From the comments I have read about my previous posting, I feel I need to clarify a few points.

First, I am not advocating that we "give up" on science even though it is probably far too late to salvage my career. From my perspective, however, Congress has been riddled with anti-science politicians for decades. They have weakened the general health of scientific research in this country and cost thousands of scientists their careers, including myself -- and nobody bats an eyelid. Now, a vice-presidential candidate dares to make an utterance that is viewed by some as "anti-science", and there is practically a lynch mob after her. The flip-flop from one extreme to the other has me most baffled. I would sure welcome a posting from someone who could clear up this mystery for me.

Second, I am very much concerned that the attacks I read against Sarah Palin will harm, not help the situation with science in this country. These attacks have gone far beyond criticism of her stand on science issues and have gotten personal. Oftentimes, derogatory language and descriptions are used. There is no place for such abuse in either science, politics, or religion. It will only give us an image of being extreme and unprofessional, which we cannot afford.

Finally, if your definition of science includes an unquestioning acceptance of evolution and global warming, be informed that there are many scientists who would differ with you. Although these theories are generally presented as sacred truth, they are far from being universally accepted in the scientific community. Personally, I have yet to find an evolutionist who can satisfactorily explain the process by which highly complex, self-replicating DNA molecules arise from the "hot thin soup". Nor has it ever been demonstrated in the laboratory. It seems that when faced with the choice between life by intelligent design and life by freak occurrence, they choose the latter. Now who is being unscientific?

After reviewing comments from this site and many others over the past few days bashing Sarah Palin for her "anti-science" stance, I must say that I am truly impressed with the realization among our citizens of the importance of scientific research and progress, especially from those of the far-left political persuasion. I have just one question for these individuals, however. WHERE WAS YOUR OUTCRY AGAINST ANTI-SCIENCE POLITICIANS AT THE TIME MY SCIENTIFIC CAREER WAS DESTROYED? I am (or should I say WAS) a scientist during the days of Ronald Reagan and SDI. I received a Ph.D. in physics in 1984 with an extensive background in mathematics, and was laid-off in 1992 despite an excellent performance rating for "lack of contract support". My career as a scientist began and ended with SDI.

During this "outbreak of peace", I went to extremes to find work in technology transfer efforts and other non-defense related areas, oftentimes volunteering my time with groups or start-up companies willing to let me work with them in the hopes of securing some grant money someday. These efforts were all in vain, however. Why? Because scientific funding was waning everywhere, not just in defense. Competition for grant money was absolutely fierce and in some cases, merely a lottery. Only those with decades of experience in their special fields had a chance of winning. Our government had taken the "peace dividend" (which resulted in part from my career demise) and used it to prop up the new "social democracies" that resulted from the breakup of the Soviet Union. Once again, WHERE WAS THE OUTCRY AGAINST ANTI-SCIENCE POLITICIANS when all this was happening? Instead, what I saw on the news was euphoria over the "end of the cold war" (euphemism for the greatest one-sided disarmament in history).

From what has happened to other scientists as well as myself, I'm afraid you would have an extremely difficult time convincing me that there ever was much concern about scientific research among our politicians, especially over the last two decades. So why all of this bashing of Sarah Palin for being "anti-science"?