Scientists against Trump

As a follow-up to my previous post, Biologists against Trump, I give you this:

70 Nobel Laureates Endorse Hillary Clinton

Here’s the text of the letter:

The coming Presidential election will have profound consequences for the future of our country and the world. To preserve our freedoms. protect our constitutional government and safeguard our national security. and ensure that all members of our nation will be able to work together for a better future, it is imperative that Hillary Clinton be elected as the next President of the United States. Some of the most pressing problems that the new President will face – the devastating effects of debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and cancer, the need for alternative sources of energy, and climate change and its consequences – require vigorous support for science and technology and the assurance that scientific knowledge will inform public policy. Such support is essential to this country’s economic future, its health, its security, and its prestige. Strong advocacy for science agencies, initiatives to promote innovation, and sensible immigration and education policies are crucial to the continued preeminence of the U.S. scientific work force. We need a President who will support and advance policies that will enable science and technology to flourish in our country and to provide the basis of important policy decisions. For these reasons and others. we. as U.S. Nobel Laureates concerned about the future of our nation, strongly and fully support Hillary Clinton to be the President of the United States.

Chemists, physicists, doctors, and even (gasp!) economists are all signatories to this document declaring support for Clinton in favor of, um, whoever the other person is currently running for president. Once again, naked appeal to authority? Once again, the answer is “hell, yes!” You don’t get much better authorities than these, and science matters.

Advertisements

Biologists against Trump

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):

Trump’s Behavior Similar to Male Chimpanzee, Says Jane Goodall

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.

The ‘Father of Biodiversity’ Fears Trump and Nuclear War More Than Climate Change

“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?