It is likely that Rick Perry's statements about Social Security being a "ponzi scheme" and climate change will make and shape the headlines tomorrow (and tonight). There will be a steady stream of comments about Perry being anti-science. But Rick Perry is not anti-science.
In fact, he made the most sense science-wise of all the candidates.
1. He did not back down on the need or requirement to have children receive a vaccine that can eliminate many forms of cancer. I thought it was a courageous and principled stand when he first called for HPV immunizations for all 12 year old girls. By contrast other presidential candidates -- Bachman, Santorum and Ron Paul in particular -- seem to suggest that parental rights trump immunization requirements in every case. If that is so, then we need to ask these candidates if they oppose immunization requirements for children and if they believe vaccines cause autism. Then we will see who is anti-science.
2. Perry did more to advance medical science in Texas than other governors running for President have done. Not only did he lead in the establishment of Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), a $3 billion, 10-year cancer research fund, Texas in one. Just recently CPRIT recruited a leading stem cell researcher to establish a pediatric cancer initiative at University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. The researcher, Sean Morrison, said this about Texas:
While I have been spending the last five to six years arguing with the Legislature about what kind of research would be permitted in the state, in Texas they were looking for ways to invest billions of dollars into medical research..."Texas is clearly an environment that's more supportive generally of research innovation. Three billion [dollars] for cancer research is going to change the landscape."
PS. Perry has never supported proposals to ban stem cell research in Texas either.
Ignoring these aspects of Governor Perry's record while questioning his position that the 'science' behind predictions of global disaster and requires massive government intervention in the economy -- which is what the debate is all about -- is anti-science is simply a tactic to silence that individual. Or make him or her look stupid.
I still would like to know if the candidates who criticized Perry are opposed to mandatory vaccination in any case.
In fact, he made the most sense science-wise of all the candidates.
1. He did not back down on the need or requirement to have children receive a vaccine that can eliminate many forms of cancer. I thought it was a courageous and principled stand when he first called for HPV immunizations for all 12 year old girls. By contrast other presidential candidates -- Bachman, Santorum and Ron Paul in particular -- seem to suggest that parental rights trump immunization requirements in every case. If that is so, then we need to ask these candidates if they oppose immunization requirements for children and if they believe vaccines cause autism. Then we will see who is anti-science.
2. Perry did more to advance medical science in Texas than other governors running for President have done. Not only did he lead in the establishment of Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), a $3 billion, 10-year cancer research fund, Texas in one. Just recently CPRIT recruited a leading stem cell researcher to establish a pediatric cancer initiative at University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. The researcher, Sean Morrison, said this about Texas:
While I have been spending the last five to six years arguing with the Legislature about what kind of research would be permitted in the state, in Texas they were looking for ways to invest billions of dollars into medical research..."Texas is clearly an environment that's more supportive generally of research innovation. Three billion [dollars] for cancer research is going to change the landscape."
PS. Perry has never supported proposals to ban stem cell research in Texas either.
Ignoring these aspects of Governor Perry's record while questioning his position that the 'science' behind predictions of global disaster and requires massive government intervention in the economy -- which is what the debate is all about -- is anti-science is simply a tactic to silence that individual. Or make him or her look stupid.
I still would like to know if the candidates who criticized Perry are opposed to mandatory vaccination in any case.
