I missed this White House webinar, but it would have been great to have attended.

[NNadir]

WHITE HOUSE SUMMIT ON EVIDENCE FOR ACTION

Excerpt:

WHITE HOUSE SUMMIT ON EVIDENCE FOR ACTION
Thursday, April 7, 2022 from 2:00 PM ET – 5:00 PM ET

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will co-host an inaugural White House Summit on Evidence for Action to share leading practices from Federal Agencies to generate and use research evidence to advance better, more equitable outcomes for all of America; build and institutionalize a culture of evidence-based policymaking inside the Federal Government; and create new and enhanced pathways for connection and collaboration between the evidence communities inside and outside of the Federal Government. During the Summit, panelists will highlight the experiences and perspectives of leaders within the Federal evidence community, and the closing presentation will showcase what beneficial policy outcomes can be achieved for the American public when researchers and community partners use diverse methods to translate evidence into actionable policy insights.

Can anyone, anyone at all, believe that a Republican President would host such an event?

I am very pleased with Joe Biden's support of science. I don't necessarily agree on all elements of policy, but no sensible person can deny that the approach is magnificent.

[xocetaceans]

1. True. No. I'm pleased with his support of science, too. What an excellent idea!

Thanks for posting about this webinar.


You do indirectly pose an interesting question, though.

Which Republican Presidents would have supported science in general?

Trump:: no

W:: no

Bush,Sr.:: ?

Reagan:: no

Nixon:: ? (EPA)

Eisenhower:: ?

Hoover:: ? (He had a geology degree from Stanford, I think.)

[NNadir]

2. It is difficult to imagine that Eisenhower would be included in today's Republican Party.

He fought Nazis rather than admired them and certainly, unlike say, Desantis, Abbott, Cruz and the like, Eisenhower would have rejected any effort to become a Nazi.

There is a very interesting book by Nobel Laureat Glenn Seaborg, who served every President from Truman to Clinton in some kind of advisory role. He was a key player in negotiating the 1963 Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union.

The book is: A Chemist in the Whitehouse.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51QR6RHFCKL._SX361_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

I agree with you citing the founding of the EPA as an accomplishment for Nixon. (The fact that Hitler pushed Ferdinand Porsche to design the Volkswagen Bug, does not mean that the Bug was a bad idea, but neither does it make Hitler a good guy.) Seaborg, a Democrat, who nonetheless served Nixon does not have kind words for Nixon, but in comparison to the modern day Republicans who despise practically every Science, Nixon pursued the Space Program, started the "War" on Cancer - Republicans in Nixon's time had difficulty seeing science outside of the word "war."

This was not generally true of Eisenhower, who coined, with intended contempt, the phrase "the military industrial complex." His worst scientific decision was to put Lewis Strauss in a position to vilify Robert Oppenheimer. Strauss was an awful rightwing person, not a scientist, although modern anti-nukes love to quote him as if he were some kind of authority. Eisenhower was the author of the "Atoms for Peace" program; as a result of early building of infrastructure, nuclear power is now saving lives. Eisenhower also drove the early establishment of NASA. It was formed in 1958.

(Seaborg was the main driver of the development of commercial nuclear power, serving at a quasi-Cabinet level as the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, a role he retained under Nixon up to 1971.)

Seaborg had undisguised contempt for only one Democrat of whom I'm aware, Michael Dukakis, which is not to say that he didn't vote for him. (I had to hold my nose to vote for Dukakis as well.)

I had no use for H.W. Bush but by contrast to the Republicans of the 21st century he was not insane. I don't think he was hostile to Science, nor do I think that Gerald Ford was either. He was at least neutral on the subject, certainly not an Inhofe, a DeSantis, a Cruz or a Hawley.

(Cruz and Hawley both have Ivy League educations by the way, which should be a warning that the Ivy League may be overrated; one can graduate from one without being remotely educated.)

Any Modern Republican elected to the Presidency will be a disaster for science, an entry to a new dark age.

These are my thoughts off the top of my head.

[xocetaceans]

3. That book on Glenn Seaborg looks very interesting.

Thanks for telling me about the title. It looks like it would provide a lot of insight into how science and politics have interacted at the highest levels of the US government. I cannot promise to read it but will add it to an ever-growing list of books that should be read at some point.

Also, thanks for the commentary on Eisenhower. I knew of his admonition against "the military-industrial complex" but not of his decision that led to (or aided) the Red-Scare/McCarthyist persecution of Oppenheimer.

Gerald Ford, for some reason, slipped my mind when compiling the list of Republican Presidents. I have no good explanation for that omission but suppose that he may well have been so "neutral on the subject" that he provoked no consideration of him or his policies whatsoever.

Contempt for Dukakis is intriguing - perhaps that topic is also discussed in A Chemist in the White House. I was living in Germany during that whole election campaign, so I had very little exposure to Dukakis other than what little entered the German media.

Yes, a vote for any Modern Republican for President would effectively be a vote against science. Even votes for GOP majorities in Congress are a blow to science; e.g., limitations on stem cell research in the time of Bush, Jr. (that may have also been due to W himself, though), and the periodic government shutdowns that the GOP drives (Boehner's shuttering of the government (and NASA etc. in about 2014, I think)).



On a tangential note, this other, upcoming WH webinar looks interesting:

WHITE HOUSE SUMMIT ON STRENGTHENING THE NATION’S EARLY WARNING SYSTEM FOR HEALTH THREATS

Tuesday, April 19, 2022 from 9:00am ET – 11:30am ET

https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/events-webinars/white-house-summit-on-strengthening-the-nations-early-warning-system-for-health-threats/

I suppose that the consideration of that sort of a system is not needed in the magical world of Modern Republican "thinking":

- February 27th at the White House: “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”, -Pres. Trump

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/one-day-it-s-like-a-miracle-it-will-disappear-trump-on-covid-19-1.4370294