You don’t help make the case by ignoring history. Porche’s first car, a century ago, was a diesel-electric hybrid. Granted its propulsion mechanism was exclusively electric with the diesel generator merely providing the power to the electric motor, but it still fits the definition of a hybrid so these cars aren’t exactly new technology. That said, I’d love to see a science debate. (Side note to Shanonr: a scientist is merely someone who can hold several competing model explanations for observations and has the creativity to design ways to eliminate as many as possible. I think these are good skills for a leader.)

I agree that most homegrown scientist won’t take the entry-level jobs anymore. This is completely understandable when you consider that a generation ago a typical post-doc waited 3-5 years for a tenure track position but today’s PhDs are routinely waiting a decade. During this time they work 80-100 hour weeks, have no job security, lousy benefits and no guarantee that a tenure track position or reasonable industry job will ever appear. And all of this is after 4-7 years of grad school (otherwise known as providing slave labor for someone who is likely much less capable than the typical grad student). No wonder many choose to move on to other fields where their intellect and reasoning prowess allow them to actually make a living.

The author is absolutely correct that we must fund state university science labs. However, we also need to reform the grant awarding process to reward quality applications with innovative ideas rather than allowing an old boys network to allocate the funds to the same mega-labs. In fact, we should restrict the number of researchers that one principal investigator can supervise. Small research teams have made most of the BIG biomedical advances anyway (like the discovery of restriction enzymes that led to the entire molecular biology field).

If nothing else, such a debate would provide entertainment as we all get to see how few of our candidates UNDERSTAND (not believe in) evolution.

I love watching all of you car-bound people debate the relative merits of your oversized wheelchairs. Face facts folks. We can’t merely double the fuel efficiency of personal transportation vehicles and expect to outrun climate change. You’re all going to have to drop your fuel consumption by a factor of at least five to ten. That really means no more cars as a primary means of transportation. The sooner we all begin to leave the steel cans parked the better chance we will have of keeping a human race around to see 2200.

At least we are winning the war on the environment.

Let me get this straight: A prius gets less than twice the fuel economy as any old car. And this bloke says driving a prius is a positive environmental choice. Right. I watch my friends in Berkeley drive their hybrids to the grocery store to get a bag of food that is so small I wouldn’t even bother getting out my bike to haul it home. Riding a bike isn’t just cheaper; it helps create the critical mass necessary to help Americans see that we don’t need to all behave like we are disabled.

Most people won’t ride bikes because they perceive our roads as being too dangerous. Driving a prius does not reduce the danger for cyclists and every car added or bike removed from the roadway increases the perception of the relative danger of traveling under one’s own power as opposed to using a steel-encased fossil-fool powered wheelchair.

So-called environmentalists who drive priuses are indeed hypocrites. Real environmentalists don’t drive!