Advertisement

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Environment

State of the Union

March 6, 2006 | A version of this story appeared in Volume 84, Issue 10

While it is true that President Bush paid significant attention in his State of the Union speech to the issues of energy policy and the education of more teachers for high school advanced placement courses in science and math, one should not take his words at face value (C&EN, Feb. 6, page 3).

Unfortunately, this President's actions are hardly indicative of one who is really interested and engaged on these issues. It is entirely possible that his words were intended more as political window dressing than as serious proposals.

One only has to remember his now-forgotten Man-on-Mars program to see that his words are often only that. His credibility on energy policy is low, given the fact that he has developed those policies in secret and has excluded many legitimate groups from the policy-making process.

On education, it is hardly comforting to note that he has supported the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools. His No Child Left Behind program has created chaos in schools and has distorted the teaching process so that, due to funding issues, many school districts teach the test rather than the subject. This diverts countless hours away from quality teaching, hardly a way to train more capable scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.

And finally, where is the money to pay for all these things? A President who managed to turn large surpluses into large deficits through unwise tax cutting now has no money to pay for these programs, even if he were serious about implementing them.

The words of the late attorney general John Mitchell come to mind: "Watch what we do, not what we say."

Orin Hollander
Jamison, Pa.

I am surprised that an organizationof and by educated people believes that the President will follow through on statements he makes. There have been numerous occasions when the President has taken a position or advanced a cause when the timing is politically correct, but in the end, he makes no further effort to advance his position: Mars is one example, clean air is another. With the public concerned about high energy prices and the Mideast oil situation, the President would be expected to make some bold statement about energy.

Unfortunately, the current Administration has shown itself to be the most antiscience administration in years. Consistently, decisions regarding the environment, energy, and medicine have disregarded current scientific knowledge and instead have been made for political or religious reasons. There is no data available that would support the President's stated concerns about energy consumption.

Assuming that the President's statements are inherently meaningful and responding to them shows a level of gullibility that I would not expect from C&EN. I suggest you take a more critical and studied look at the President's statements and past record before jumping to conclusions.

Robert W. Paddock
Milwaukee, Wis.

I was glad to see some discussion of the President's State of the Union address in C&EN but distressed to see no real comparison of the proposed dollars. For instance, in his editorial, Rudy Baum lauded the proposal "to replace more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025" but never bothered to point out the rising imports from Nigeria, Venezuela, and other non-Middle East countries. That 75% shrivels in such a light.

Likewise, $50 billion in new federal funding over 10 years for an American Competitiveness Initiative sounds impressive to chemists until you compare it with the approximately $60 billion we spend on the continuing war in Iraq each year.

I hope the President makes good on his promises, and I further hope that ACS will work with the Administration to use the proposed dollars effectively. The alternative course-more of the same spending and minimal new research-means we will continue the indefinite trading of American blood for Iraqi oil.

Mark Benvenuto
Detroit

I am a great fan of C&EN and of its current editor. However, I think things highlighted in an editorial need to be put in proper context, and that it is a major function of a free press in a democratic society to point out both laudatory pronouncements and policy shortcomings of political leadership, regardless of party.

Baum's editorial properly lauded President Bush for the extensive comments in the State of the Union speech that dealt with the U.S.'s "addiction to oil" and the need to support more R&D as well as science and math education. As a member of the ACS Board of Directors, I am just as proud as Baum of the activities of the ACS Office of Legislative & Government Affairs (OLGA) in this area, and of the many members of the society who participated in the Legislative Action Network (LAN), also mentioned.

However, we must recognize that these have been priority issues for many scientific societies for several years, as well as for many business leaders and politicians from both parties. Also, the recently issued report from the National Academies, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," requested by members of Congress and the subject of much discussion both on Capitol Hill and in the media, was probably the major spark for the current public visibility of these issues. ACS activities have been very valuable in helping to create the climate that led to the President's comments, but we must recognize also that we succeed through the efforts of many groups.

On the substance of the speech, others have pointed out that the President's proposals, both for increased R&D and more support for science and math education, are very welcome, but they will affect things only in the long run. The single action that would have the biggest effect on reducing demand for foreign oil in the relatively near term-mandated higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks-was not even mentioned.

It is fine to take satisfaction in helping to produce positive steps, even small ones, but the journey is still a long one, and there is much yet to be done. In a period of extreme federal budget austerity, it remains to be seen what actions will follow the words of the speech. One thing is certain: The need for OLGA and LAN activity will not diminish.

Dennis Chamot
Burke, Va.

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

0 /1 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.