- What are you going to do about climate change?
- Should ID be taught in schools, and in which department?
- What do you believe about embryonic stem cell research?
- Do you support changes in NAGPRA and why?
- How much say should the White House have over scientific publications by the NIH and other institutions?
- What do you want to do with NASA's shuttle program?
- Do you support science education in K-12?
Last week, the news broke about the public initiative by Congressmen Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) and Rush Holt (D-NJ) to petition for a US presidential candidate debate on science issues. That might be a while coming, but tomorrow, January 4, 2008, Science magazine will publish an indepth look at the science stands of each of the major candidates in the US political run for the presidency. Tellingly, none of the candidates were willing to speak directly to Science editors, and the articles were written based on comments obtained from advisers, friends and enemies. Nevertheless, the articles provide a solid basis for determining what kind of support each candidate plans to give to scientific questions that will directly affect our future---and I don't just mean the future of the United States.
Candidates highlighted include Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama; Governors Huckabee, Richardson and Romney; and otherwise employed gentlemen Thompson, Edwards, and Guiliani. You should really read the article to get the full story, but here is a brief summary.
The range of support for science varies greatly, and the cross-platform differences are the most obvious with regard to dealing with climate change. Democrats are all calling for some kind of budgetary inclusion for coping with climate change, whether it's greenhouse gas emission cuts or research budgets for R&D into alternative energy sources. On the Republican side, only John McCain has called for such action, although several of the others have admitted there might be an issue.
A Brief Rundown by Candidate (alphabetical)
Hillary Clinton proposes a $50 billion research and deployment fund for green energy and the establishment of a national energy council to oversee climate and greentech research programs. Rudolph Guliani, by contrast, actively discouraged his aides from speaking to Science about the issues at all. John Edwards proposes a cut in greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050, and has supported (unspecified) budget increases for the NIH and NSF.
Mike Huckabee has stated that he doesn't believe in evolution, but says he's "not planning on writing curriculum for an 8th grade science book." John McCain has argued with President Bush on climate change, writing a successful bill with Joe Lieberman to reduce greenhouse gases; he has also "waffled on the teaching of evolution".
Barack Obama supports a "market-based carbon trading system to cut carbon emissions by 2050 and wants invest $150 billion to develop biofuels." Bill Richardson calls for a 90% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050, and a 50% cut in oil consumption by 2020. Fred Thompson's staffers refused to comment on science and technology issues, and has commented that 'quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit'.
This commentary doesn't do the several articles justice, and I strongly recommend that those of you with votes to consider get your hands on a copy as soon as it hits the stands January 4. I'll post the link as soon as it becomes available.
- Science magazine, which is where these articles will show up tomorrow
- Kennedy, Donald. 2008. Science and God in the Election. Science 319:12. I think you can get this editorial for free with a registration.
- Mervis, Jeffrey et al. 2008. Science and the Next U.S. President. Science 319:22-31. US$10 for the download from Science
- US presidential candidates and their views on scientific issues, news release on EurekAlert!
Comments
I would add two additional issues to start:
1. What do they envision for the NSF budget, especially in regard to increasing levels of innovation, research progress in other global regions as compared to the US. Do we need a major initiative for basic scientific research, particularly at NSF, as in the 1960s?
2. What will be done to tighten oversight over the nation’s food and drug supplies, given increasing number of crises over the quality of our supply over the last few years.
Gary
Good additions. I remember now that Section 106 came under the Bush knife a couple of years ago, too, so how about:
Do you support Section 106 and other parts of the cultural resources and environmental resources legislation?
Kris