal of significant funding from my group at the lab. Many of my coworkers are voting for Bush simply on the grounds that without his support the nuclear weapons industry may be left in a shambles. I agree that this may be the case, and I believe in and support the nuclear deterrent of this country. However, I believe that the danger posed by another Bush presidency is greater than whatever damage might be caused by a depletion of the scientific knowledge base of our nuclear weapons complex. Currently, our enemies – many of which were created as a result of Bush’s decisions – are not affected by the existence of our nuclear deterrent. We have more pressing needs.

Obviously, I am not voting for the president who will give me the best short-term benefits with regards to my job, the lowest taxes, etc. I am not voting selfishly. I am putting my current job at risk for the future of my country and I urge others in the weapons complex to do likewise. I’m afraid of what another four years of George W. Bush could mean for the long-term future of the United States. When it comes to credibility, we can only do better.

If Bush is re-elected, I will be ashamed of this country. As it is, I’m ashamed to associate myself with a country in which half the people support this man. I fundamentally do not understand this position and am offended by it.

Canada looks better every day.