Michele Bachmann claims that carbon dioxide is a “harmless gas” and believes there is “reasonable doubt” that evolution exists. Ron Paul says that evolution is a theory and he “[doesn’t] accept it” and calls climate change “bogus.” GOP frontrunner Rick Perry believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in science classrooms and is on record as being openly skeptical of climate change, going so far as to claim that scientists are manufacturing data to continue receiving funding.

Putting arguments about the validity of global warming and evolution aside, the fact that so many Republican candidates reject widely accepted scientific principles speaks volumes about their character and judgment. The fact that these so-called leaders are willing to disregard clear-cut, definitive evidence of climate change and evolution indicates that, as people, they are unwilling to objectively listen to facts and make informed decisions. I am extremely disturbed by the idea of putting someone in the White House who refuses to accept the basic facts of a situation. If the Republican presidential candidates cannot demonstrate the ability to interpret facts and information, how on earth can they demonstrate their competency as potential leaders of the free world?

Now, one could attribute all of the above statements by Republican candidates as rhetoric and pandering to a super-conservative base, but when the new Republican Congress, led by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), began its session earlier this year, one of their first orders of business was to allow the general public to defund the National Science Foundation (NSF) through the so-called “YouCut” program. Essentially, Republicans put all of the NSF’s programs and funding on the chopping block and allowed citizens to arbitrarily decide what to cut. The Republican Congress’ first initiative was to defund one of the key research institutions in this country.

According to its website, the NSF provides close to a quarter of all money for federally funded research by universities in the United States. Thus, a direct cut to funding of the NSF would hurt Washington University’s professors and researchers. It would also deal a much greater blow to scientific advancement in general. NSF-funded research has been instrumental in the discovery of the ozone hole, understanding dark matter and even the creation of the Internet. NSF funding has contributed to over 150 Nobel prizes in the sciences.

The very idea that someone who denies basic scientific fact, whether for political reasons or because they actually believe it, has a chance of being the next president of the United States of America should scare you. The anti-science stance of many Republican candidates points towards a gross lack of either intelligence or character. These candidates are trying to create an America that is anti-science, an America that doesn’t respect the thousands of hours of work that students like us put in towards advancing human knowledge. We shouldn’t let them.

Technology (everything from fire to a microwave) is good because it allows us the leisure to reflect on our lives and pursue meaningfulness. To go back to the prototypical “pre-technological” scenario, we no longer run around in chafing loincloths trying to spear mammoths with sharpened sticks. Instead, we enjoy a relaxed, well-prepared dinner with tasteful music in the background and a moderate temperature on the thermostat and talk to each other about our lives. We are no longer struggling to survive; we are now asking the big questions. Why are we here? What can I do to make this all worthwhile?

In freeing us from having to go out each day and spend hours gathering berries or risking our lives to hunt a saber-toothed tiger, technology, the mark of civilization and organization and everything that we know, has allowed us to formulate a “why” to what had previously been only a “how.” We now have the opportunity to find meaning in our lives instead of being able to focus only on how to maintain them.

The problem comes (and here is where I betray some sincerity in molesting my science-y friends) when extensions of that technology do the very opposite: take away the opportunity to reflect on our lives and live them in considered, thoughtful ways. The above-described well-prepared dinner is a once-a-month endeavor. What we usually encounter is a hectic, preoccupied, walking ingestion of an additives-replete burrito accompanied by tasteless, lyrically dehumanizing music as we struggle against rather than with other people in a long line in a way-too-hot or way-too-cold room and think about whether we will make it back from class in time for our show that is on at seven. As technology giveth, it often contemporaneously taketh away.

So here is the key: Identify what in each amenity is really helpful in giving you the kind of life that you want, and take advantage of that element while rejecting as vehemently as possible the others. What in Bear’s Den is actually healthy for you? Get and enjoy that while making it a rule to avoid what is made to taste good but ultimately kill you. What about your computer enhances your life, and what about it holds you back? Use that well-designed calendar function, but check Facebook only to keep up with otherwise out-of-touch friends. And even the basics: Do clothes make your life better because they are so warm and stylish but make it miserable because you have so many to choose from? Donate half, and take uninhibited pleasure from those that you do keep.

The point, maybe, is do not get carried away. Technology is not good because it is technology. It is good because it helps us to better accomplish worthy goals that cavemen unfortunately did not even have the chance to conceive of. If we sell our souls to science (cue me goofing with my friends again) or to technology without remembering what its purpose is, we have lost the reason for the whole endeavor. The crucial step, now that we have cars and computers and fire and Nalgenes, is to understand what those things help us ultimately to do—to figure out what is that worthy goal.

According to Susan Lindsey, executive director of the sanctuary, while the center has acquired land around the La Barque stream in Jefferson County, Ark. that will be more suitable for the wolves, it still lacks the necessary funding to complete the move.

The center, an internationally-renowned facility for breeding endangered wolves and foxes, is a private, non-profit conservation organization that has been leasing land since 1971 at the Tyson Research Center—a 2,000-acre field station located 20 miles from the Danforth Campus that is used for environmental research and education.

“The primary function of the Wild Canid Center is to take small populations and rear them to populations of at least 100, so reintroduction [into the wild] can begin,” Lindsey said.

The center’s lease at Tyson has expired, and Tyson has created a long-term plan that involves the construction of two new buildings for a program in biological sustainability on the land currently occupied by the center.

“The building we are working toward now will be for high school kids getting involved in environmental research and sustainability,” John Chase, director of the Tyson Research Center, said. “The long-term vision is to develop an internationally-recognized program in environmental research and sustainability. We will be developing a number of large-scale research programs in these areas and taking St. Louis [outreach] initiatives.”

But Henry Webber, executive vice chancellor for administration, stressed that the University is trying to help the center, not hurt it.

“We’re all working together for a common goal, relocating them to a location that will be better for them and [will] allow the program in biological sustainability to flourish,” he said.

According to Lindsey, they expect to raise enough money for zoning and construction from donors, as well as from sale of some of their newly bought Ozark acres to the federal government for a state park.

One species they house is the maned wolf; these wolves are actually owned by Brazil, which asked the center to carry out a breeding program for them.

Another species is the Mexican gray wolf, which was near extinction when the center received five individuals in the late 1970s. Now, there are about 200 in captivity and 100 in the wild.

“There would be no Mexican gray wolf if it weren’t for the Wild Canid Center,” Lindsey said.

The Bush administration has consistently opposed legislation that would end funding restrictions on stem cell research. With the upcoming presidential election, many voters are wondering, “Would John McCain continue the scientific policies of President George W. Bush?”

The answer is still up for debate. Acting as the “maverick” that many have referred to him as, Senator John McCain rejected many of President Bush’s positions regarding stem cell research. McCain voted in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (H.R.810), the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S.5) and the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S.2754), all of which would have increased stem cell research and were also supported by Senator Barack Obama. With his selection as the Republican presidential nominee, McCain has toned down his moderate stance on the issue in order to appeal to the Republicans’ vital base, Christian conservatives.

“While I support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, I believe clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress,” Senator John McCain says.

Although he has not entirely flip-flopped on the issue, his campaign website—www.johnmccain.com—focuses primarily on his more conservative initiatives concerning ethics and science and doesn’t mention his voting record in favor of stem cell research. It states that McCain opposes the creation of human embryos for the specific use of research, using the cells or fetal tissue of embryos formed in such a manner, human cloning and the use or collection of human cells developed in animals. Each of these claims is backed by McCain’s voting record in the Senate.

“As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos,” his site says.

Is this just a clever campaign tactic or a genuine shift in ideals?

Barack Obama

According to the National Journal, Senator Barack Obama has been labeled “the most liberal senator in 2007,” a title determined by ninety-nine vital Senate votes. It probably comes as no surprise, therefore, that Obama agrees with the great majority of Democrats on the stem cell research debate.

In step with many of his other policies that oppose the principles of the Bush administration, Senator Obama has rejected President Bush’s suppression of research in the field of embryonic stem cell research. His campaign website—www.barackobama.com—emphasizes Obama’s support for increased stem cell research. Nevertheless, Obama and McCain agree that ethical standards regarding such research must be clearly outlined.

His voting record also supports these assertions. Although Bush later vetoed the bill, Senator Barack Obama supported the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (H.R.810), which would have permitted the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. The funds, however, would have only been used for those human embryos scheduled to be destroyed. Obama also voted in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S.5), an act similar to the one of 2005. In addition, he voted in favor of the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S.2754), an act that would have increased federal funding for research on adult stem cells. While a senator in the Illinois state Senate, Obama even introduced acts to allow for embryonic stem cell research.

Are his positions on embryonic stem cell research too liberal, or are they right in step with the positions of the majority of Americans?