Is Republicans "War on Science" an exaggeration or myth?

I watched this very interesting video today about the alleged war on science by the Bush administration. In it Dr Tyson says it was overblown, and that under Bush, spending on science actually increased in many areas, whereas under Clinton, funding, such as that to NASA was actually cut.

The only parts he agrees Bush was against were a couple of issues such as stem cell research, and he had a perfectly fine reason for this - that was what the people who elected him wanted. Although I think stem cell research is fine, I do agree that a politician should do what the people who have elected him want.

Dr Tyson goes into it in much more detail, and in an entertaining manner with very good arguments, I highly recommend watching it. It made me reconsider a little my view of Bush and the Republicans on this matter, especially as Tyson is a strong liberal, so would not be an obvious defender of Bush normally.

One of my favourite arguments he makes, is that Republicans realise that science is the backbone of an economy, and the republicans don't want to mess with that too much, as the last thing a republican wants is to die poor!

fora.tv...

fora.tv...
If the link doesn't load to the right point for you, skip to 52 minutes in, the first question from the audience is what starts him talking on this.

What do you think? Should those who claim a war on science by either bush or the republicans re-evaluate their claims?