10. Excellent for satire. Terrible for actual scientific debate. Not that Creationists do that anyway. But I will agree with the general premise that government should take steps to educate the population on what is & isn't science.
9. Does he not realize that his own example shows the downfall of this policy? One word: Lobbyists. That's what keeps a lot of his better ideas from becoming reality. Conflicting political interest. Of course, it's not even really necessary. The medical community can do their own research & if it looks like something fishy is going on, actively push against it. Kind of like with Tobacco.
8. Not bad, if you aren't expecting them to do anything about it. We already have enough problems with the public catching wind of perfectly valid experiments that it just doesn't like. See: Stem cells & Dolly the Sheep. Now, I'm not suggesting that people should be kept in the dark about science, but (A) we already have jobs geared towards translating scientific findings to the general public & (B) I am concerned about enabling armchair sci-ethicists to dictate important policies in medicine, education, & the like.
7. No. Science isn't always about convenience. Certain terminology is used because it's standardized.
6. I'm not sure what he means here. If it's just a hypothetical concept, then even if a lot of the ideas are valid, that doesn't guarantee we know the finer details of how to make it work. If it's something that actually is built, then those are multi-million dollar projects undertaken the company supporting it. And why blow a huge amount of money to have Disney's underground garbage disposal system?
5. Not sure if want. Let's not forget, disregarding the deceased's personal religion & ethics, the family is still living. While this is helpful, it's sort of stepping on their toes. Getting back to the religion thing, that's where his ideas become really flimsy. His reasons for making exceptions for religions under certain conditions are pretty arbitrary. Who is he to judge whether my personal ethics for holding onto my dead tissues, if I so chose, are better than Kent Hovind's or Fred Phelps's? Why do I have to get a note from my doctor, like I'm in fucking high school? What if I'm not part of an organized religion?
4. This one I'm actually okay with. High school science courses are in serious need of a revamp. Biology needs to go more in-depth about the practical physical side of evolution, at least SOME mainstream course should handle basic logic, & I didn't even read a real lab report until college, let alone write one.
3. Horribly impractical. I support making politicians stick to credible sources, but this method would just ensure that nothing gets done.
2. This could be done. I'm sure some people would agree to work at that kind of job. For starters, it sounds like an extra option for someone looking to become a science teacher.
1. I kind of do like the idea of this one. It would cut down on "it's not relevent to ME" types of anti-science arguments, & it would give more outlandish, but nevertheless worthwhile, studies a better opportunity to gain support &, consequently, funding. However, I'm assuming the project doesn't end after a year, & even then, 1 year's break might be too short to stage an election AND a major scientific project, once you hit the 10th year or so of ongoing studies.