E-Letter responses to:

editorial: Donald Kennedy Science and God in the Election Science 2008; 319: 12 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Scientist for President?

Richard L. Deem   (28 February 2008)

Scientist for President? 28 February 2008
Richard L. Deem, Scientist Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Scientist for President?	Donald Kennedy doesn't think that religion or God should have any place in the election of the next president of the United States (Editorial, "Science and God in the election," 4 January 2008, p. 12). His claim that a candidate explaining his theological position "touches on the establishment clause" is ludicrous. Every individual in the United States has the freedom to choose or not choose any religion and has the freedom to speak about that religion—whether he is the president or the gardener. There is no establishment clause limiting the free speech rights of any individual serving in the United States government. Although the president of the United States should know something about science, I would never vote to elect a scientist as president, since we are much too specialized and detail-oriented. The president needs to be a generalist with experience in leadership, knowledge in economics, and skilled in how to delegate authority. He should also have a strong commitment to moral values, which is where religious belief plays a role. Neither lying nor infidelity is against the law, but I wouldn't want to elect a candidate who only stayed within the laws. Those who don't want to vote for religious candidates should vote for the least objectionable theist. For the rest of us, there are more important qualifications than scientific knowledge by which we choose our next president. Richard L. Deem Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.