Bear DNA Isn't Pork, Regardless of What John McCain Says

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I appreciate the article that puts McCain's Bear DNA comments in perspective. My concern is not only for the specific topic of tracking bears and the associated environmental concerts, but the glimpse into McCain's broader view of federally funded science. He ridiculed spending - no wasting - fed funds to study bear DNA. The scary part of this is that a lot of federally funded research can probably be reduced to sounding silly on the surface. Without digging deeper, the USGS funded Bear DNA project sounds fine to me. What science does McCain think is worth funding? In some ways he could bolster his position regarding science funding by pointing out that, in addition to representing one of the worst examples of special interests, the earmarks he fights against undermine funding agency oversight and management of S&T funding. Funding science and supporting scientists is the best way to encourage kids to pursue science, which most people recognize as a key to our economic competitiveness. Making fun of a science program he thinks sounds silly, especially coupled with his (and Palin's) affinity for ID, makes me very nervous of the ripples he would send down the federal funding org charts.

jeff of MD 9:18PM October 09, 2008

"McCain apparently had second thoughts and decided not to try to remove it from a proposed spending bill. In fact, he ended up voting for it—though he has since continued to mock it as a staple of his campaign stump speech."
At least he is consistent on being a hypocrite

Wilma Flintstone of WA 6:29PM October 08, 2008

Thanks for finally bringing this up! I get so angry every time I hear this ridiculous "joke", and I can't understand how his advisors have not told him how stupid he sounds. I mean, he's tried to backpedal after letting the world know he doesn't know how to use the internet. How can he continue tell the world that he thinks science is a waste of time and people still listen to him?
The story that comes to mind every time I hear this is the story of PCR, the staple of nearly all genetic research and testing. We would not be nearly where we are today in genetics if it weren't for a random researcher who was studying a bacterium that grows near volcanoes in the ocean. One of the enzymes that allows the bacteria to survive is called Taq Polymerase-and is used in the vast majority of genetic tests that are performed today.

jhuck of GA 5:00PM October 02, 2008

I wonder why the first three comments were of the same ilk? Oh, wait, it does take a few minutes to form a reasoned response to somewhat complex issues. This page is a great illustration of how "knee jerk" is different from using one's brain.

wayne of 2:24PM October 02, 2008

I'm so tired of people spouting off, "The planet (and polar bears, in this case) has survived wider swings of temperature and sea level changes in the past, so we'll be fine!" You just don't get it. The last time those things happened (though bully for you for believing the Earth is more than 4000 years old) was at a time when there were not 6 million people on the planet who needed food and clean drinking water. Will life on Earth survive global warming? Absolutely. Will polar bears and lots of other species survive? Maybe - hard to predict. But, will the overall quality of human life on this planet be really, really bad if climate change progresses at the alarming rate that it has? You betcha. Will lots of people starve or die of thirst? Yes. Will storms and other natural disasters make Katrina look like a mild disturbance? Many models predict that yes, that could happen. And that, everyone is the point. Climate changes - even of the wildest predictions made so far - will not destroy all of life on Earth. But, it will create situations that make it not so pleasant for many of the humans on this planet.

Curatrix of NY 2:18PM October 02, 2008

Three ignoramuses replied.
First, climate changes that polar bears -- and other life -- have adapted to in the past generally took place over much longer time scales than the pace of warming we're seeing now (when they occurred quickly, as with catastrophic meteor hits, guess what we got: mass extinction). The point ignoramus #1 is missing is that this round of global warming has a significant human motor to it.
Second,ignoramus #2 misses that it's *McCain* who is keeping this lame, demagogic 'wasteful spending on bear DNA' talking point in play. He even used it in the candidates' debate. The columnist rightly points out that it's a cynical and unjustified piece of red meat that McCain is throwing to his knee-jerk anti-intellectual, anti-science 'base'.
The third ignoramus doesn't understand the science, so he makes a dumb joke. Well done, America.

ssully of NY 1:39PM October 02, 2008

Thanks, Brute, for your excellent rebuttal of the ignorance displayed in the initial comments.
And thank you, John, for this article. Well said.
And thanks to all the researchers who do this important work. I, for one, am hoping that my grandchildren will not only be able to share the planet with bears, but also that they'll have an adequate supply of wholesome food (and yes, the two ARE related).
Now let's hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and votes to put someone in the highest office of the land who understands the importance of science and progress, rather than superstition and myth.

Wendy Babiak of NY 9:11AM October 01, 2008

Dear R.L.S. Getafreakinlife. Polar bears and global warming don't have anything to do with John Farrell's column, or McCain's little mini rant on funding to count grizzly bears. The federal government also funds studies on the sex life of fruitflies, how owls hear, how sea slugs react when you blow seawater on them, and what happens to rats when they breath jet fuel for an hour. As a research biologist, I could even tell you why these projects have merit, if that was really the point. The relevant point is, McCain voted FOR ALL OF THEM, in the same way he voted for the bear DNA work. A better point: none of it amounts to a drop of spit in the ocean of the federal budget. The overwhelming majority of YOUR/MY taxes go for Social support programs (SS, medicare/caid), Dept of Defense (A,N,AF,M,NG), and govmnt employees. Not programs or even earmarks. One FULL year of funding for the ENTIRE National Institutes of Health research program, which includes the national budget for cancer, brain diseases, diabetes, and development of medical devices for our heroic injured Vets coming back from war, equals two MONTHS blowing dollars into the deserts of IRAQ (not all DoD, just Iraq). Complaining about a bear DNA study in this context is like complaining that the problem with New York City is that a slice of Pizza costs Seven Dollars.

Brute of AL 8:44PM September 30, 2008

Your grandchildren's future and welfare are at stake, Rick. In case you skipped your high school biology class, earth's entire ecosystem is connected- each species- in a fragile web. As species are going extinct rapidly (this is one of the greatest mass extinctions in the history of the earth- according to Harvard scientist and pulitzer-prize winning author E.O.Wilson)- entire ecosystems can fail. Failing ecosystems means no more pollinators (flies, beetles, bees, moths...etc). Lack of pollinators means- most foods we rely on as humans can't reproduce on a vast scale. Yes, we have to be concerned about the Economy- but don't forget about taking care of the place you live as well. There won't be an economy if the environment degrades so much that we ourselves are on the brink of extinction. Look at the facts. Look at science. You don't have to be a radical environmentalist to understand that.

Cindy of CT 1:52PM September 30, 2008