Monday, March 09, 2009

Neil deGrasse Tyson Defends Pro-Science Bush Adminstration

Complete video at:

-Remember to think before you attack Bush & Republicans for being anti Pro-Science

Neil deGrasse Tyson defends government support for U.S. science research under President George W. Bush, and says that, contrary to popular belief, "funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats."

Neil deGrasse Tyson, the bestselling author and director of the world-famous Hayden Planetarium, chronicles America's irrational love affair with Pluto, man's best celestial friend.

Neil deGrasse Tyson was born and raised in New York City where he was educated in the public schools clear through his graduation from the Bronx High School of Science. Tyson went on to earn his BA in Physics from Harvard and his PhD in Astrophysics from Columbia. Tyson's professional research interests are broad, but include star formation, exploding stars, dwarf galaxies, and the structure of our Milky Way. Tyson obtains his data from the Hubble Space Telescope, as well as from telescopes in California, New Mexico, Arizona, and in the Andes Mountains of Chile. In 2001, Tyson was appointed by President Bush to serve on a 12-member commission that studied the Future of the US Aerospace Industry.

The final report was published in 2002 and contained recommendations (for Congress and for the major agencies of the government) that would promote a thriving future of transportation, space exploration, and national security. In 2004, Tyson was once again appointed by President Bush to serve on a 9-member commission on the Implementation of the United States Space Exploration Policy, dubbed the "Moon, Mars, and Beyond" commission. This group navigated a path by which the new space vision can become a successful part of the American agenda. And in 2006, the head of NASA appointed Tyson to serve on its prestigious Advisory Committee, which will help guide NASA through its perennial need to fit its ambitious vision into its restricted budget. In addition to dozens of professional publications, Dr. Tyson has written, and continues to write for the public.


rmrd said...

I respect Dr Tyson, but I wonder what recent facts he uses to support his statement? A 2004 summary of physics research funding did not reach the same conclusion comparing Clinton to GW Bush.

rmrd said...

Sorry I forgot to post the link

Anonymous said...

Democrats Phony War on Science Argument

Steve-O said...

RMD-nothing about that study contradicts what Dr. Tyson says.

Sure, they take Bush to task for not doing enough spending. But it really hammers Clinton for his dramatic cuts in spending.

And the article was written in 2004. This was before the vast majority of Bush's increases in science spending from 2005-2008.

Steve-O said...

RMRD, another obvious explanation is that the study's just looking at physical science funding.

Tyson specifically praises Bush for NIH spending. NIH probably focuses more on the life sciences.

Again, I'm not an expert on this stuff. But nothing in that study contradicts what Dr. Tyson says.