Brick throwing, ripping up signs and hurling epithets are wrong no matter who does it - and there are too many on both sides who have done so this year. That level of anger and dislike on both sides is definitely disquieting. The threat of revolution and treason is beyond disquieting. It is a threat to America.
In this election season science and health have taken a backseat. Worse, presidential candidate Donald Trump dismissed climate change as a Chinese hoax. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, vowed to dig up what the government knows about UFOs. Science is hardly getting its due.
Meanwhile in labs and institutions around the country, scientists are hard at work: inventing technologies to make guns safer, developing antibiotics to quell treatment-resistant infections and searching for more efficient forms of renewable, clean energy. This research addresses complex scientific and social issues that require thoughtful policy-making and debate. The country's next Congress and president will have much to consider.
To that end, Scientific American corralled some of the key scientific issues that U.S. politicians should be paying attention to, but aren’t—from the threat of nuclear Armageddon to the ethics of medically assisted suicide. We spoke with top thinkers in each field—policy experts at universities, members of foundations and nonprofits, and the scientists themselves. What, our reporters asked, should government be doing to keep Americans healthy, safe and productive?
To learn the answers, read on. We hope those who would be our leaders will do the same.—Emily Laber-Warren
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
How many of those Scientific American concerns disappear or change drastically if this disruptive technology actually works?
The science is in part 3. We'll find out if it works during the next president's first term.
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw1e-SwMe...4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ
Not trying to hijack the thread. But if this technology can be commercialized ... science wins ... everything changes including politics. The biggest issues are sometimes the ones we don't see.
It would be wonderful if this theoretical energy were true, but there is no evidence that it is. The proponent of this "new form of energy" has been promising a working system for years to no avail. Critics say that his theory violates both the theory and the math of quantum physics. I would prefer to put my faith in real science, not pseudoscience.
I guess we'll see around the first of the year. Several PhD's validating the results. Depends on whether you chose to believe their findings. I'd rather follow this for the next few months instead of the election and its fallout.
I wish them the best of luck. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The secondary level of testing was where cold fusion claims fell apart. Perhaps this will be different.