Much has and will be said about Obama's inauguration speech, but for now I just want to look at it from the perspective of science. For eight years the United States has been driven by a president who valued faith above evidence, who was "suspicious" of intellectuals and intelligence, who suppressed or simply ignored scientific advice that did not fit in with his own simple ideology. As I argued in the article I wrote for the Why Science project recently, science needs to be an integral part of politics. It seems Obama feels the same way I do.

Ames at one of my favourite must-read blogs, "Submitted to A Candid World", recently wrote an article comparing the rise of Tony Blair and New Labour before his election in 1997, with the victory of Obama and what he called the "New Democrats" in 2008. Indeed, the similarities are uncanny. Both came to power after deeply unpopular opposition governments, both achieves stunning victories, both campaigned the simply but effective mantra "time for a change". But not long after Tony Blair took power things began to unravel, and it turned out that under the glossy sheen and behind the 100 watt smile, things were not what they seemed. What had seemed like the greatest victory for the left in a generation began to turn sour. Could the same happen with Obama?