Political Science

Please excuse a little diversion from the regularly scheduled programming. I thought this would get more play on the Borg. Perhaps I missed it but they seem to be obsessed over who should be the National Science Advisor at the moment.

Last week’s Science had a good bit on the scientific perspectives of Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Romney and Thompson. Also an editorial from Donald Kennedy entitled Science and God in the Election.

A Flavor:

Clinton has called for another doubling of the $30-billion-a-year National Institutes of Health budget during the next decade, the preservation of the NASA team involved in the shuttle program even as the agency shifts to new exploration missions, and the augmentation of NASA’s earth science and aeronautics programs.

[Edwards] would end what he calls the “antiscience” practices of George W. Bush’s Administration–such as “censoring research and slanting policy on climate change, on air pollution, on stem cell research.” And he would increase science funding… he advocates a low-cost “universal Internet” for rural communities [Ed: yea, for bloggers!] and more research on autism and fragile X syndrome, a genetic cause of mental impairment. He favors federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, including nuclear DNA transfer. … . he supports budget increases “substantially better than the pace of inflation” for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation.

[Giuliani’s] campaign successfully discouraged key advisers from speaking to Science about specific issues. … he said in May that “as long as we’re not creating life in order to destroy it–as long as we’re not having human cloning … I would support [federal funding].”

[Huckabee] raised his hand to say that he didn’t accept the theory [of evolution]. … opposition to the use of embryonic stem cells for research … When the Arkansas legislature rejected his proposal to use millions of dollars in tobacco-settlement funds for health care and medical research, he exercised his right as chief executive to call for a referendum, which passed handily. That effort only intensified after he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and shed 110 pounds… “He would certainly be a friend” of the National Institutes of Health as president, says G. Richard Smith, who helped with the referendum and now directs the psychiatric research institute at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. ..

[McCain] … also listened to the scientific experts in the stem cell debate. Although he opposes abortion, he voted for a bill to expand President George W. Bush’s policy on research with human embryonic stem cells. However, he draws the line at human nuclear transfer, or research cloning, arguing that there is no ethical difference between cloning for research and cloning for reproduction….Most nonclimate science issues are far down on McCain’s list of priorities. … he has sponsored a bill to restrict taxes on Internet use… wants to make better use of cyberspace to advance the cause of freedom in the tradition of Radio Free Europe. … he has also been involved in expanding H-1B visas for foreign science graduate students

Deborah Burnet, a pediatrician at the University of Chicago … says Obama … would urge her students to think about “how to use scientific inquiry to make intelligent public policy,… his message that students should apply “insights from scientifically collected evidence” to real-world problems… He’d like to double federal spending on basic research and help more Americans get on the Web by broadening Internet access [Ed: woohoo!]… He has proposed or supported legislation to promote embryonic stem cell research, increase research on avian influenza, and develop microbicides to protect women from HIV/AIDS. … For academic health centers, says Burnet, that means “getting the translational component going.”

[Romney] laced his stump speeches with references to his opposition to embryonic stem (ES) cell research and abortion and his doubts about the role of humans in global warming. That focus is a far cry from 5 years ago … wowed biotechnology leaders and university administrators with his aggressive and no-nonsense talk about unleashing the power of research. “We were impressed by his willingness to talk about the importance of research universities in the state and national economies,” says Paul Parravano, “For a lot of people here [MIT], this was fresh and important.”…He also consistently opposed efforts to introduce the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom…. His 2-year honeymoon with the research community ended abruptly in 2005, however, just as Romney’s presidential campaign was getting started. … He vetoed a bill passed by the Massachusetts legislature to allow ES cell research, citing his ethical concerns.

“The issue [for Thompson] was this billion-dollar project was happening in Tennessee,” says Moncton. “There was no discussion of how intrinsically interested he was in science.” Rick Borchelt, a longtime Democratic aide and former spokesperson for the Department of Energy lab, concurs. “He’s pretty much a cipher on science and technology,” says Borchelt. … Within a few hours of reading about a method of genetically reprogramming skin cells into what appear to be embryoniclike stem cells, [Thompson] rushed out a statement lauding the discovery. “Today’s announcement is just one more indication that our current policy in relying only on adult cells is working,” he said … Campaign staffers declined repeated requests from Science to detail Thompson’s views on science and technology issues.

This is filtered through whatever agenda Science folks have, of course. But it seems consistent with other sources. Pretty much everyone is in favor of “research” when they are talking about non-biological/ecological science and especially when it links into their ideas of stimulating the economy. Republican candidates dodge on bioscience, ecoscience and evolution because they are ideologically constrained. Democrats want to score points accordingly. I like the pandering to my demographic, i.e., those who want to increase the NIH budget, from a couple of candidates.

And, of course, some of these candidates may be more viable than others after Iowa and NH results of the past week.