So I’ve seen these two stories recently and they looked like great things to show your science-minded pals or associates who may, for some weird reason, still be on the fence about the 2016 presidential election (yes, this is a naked appeal to authority):
Jane Goodall is the world’s preeminent primatologist; while this is a bit of a cheesy story, the fact that Goodall actually chose to comment on a forthcoming election shows where she’s leaning.
“Father of Biodiversity” is the sort of moniker that the mainstream media would slap on somebody because it sounds good. It doesn’t really make any sense. However, the article does go into some detail about Wilson’s remarkable career and why he is viewed as a luminary in the field of conservation biology if not sociobiology.
While Phil Plait is not a biologist, he is a well-known science evangelist (in his words), and this post is also worth a read: To Beat Trump, Clinton Needs to Bring Science to the Debates.
People who feel that science and rational thought should be a major driver of American and global politics face a pretty clear choice at the polls in November between a person with little experience on the world stage and who doesn’t seem to believe in anything in particular if you take his numerous self-contradictory statements at face value and a person who is a serious politician with a long CV and all of the good and bad that that entails. The former has pandered to climate change denialists and anti-vaccine activists because it suits his business interests and gains some votes in the process, while the latter has taken a strong pro-science stand on many fronts. Which one do you want in charge of America?