Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 11 November 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/456146a
Climate first for Obama transition team
Appointments to key energy positions should reveal the new president's priorities.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
A few corrections to Alexandra Witze's article: (1) NONE of the positions in Senator Obama's cabinet are likely to be "filled" before his inauguration on 20 January 2009, since cabinet appointments require approval by the U.S. Senate, the new configuration of which will first meet in early January. And even if approved by the Senate in early January, those appointed persons won't actually take office until 20 January (or some time shortly thereafter) when the President-Elect is sworn in as President. (2) The retention of Robert Gates as defense secretary says nothing about the Obama Transition Team's willingness to consider Republicans or Independents, as Mr. Gates is a Democrat.
Nature unfortunately has fallen into the same trap that so many non-objective Left-leaning periodicals and newspapers so easily succumb to. Nature should remind itself it is NOT The Guardian, New York Times or Le Monde. Reading this analysis, one might conclude only Democrats (or Liberals) care about the environment and that non-Democrats (e.g., Republicans) by inference are anti-science and/or anti-environment. Many are, but such generalisations if verbalised by Conservatives would elicit howls of bedlam from the Left-leaning press. When liberal ideology infects science, we hear no such complaint from the 'liberal' press. Several points: William Ruckelshaus, who did initiate important environmental legislation, was first appointed by Republican Richard Nixon who's record on consumer and environmental protection exceeds that of Bill Clinton's. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa (Republican) is a noted defender of transparency in research funding and medical investigation; Grassley's efforts on behalf of consumer protection in research and health exceeds that of even Senator Ted Kennedy, noted for his legislation on behalf of consumers. Former Congressman Sherwood Boehlert of New York was the first in the Congress to introduce bills to fund toxic waste cleanup on a massive scale, and was a slawart in defending the notion of global warming (which Senator McCain has defended since being in the Senate). Governor Schwartznegger of California has a strong pro-environmental record. In fact, more moderate Republicans support pro-active environmental regulations than do conservative Democrats in the southern United States. Much touted arms-control expert former Senator Sam Nunn (high on Obama's list for a cabinet post) had a score of 10 % on environmental issues while he was in the Senate. Basically, the Left-leaning press (which should not include Nature, which should restrict itself to science and not political advocacy) ignores moderate to conservative Democrats because they don't fit with the Leftist party line (and are thus ignored by the press) and moderate Republicans are sneered at (if mentioned at all) as not truly on board, or championed to an extreme (like Republican Senator Chuck Hagel) when they opportunistically and disingenuously take positions with the Democratic mainstream to further their ambitious political goals. Nature's commentaries on Obama and McCain and analysis of what science and scientists should say to President-Elect Obama are simplistic, naive and clouded by non-scientific ideological patterns that have no place in a periodical devoted to science. Finally, noted biologist and environmentalist Edward Wilson is a conservative and a Republican. When we do hear about him in print, his political views are rarely mentioned. This is as it should be. The same should apply to liberal Democrats who happen to be scientists (like many Nobel Prize winners who take out adverts in New York Times) with respect to their ideological views; unfortunately, in the case of liberal scientists, their politics is all over the print press, both in newspapers and in scientific periodicals. Republican scientists are either rarely mentioned, when their affiliation is known, or their political affiliation is hidden to presumably avoid "embarrassment" to a notably liberal editorial board. Obama should get the best advice possible, regardless of political affiliation and the media should desist from a priori childish and churlish analyses of political and ideological patterns as supposedly legitimate litmus tests for government service.
Nature unfortunately has fallen into the same trap that so many non-objective Left-leaning periodicals and newspapers so easily succumb to. Nature should remind itself it is NOT The Guardian, New York Times or Le Monde. Reading this analysis, one might conclude only Democrats (or Liberals) care about the environment and that non-Democrats (e.g., Republicans) by inference are anti-science and/or anti-environment. Many are, but such generalisations if verbalised by Conservatives would elicit howls of bedlam from the Left-leaning press. When liberal ideology infects science, we hear no such complaint from the 'liberal' press. Several points: William Ruckelshaus, who did initiate important environmental legislation, was first appointed by Republican Richard Nixon who's record on consumer and environmental protection exceeds that of Bill Clinton's. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa (Republican) is a noted defender of transparency in research funding and medical investigation; Grassley's efforts on behalf of consumer protection in research and health exceeds that of even Senator Ted Kennedy, noted for his legislation on behalf of consumers. Former Congressman Sherwood Boehlert of New York was the first in the Congress to introduce bills to fund toxic waste cleanup on a massive scale, and was a slawart in defending the notion of global warming (which Senator McCain has defended since being in the Senate). Governor Schwartznegger of California has a strong pro-environmental record. In fact, more moderate Republicans support pro-active environmental regulations than do conservative Democrats in the southern United States. Much touted arms-control expert former Senator Sam Nunn (high on Obama's list for a cabinet post) had a score of 10 % on environmental issues while he was in the Senate. Basically, the Left-leaning press (which should not include Nature, which should restrict itself to science and not political advocacy) ignores moderate to conservative Democrats because they don't fit with the Leftist party line (and are thus ignored by the press) and moderate Republicans are sneered at (if mentioned at all) as not truly on board, or championed to an extreme (like Republican Senator Chuck Hagel) when they opportunistically and disingenuously take positions with the Democratic mainstream to further their ambitious political goals. Nature's commentaries on Obama and McCain and analysis of what science and scientists should say to President-Elect Obama are simplistic, naive and clouded by non-scientific ideological patterns that have no place in a periodical devoted to science. Finally, noted biologist and environmentalist Edward Wilson is a conservative and a Republican. When we do hear about him in print, his political views are rarely mentioned. This is as it should be. The same should apply to liberal Democrats who happen to be scientists (like many Nobel Prize winners who take out adverts in New York Times) with respect to their ideological views; unfortunately, in the case of liberal scientists, their politics is all over the print press, both in newspapers and in scientific periodicals. Republican scientists are either rarely mentioned, when their affiliation is known, or their political affiliation is hidden to presumably avoid "embarrassment" to a notably liberal editorial board. Obama should get the best advice possible, regardless of political affiliation and the media should desist from a priori childish and churlish analyses of political and ideological patterns as supposedly legitimate litmus tests for government service (and, yes, that also applies to my personal opinions which I express here which should also be clearly differentiated from objective commentary on scientific qualifications to the same extent that I request it be done for those of a different ideological outlook).
Although individual legislators and governors differ within and without political parties, the U.S. Republican party as an entity has chosen to ally itself with the extractive industries and to block virtually every environmental regulation ever proposed. Whether the Democrats turn out to be significantly better remains to be seen, but the Republicans made their position clear. "Drill, baby, drill," was not, I assure you, about the right to childhood dental care.
I for one found this article to be fairly well balanced and informative. Of course "the proof if in the pudding" and we can only be sure of what Barack Obama will do once he has done it. Still, it is fair to expect a sharp turn towards the left and away from the ideological-laden anti-science atmosphere of the Bush administration. As for Mr. Cohen's point about many Republicans being friends of science if not the environment: That is well taken, but such voices have help little sway during the Bush years. That the Republican nominee, John McCain, also promised to tackle climate change may be an example of how out-of-touch the Bush administration has been to science. Even so, it is fair to say the Obama will almost certainly do more and do it faster then McCain would have to chart a course away from the Bush legacy and back towards responsible governance including letting the scientific community have input into relvant decisions.