- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
As I noted last week, advisers to the presidential candidates have been fairly mum about which scientists, medical leaders and engineers have signed on to advise and/or support Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.
It’s something Albert H. Teich also noted when I contacted this director of Science & Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science several weeks back. Observed Teich in August, “You don’t have any really identifiable science people associated with McCain’s campaign, whereas there are quite a few people on the Obama side.” Indeed, he said, “You could say that there is a brain trust of scientists” linked to the Democratic candidate.
Yesterday, Obama’s campaign released “an open letter to the American people” signed by 61 Nobel laureates. All received their award for achievements in physics (22), chemistry (14) or medicine (25).
In their letter, they argue that during the past eight years, “vital parts of our country’s scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support. The government’s scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations.”
Commenting on Obama’s stump rhetoric, the letters point “in particular” to measures that the Illinois senator said he plans to implement to meet national and global needs “through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research.” Many of these points have been outlined on Obama’s website and in his written responses to Science Debate 2008 questions (all of which are also summarized in the latest issue of Science News and Science News online reports).
Alas, Obama’s plans for boosting the conduct of science and the development of a larger, better trained workforce may be compromised by current events. If, as seems likely, the public will be asked to shoulder a $700 billion-plus bailout of financial institutions in the coming year, Uncle Sam’s purse strings will be stretched taut. Just Wednesday, Obama acknowledged that such a bailout would slow the pace at which he — should he reach the White House — would be able to phase in his proposed changes.
When McCain's campaign releases the names of his science and engineering advisers and supporters, we'll post those here as well.
In the mean time, let’s just hope that the new president, whoever it turns it to be, doesn’t neglect science as he deals with Wall Street’s economic struggles. Because science is one of the best long-term investments any nation can make. And it pays off in good times and bad.
Found in: Biomedicine, Chemistry, Physics and Science & Society
- The presidential candidates on science
- Science & the Public : The Presidential Climate
- Science & the Public : Obama Likes Research
- Science & the Public : McCain Is Bullish on R&D
- Science & the Public : Vitamins add vitality to aging chromosomes
- Science & the Public : How killer whales are like people
- Science & the Public : Cousteau finds “hypocrisy” in scientific whaling
- Science & the Public : Plastics ingredients may shrink babies
- Science & the Public : Become a guinea pig

Michael MacKinney
Also, if you really mean to say, as I read it, that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is "scientifically incorrect", then I would like to know your sources. That is a surprisingly strong claim, especially since the majority of scientists and all of the scientific academies of major industrialized nations support that hypothesis.
The percent is irrelevant. If this was not the case, the US would never have a president (hint: what fraction of the total US population votes in presidential elections?)
Are you counting DOD funding in your calculation of President Bush's "generous" science budgets? As far as biomedical research is concerned, President Bush has been the first president in over 30 years to propose a year-over-year flat NIH budget (twice). While he allowed the Clinton 5-year funding program for the NIH to run its course (ended 2003), he has greatly squandered much of what was underway since then. Like most areas of science and technology, consistent support is crucial for progress in this area. Together with this administration’s documented habit of marginalizing inconvenient data and analysis, it is quite understandable why many scientists and science policy professionals hold him and anyone who plans to continue his policies in low regard.
This should be a no-win situation for the Dems: if Obama gets elected and their earlier refusals have been based on logic and principle, Obama's proposals won't get funded either. On the other hand, if they are funded, it will show that the Congressional Democratic leadership is willing to do serious and permanent damage to the American scientific enterprise just so that George Bush can't claim any credit for it. I don't care to hope that Congress lacks principle just so that science gets funded reasonably.
McCain, if elected, will almost certainly face a Democratically-controlled Congress, but at least he has a track record of being able to reach across the aisle to develop support for his ideas. Maybe it won't be too bad.
Please login or register to participate.