Although it does not really surprise me that normally college students are more open minded than some of us older folk that are set in our ways.

The link was too long to fit in the link box.


http://www.thenews.org/news/2004/04/30/News/Harvard.Study.Reveals.Student.Support.For.Kerry-675655.shtml

Interestingly enough, Harvard University comes in as the 2nd highest corporate "donor" to the Kerry campaign, with approximately ~$250K if I remember correctly. First on the list was the University of California with ~$400K.

Of course, the schools themselves weren't making these donations, it was instead individual faculty and administrators. Despite the fact that university faculty trend liberal, donations at this level are extraordinary, and no doubt reflect the fears that many academic scientists are expressing for a second George W. administration.

George W.'s opposition to stem-cell research is one obvious manifestation of neocon politicalization of science and scientific issues. But in many ways, it reaches much further than any single issue. Prospective members of peer-review groups at the NIH (i.e., the groups that award funding to meritorious grants) have been queried as to whether they "supported" or "voted" for George W. Funds for basic research at the NIH have been diverted into "DARPA" (i.e., defense) projects. Although some of this diverted research may be useful, much is like the 'pork-barrel" contracts awarded to favored private businesses. Already, funding levels for new NIH grants has reached the 10% level (i.e., only 10% of new proposals are funded). These rates are too low to sustain the development of new investigators.

Scientific American recently discussed the rise in the U.S. of a new "Lysenkoism", a reference to Stalin's favorite geneticist, Trofim Lysenko, who believed that evolution occurs because organisms can inherit traits which have been acquired by their ancestors. This diversion set back Russian genetics and biology research an entire generation.

One of the few bright spots in the U.S. has been our lead in sciences, particularly biology and biotechnology. A second George W. administration seriously threatens that preeminence.

-- Modified on 8/25/2004 3:59:29 PM

Thank you for such an articulate and enlightening post. I know in my town there are many Professors living here, and a look at the campaign donors proves what you say to be 100% correct.

Since academic medical researchers depend on grants from the Federal government to do their work, it is a real sign of desperation for them to donate to Kerry. After all, they do their research under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and it is traditionally viewed as akin to professional suicide to align yourself too publically with one or the other.

The fact that so many are willing to take this risk now is telling.

For those interested, below is a website devoted to an interview with John Rennie, the Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American magazine discussing Lysenko and George Bush's brand of science policy-making.

Your argument makes good sense and once points to Kerry's main appeal to voters is that he isn't Bush.

are old and liberal you have no brain."

bubble shielded from the real world, tend liberal.  Surprising indeed.

depending on department.  Those in Academia are usually liberal and so the anti-Bush feelings are to be expected (I for one adore him so).