Henry Kelly lays out the issues

US elections often seem to hinge on advertising budgets and the candidate’s personality, hair style, and mannerisms. But the gap separating President George W. Bush and his Democratic opponents on substantive issues is now so wide and so visible that the 2008 elections are likely to provide an unusual platform for discussing important policy choices – including choices that hinge on matters of science and technology.

Not only Iraq

The debate over the US future in Iraq is likely to dominate the election debate. In a recent CNN Opinion Research poll, 88 per cent of adult Americans found Iraq to be either very or extremely important and 80 per cent felt the same way about ‘terrorism’.
But there is also surprisingly strong interest in education (80 per cent), health care (78 per cent), and gas prices (74 per cent). Even global warming (53 per cent) and stem cells (48 per cent) were considered very or extremely important. And the issue of whether the Administration is suppressing or distorting federal scientific reports has received surprising levels of press attention.
When three of the candidates for the Republican nomination revealed that they don’t ‘believe’ in evolution it made front page news – though it’s disconcerting that anyone with such opinions would be taken as a serious Presidential candidate in a nation that owes its wealth and welfare to science and technology.

No publicity

While the public may be interested in discussing these issues, it’s not at all clear that the pundits advising candidates want to allow it. While a number of candidates have nuanced views and strong records in science and technology issues, it is often difficult to learn this from a review of standard stump speeches and candidate websites.
John McCain (R-AZ), for example, has a strong record on climate change. He resisted opposition from his own party to hold thoughtful hearings on the subject and introduce a serious bill on carbon cap and trade, along with Senator Lieberman. Yet his campaign materials seldom mention his achievements on these issues.
The scientific community should be pleased that a surprisingly strong bipartisan agreement has emerged about the need to increase research spending – at least in the physical sciences – driven by concerns about the future competitiveness of the US economy. Yet, the issue is virtually invisible in the campaign thus far. Hillary Clinton is essentially alone in laying out a detailed programme to promote innovation. The silence is not necessarily good news, however, since US research will be affected by the election’s outcome. Will tax cuts make it impossible to fund the desired research spending? Will biological and health research continue to be cut? Will ideological restrictions continue to block stem cell research and tangle priorities in reproductive health? 

When three of the candidates for the Republican nomination revealed that they don’t ‘believe’ in evolution it made front-page news

Energy policy

One potential bright spot is that virtually every candidate has been forced to grapple with US energy policy. Even candidates who usually oppose federal intervention in the economy have proposed subsidies and other interventions that would encourage automobile fuel economy improvements and alternative fuels.
The issue of what Americans are really willing to pay to cut oil consumption and improve the environment can, at some point, only be resolved through elections. This may carry over into a genuine discussion of climate change. With luck we’ll see someone elected with a mandate to make the tough decisions.
One problem, of course, is that the American public and much of the press corps has only a shaky grasp of many scientific concepts and an understandable fear of being misled. This fear has been cynically exploited by groups whose goal is to inject enough distorted information into the public debate to create confusion and doubt, even when the scientific community has come to a clear consensus. Few reporters covering campaigns have strong science credentials, and prefer to treat disputes between candidates on technical matters as they would any disagreement about their opinions.

Scientists and Engineers for America

Many members of the scientific community are justifiably concerned that the fog of election debate will make it all too easy for candidates to avoid taking thoughtful positions on a wide range of questions that hinge on issues of science. A group of Nobel laureates and other scientists (including myself) have formed an organisation called Scientists and Engineers for America. Its goal is to ensure that these issues are considered by candidates, and that their positions are easy to access and easy to understand. There is reason to be optimistic that we’ll succeed.

Dr Henry Kelly is President of the Federation of American Scientists.