« Just Vote. You'll Feel Better, I Promise. | Main | Gordon Smith's phony opposition to Iraq War »

October 25, 2008

Palin's anti-science rhetoric underscores her ignorance

Paul Myers, writing on his science blog Pharyngula, roasted Sarah Palin yesterday for exhibiting a profound ignorance of basic science as she ranted her way through a policy speech. Her ignorance is one thing. But when she uses her own ignorance as the very basis for why her policy stance ought to be followed then she goes far too far.

Myers has the video clip on his blog as well as the text of what she said. I'll use the later.

Sarah Palin: Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You've heard about some of these pet projects they really don't make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

WTF?

Myers, a biologist and associate professor at University of Minnesota-Morris is flabbergasted.

PZ Myers: I am appalled.

This idiot woman, this blind, shortsighted ignoramus, this pretentious clod, mocks basic research and the international research community. You damn well better believe that there is research going on in animal models — what does she expect, that scientists should mutagenize human mothers and chop up baby brains for this work? — and countries like France and Germany and England and Canada and China and India and others are all respected participants in these efforts.

Myers is 100% right. The alternative to using animal models would be to follow in the footsteps of the insane Nazis and use humans. Would Palin prefer that? I seriously doubt that she would. But she's running for Veep of the most powerful nation on the planet and would, if she gets her wish, literally be a 72 year-old heartbeat away from the presidency. The onus is squarely upon her and her alone to comprehend at least the effing basics of what she's giving a gawd damn POLICY speech on.

Palin wasn't ranting against stem cell research or something like that where there's an ethical debate to be had. No! She ranted against one of the most fundamental basis of modern science - laboratory research. Without which, by the way, we'd not be anywhere even remotely close to our present medical and scientific capabilities. Hell, we'd still be "bleeding" people to release the bad humors making them sick. For that matter, her disabled son might have been diagnosed as devil possessed and her young teenage daughter would be facing the very real prospect of dying during childbirth if it were not for laboratory research using animal models and all that has been learned from it and continues to be learned!

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer

Posted by Kevin at October 25, 2008 05:34 PM