Jim Dawson's piece on the election results (PHYSICS TODAY, January 2005, page 24), in which he suspects
the winning party will seek revenge, was appalling, out of line with a professional journal. That
some scientists supported John Kerry is their opinion. As John Marburger said, polarization during
elections is part of our public process. Whether we backed one candidate or another should not affect
our professional decisions or public sentiments. Otherwise, how can we maintain competence and
credibility? As a self-employed consultant for more than 30 years, I have found credibility to
be crucial to my practice.
The reason that national funding of academia is often limited
is that academic research may be inefficient in the national scene. Few physicists heeded the message
that OPEC sent to the world in 1974. The present Iraq war likely stems from that oversight. Where
have the biomass fuel exponents in physics been for the last 30 years? Must the US again spend too
late and too much to assure energy supplies now amid Homeland Security Department costs, simply
because we didn't go green on energy needs 30 years ago, with academia leading the way?
I recall a physics class circa 1950, in which a PHYSICS TODAY
representative announced the magazine's creation—a good idea, I thought. Has half a century
reduced you to yellow journalism to obtain national funding of physics? Are you out of touch with
the majority of Americans?
Stick to the technical facts. Just tell us what is going on today in physics and related fields, and leave the politics to others.
Dawson
replies: Science may be clean, cold, and objective, but it exists in a world that is anything
but. When scientists form significant groups—the 48 Nobel laureates, for example—to
endorse one candidate over another, PHYSICS TODAY should cover it. When threats of revenge are
implied—"pushback" was the term an administration spokesperson used—then we should
cover that as well. The funding of science is, by its nature, political.
Featured Jobs
