This month's cover story caused more debate among the editorial team at The Scientist than any other in my time here. We had consensus on the topic: Just how bad is George Bush for science? We also agreed on the timing: the October issue, just preceding the US midterm elections on the 7th of November. These elections are often considered to be a barometer of presidential leadership and a good predictor of the presidential elections two years later.
The divisions opened up over our expectations for the story. Like many of you, I suspect, I didn't think that this question needed serious consideration. I was fully convinced that Bush has to be the worst-ever US president for the life sciences. And I felt that to make a watertight case all I needed was to quote two examples: Bush's stance on embryonic stem cell research, and global warming.
Others felt that ...
