Is McCain or Obama Better for Science? Part 1

October 13, 2008

Some of you may be wondering when I’m going to get back to writing about human-animal hybrids, telepathic ray guns and other similarly weighty topics, but bear with me, because we’ve got only a few weeks left until the 2008 presidential election. This is a contest with really important, potentially world-changing issues at stake — though you wouldn’t know about it from the mainstream media, which is focused primarily upon the candidates’ personalities and campaign tactics. I’ve been particularly irked, for example, at the cable news fixation upon the  McCain campaign’s efforts to exploit the tenuous-at-best link between Obama and  onetime '60s radical William Ayers, and upon the Obama campaign’s counter-attacking  attempt to resurrect the Keating Five scandal, in which McCain was involved back in the days when he wore wider ties and had more hair. The MSM’s feigned disapproval of candidates getting down and dirty is more than a little disingenuous. In truth, the blow-dried bloviating class loves it when politicians call each other names, because angry, impassioned brouhaha makes for more dramatic television. (Just ask Judge Judy.)

How easily I digress. This week’s topic is one that you probably won’t hear about on Hardball or Hannity and Colmes. Which candidate would do more, policy-wise, to advance science?

Discerning how science-friendly the candidates are is all the more important because we’ve just struggled through eight years of the Bush administration, which arguably was the most anti-scientific in U.S. history. More than 15,000 U.S.scientists, including Nobel Laureates and former heads of federal agencies, have signed a petition decrying the Bush White House’s misuse and abuse of science to advance its political and ideological agenda. The document charges:

When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.

As a 2004 Wired article details, scientists have accused Bush administration officials of, among other things, censoring research data on climate change that might have undermined the administration’s opposition to regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and replacing well-qualified scientists on advisory committees dealing with child lead poisoning and other regulatory issues with individuals connected with the industries being regulated.

We need a president whose administration won’t interfere with scientists and will base its policies upon the best available science. But we also need him to aggressively promote both basic and applied research and the development of new technologies, if we’re going to solve problems such as climate change and dependence upon foreign oil, and build a 21st-century economy that is driven by something other than credit card debt and inflated real estate prices.

This week we’ll look at McCain. On his campaign Web site, the Arizona senator boasts that he is “uniquely qualified” for the presidency because of his experience as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. (Maybe I’m cynical, but I hope that legislative background compensates for his admitted inability to do a Google search on anything he needs to know about.) A better source of information is a questionnaire that McCain filled out for Science Debate 2008, a joint effort of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and other science organizations. On the question of restoring scientific integrity in government, here’s what he has to say:

We have invested huge amounts of public funds in scientific research. The public deserves to have the results of that research. Our job as elected officials is to develop the policies in response to those research results. Many times our research results have identified critical problems for our country. Denial of the facts will not solve any of these problems. Solutions can only come about as a result of a complete understanding of the problem. I believe policy should be based upon sound science. Good policy development will make for good politics. 

I support having a science and technology advisor within the White House staff and restoring the credibility and role of OSTP as an office within the White House structure. I will work to fill early in my Administration both the position of Science Adviser and at least four assistant directors within OSTP. I am committed to asking the most qualified scientists and engineers to join not only my OSTP, but all of the key technical positions in my Administration.

Integrity is critical in scientific research. Scientific research cannot succeed without integrity and trust. My own record speaks for integrity and putting the country first, not political agendas.

That at least sounds a bit better than the Bush approach, but I have my doubts about McCain’s respect for scientific research. Remember, he’s the candidate who habitually ridicules a five-year, $4.8 million genetic study of grizzly bears in Montana as an example of wasteful government spending. (As this Scientific American article explains, scientists say the study’s goal is to learn about population trends among Ursus arctos horribilis so that federal and state wildlife agencies can figure out how to best protect a threatened species.) If that’s not misrepresenting science for political purposes, I don’t know what is.

Beyond that, I’m skeptical about how much McCain would support scientific research and technological development. He promises to be a booster for both, but judging from his Web site, beyond providing tax credits for industrial R&D, he doesn’t seem to want to put much actual government funding into science, with the notable exception of the U.S. space program. McCain says he would commit to funding NASA’s Constellation program, which would replace the Space Shuttle with a new generation of spacecraft and booster vehicles capable of transporting astronauts to the moon and possibly to Mars.

So, what do you think? Express your opinion below. Next week, we’ll evaluate Obama.

Comments

[John Brisker]

Not to mention that his running mate thinks humans and dinosaurs coexisted 6,000 years ago.

[Eileen Mayo]

I don't trust McCain about anything.

[Astroboy]

I LIKE MCCAIN

[John Beck Real Estate]

This blog Is very informative , I am really pleased to post my comment on this blog . It helped me with ocean of knowledge so I really belive you will do much better in the future . Good job web master .

[Joe the Plumber]

I don't know much about science, but I don't want to pay more taxes no matter what. So the fact that McCain isn't going to fund research is a plus to me.

[Mike the Accountant]

McCain actually criticized Obama for helping a Chicago-area planetarium get $3 million in federal funds to replace its 40-year-old projection system. Planetariums are really important for getting kids excited about science and for inspiring them to think about science as a career. Instead of giving more tax cuts to millionaires who don't need them, we ought to be funding more science education, which our nation desperately needs in order to keep its position in the world. That McCain can't see the necessity of this is evidence that he's not suited for the White House.

[David the Bike Rider]

Only science can provide the answers to the most important challenging issues we face such as global warming and ending our dependence on fossil fuels. First of all, when gas prices shot up over four dollars a gallon recently, instead of stepping up to the plate and announcing an ambitious plan to get us off our oil addiction, McCain exploited the public's anger at the gas pump and demanded that we "drill and drill now!" and joined in the catchy "drill, baby, drill" chant. Here was an opportunity to explain 1) The time factor in constructing new oil wells. Most oil wells take years and years to build before a drop of oil comes out. 2) The cost factor. If oil companies were forced to implement full cost accounting disclosure to reflect the true cost of extraction, transportation, insurance, refining, delivery to the consumer and pollution abatement, nobody would give this option any serious consideration. 3) the nature of how oil is priced. Oil is a globally traded commodity and the price set is based on world supply and demand. Even if the US exploited the entire arctic wildlife refuge, there is only enough proven reserves to satisfy our needs for 2 years. A similar untold story is true of nuclear power plants. Full cost accounting makes this option also an unwise choice. They are expensive to build and no one wants nuclear power plants in their backyards. But the biggest problem is no one has figured out an economical and safe way to store and dispose of spent nuclear rods.

One of the most blatant ways McCain has broadcast his priorities when it comes to science is to simply look at who he chose as his vice presidential running mate. No disrespect to women at all but Palin is skeptical that global warming is directly related to man made emissions of Co2 and believes that dinosaurs and men coexisted a few thousand years ago.

Bottom line is McCain cannot be trusted to utilize science as the core methodology to solve our planet's problems.

[Funky Chameleon]

I couldn't agree more with David. McCain's energy policy is so horrendously bad that it's hard to imagine him making any science-based decisions on anything. In contrast, if you go to Obama's web site and read his environmental policies for climate change, protecting the oceans, etc., it's all very well thought out. You can tell that he's seeking and getting advice from top scientists before he develops policy positions.

[Laura Walters]

McCain seems to me to be the sort of politician who makes snap decisions based on his mood at the moment, rather than dispassionate analysis. That to me is the antithesis of science-based policy!

[Hisham Mirza]

Obama will reduce NASA's budget, while McCain will increase it. NASA is one of our national most scientific agencies.

[J-DuB]

Yes, NASA is a strong scientific force in our country, ....but not all of us scientists work there.

[Sean]

Hey Iv known president clinton and bush senior really close for some time when they actually volentered to help clean what was left of my house in galveston after the hurricane(which obama criticized them for helping and on top of that im goin to be taxed out the *** and my tax money will go to "unfortunate" B/S and useless causes)they both have told me that what the american people do not understand is the patience of change. It takes great amount of time to change one policy or moment in the world. "the world doesnt work like a fast food restuarant, but more like the most delicate bakery". in which change takes time if you actually want a good change...

and people you sound ignorant.. quit being so emotional about policies. unless you can invent a new engine that runs of "bubu and kiki" then we have to use oil... and we need all the oil we can get before we have the intelligence to actually go green. wind power and water power isnt enough to make us go green. and dont complain about mccain not in favor of this because he is.. it people like you who sit here and complain about global warming and green instead of getting off your liberal and doing something about it....

Start thinking with your brains and quit thinking with your hearts....

you liberal democrats complain about why the rest of the world hates us.. iv been to been to europe as with many other countries and met with parliament and many other leaders.... what they told me was the same exact quote iv posted on this blog many times.."americans need to quit thinking with there hearts, and start thinking with there brains". in actuallity I really do not care what people think of american.. but you liberal democrats deffinately do for a matter of fact.. so unless you wanna be a useless complainer.GET OFF YOUR *** AND ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

and i never said all scientist worked there.. but I do agree it is a strong force of advancement

[J-DuB]

I was referring to Hashim's post above. Meaning NASA shouldn't be our only concern when it comes to scientific policy. I am not implying that that is his only concern, but my concern as well,is that they are those out there who are short sighted, and it worries me that more often than not, presidents are elected on whims.

[Brenda B]

Say J-DuB,

I agree that we need to start thinking with our brains. Would that not also mean that someone of Sarah Palin's ilk should no way, no how be allowed to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? John McCain too for that matter. Let's utilize the brightest of the bright for the most important office, in perhaps the world. Let's not be a laughingstock to the rest of the world. I've read blogs from all over the world and they are laughing at us right now. Sarah Palin is a joke.

Lastly, before I go, if you're going to trash the liberal democrats about being ignorant, you should at least use spell checker and try to use a comprehensive sentence. You're making your party look rather ignorant.

This is one middle aged, middle class white woman who already voted for Obama.

[Avery the Engineer]

Wow, Sean almost sounds a little inebriated in that comment eh? Had to hit myself in the head with a crescent wrench a few times just to navigate my way through it. It is amusing however, to think such a person would actually say he has met with world leaders and parliament (by the way... which parliament was that again? because as of yet, a unified world parliament does not exist...so...umm...yeah).

These past 8 years have truly been frightening for all of us with functioning frontal lobes... it's hard not to become emotional about policies that continually degrade our standards of living, laws which infringe on our civil liberties and ways of thinking which seem more at place in the Salem Witch trials or the Spanish Inquisition (next up: the world really is flat and the center of the universe!!). But what truly upsets me the most? Well it's not completely science related... It's hipocrisy; A decade ago, the republican party went on its witch hunt to remove then-president Clinton from office for lying about his now infamous affair, even going as far as to impeach him... Several years later, a republican president stared blankly into the headlights as two symbols of Americass financial power crumbled to the earth, he then used that horror, still fresh in our minds, and took us to war with a nation that had nothing to do with the attacks. A war based soley on lies and misinformation, tens of thousands dead on both sides, a country in economic and social ruins, trillions of dollars wasted... and the best part? Another mid-east population with justified anger towards us. Yet no one has tried to impeach this man. I find it disgusting, and I cannot forgive our system for this utter and complete failure of integrity.

[Markus O'Reallyis]

Avery, I agree with you on many points, This man they've called our president for the past eight years is lacking in so many areas, and is so obviously biased towards big oil and his own Ole'Boy network, I myself am not partial towards either party, but this man has made so many mistakes, and yet people say he will leave a decent legacy/record behind. but we cannot go without making a stand against those that would harm us or our country, answering a call like 911. History has shown us that, you'll end up appeasing tyrants such as Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. And dont say it wont happen, it has so many times, but yet we have people complain about someone like Clinton's morals and a republican congress that fought him tooth and nail, he gave us a great economy, regardless of his personal life, I could care less of his personal life, I know more than a few businessmen with lousy personal lifes that are great managers. But when his VP's Company received tens of millions of no bid contracts, overcharged for them, and that same company put policies in place that put Civilian employees and our Service men in danger, barely a word was heard from those same people.
Well my gosh, they did make the Vice president, I mean, that corporation pay back 13 million they overcharged for fuel.
Clinton, no he was never removed, he just had his 2 terms, I wish he could have had 2 more. But we would be mistaken for walking out of Asia now and leaving a Vacuum. That is where we have been mistaken in the past. I Like Obama's message that he would work towards helping the middle class and providing for those that can't provide for themselves, but his rhetoric about walking out of Irag without a stable government is asking for trouble that is sure to come back to our shores again.
And as for as Sean, Yeah, he seems to have a lot of time to comment on almost every article i've seen about B.Obama is the same informed, classy manner,lol.
!!** Hey and as for Hillary Clinton, MMMM, I'll bet more people would have voted for her if everyone thought Bill was to have been her Secretary of State! Any Comments? Anyone? :)

[Air Jordan shoes]

Air Jordan Retro Sneakers Released Want to know what to get your your favorite sports fan for the holidays? How about the "cool grey 11 s," a remake of the final Air Jordan shoes that Michael Jordan wore in his last season in the NBA.