Time for Presidential Candidates to Debate Science Policy
Science and technology lie at the center of a large number of the policy issues facing our nation and the world. A future president’s understanding of these issues can profoundly affect our national and economic security. For Democrats and Republicans alike, a solid grasp of the science and technology that is transforming our lives is an important requirement for national leadership.
A president with a sufficient understanding of the promise of various technologies and the role of the federal government in guiding them can help America cure diseases, develop alternative energy sources, and graduate scientifically
literate children.
Or we could elect a scientific doofus – not for the first time, either. We can cede our scientific and technological leadership to other countries (OK, we will cede much of it — but we need not cede it all and we need not cede our role as drivers of global innovation).
Three policy areas that will be central to the election require a basic understanding of relevant science and technology: the environment, health and medicine, and scientific research.
On the environment, candidates need to come clean on global warming. Is it an emergency like Al Gore says or is it a long term concern and not necessarily our most pressing one as 400 top scientists recently declared. How will government address abuse of the commons that always occurs when resources are shared, not owned (think fish, water, endangered species, whales, etc.).
On health and medicine, the debate focuses almost exclusively on increasing health care access and affordability. But where would candidates invest in disease prevention? What is their view of government funding for stem cell research (hint: it is unnecessary — private capital is flooding the field and we Californians borrowed a ton of money to support stem cell research that will turn out to have been largely wasted). What limits should government impose on genomics research and technology? Asian flu: disaster waiting to happen or the government wasting our chicken eggs?
Scientific research is another Washington sinkhole that lives either at the Pentagon, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, especially its Advanced Technology Program, or the National Science Foundation, easily the crown jewels. The NSF spends about $6 billion annually, which makes them bit players in Washington, but they fund 20% of the nation’s basic scientific research. It is a budget that could be very usefully doubled — and you can find the money at DOD and NIST.
I am leaving out space exploration, but we spend a lot of money on that, so it should be a fourth, and scientific education is a fifth, except that I for one could care less if most of our top scientists are born in India and China, so long as come to school here and stick around to invent cool stuff. I care a lot more about the quality of basic scientific education that our kids get, and judging from Mr. Huckabee’s comments on evolution, Hope Arkansas has a ways to go.
A presidential candidate’s debate focused on science and technology issues is a great idea, currently being championed by these folks here. Help ‘em out. Sign their petition. Make a fuss. We should make our candidates debate science and technology issues. Might have saved us a lot of heartache this last eight years.
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
