Election 2008 Science
However, the recent economic trouble means that whichever candidate is elected, the incoming president will need to make some tough choices about which policies to cling to and which ones are fair weather goals. The decisions of which programs to maintain is important and, I think, represents a crucial choice that the upcoming President will have to make right out of the gate.
Neither of the candidates have gone out of their way to bring science front and center in their campaigns, which is more a reflection on American political values than on either of them personally, I think. For any last-minute fence-sitters who are interested, their stances on key scientific issues are tracked fairly well over at Science Debate 2008.
I will say that Obama seems, as always, more eloquent in speaking about the need for science than McCain, who remains guarded in presenting detailed scientific plans and has a tendency to site scientific projects such as Chicago's Adler Planetarium renovation as an example of wasteful earmarks. Presumably, then, he would cut these projects to some degree, and his comments on the Science Debate 2008 website certainly reflect a willingness to consider it.
In fairness, though, Obama will have to cut something too, and he doesn't have a long enough record for voters to be certain he won't cut science funding. His statements present a man who is deeply committed to expanding science education and research, but that could just be a politician telling groups what they want to hear. Still, this uncertainty hasn't kept academia and scientific figures from leaning in support of Obama.
Perhaps nowhere is this more clear than in the announcement that 61 Nobel laureates (22 of them Physics Nobelists) signed a letter endorsing Barack Obama, the largest number of Nobel laureates to come out and support a single candidate. The letter mentions reasons for supporting Obama, but I see no indication in the letter of what particular deficiency McCain has that would warrant not supporting him.
In his New Scientist column, physicist Lawrence Krauss points out that this is rather odd given that historically Republicans have actually tended to fund science more strongly than Democrats. In another essay, Krauss goes into detail on why he will be voting for Obama. (Only part of this rationale is due to the anti-scientific stances which Sarah Palin seems to support.)
This support among scientists seems to largely come from the idea that Obama presents a more thoughtful demeanor and, when forced to consider which programs to emphasize and which to cut, will take the larger view of what's better for our nation ... in other words, he'll support investment in our science and technology infrastructure over more short-term programs.
Allow me to offer an analogy: a few years back, my property taxes increased substantially, and I was in a situation of economic hardship of my own. I had to decide what to abandon, and my cable television access went away, much to my regret. I did, however, choose to keep my equally-costly internet access ... and had I not done so, I wouldn't have been able to have gotten work as the About.com Physics Guide. I know several people, however, who would lose their internet over cable television, or potentially given up both.
In my viewpoint, internet access is not merely another stream of media access, but an investment. While the information I obtain from cable television is useful in my work, the access to information through the internet was fundamentally crucial even then, and has become only moreso since. Internet access is essential to my life and work, while cable television is optional.
And this is where the analogy comes back to science - because the President will face the similar decisions in the year ahead, as he tries to pay off the $700 billion price tag on the Wall Street bailout bill and has to decide which components of the national infrastructure are optional and which are essential.
The problem, of course, is that when looking at it on the national level, everything is essential to someone, because every industry has people who make their living in it.
Is a bear DNA study or an "overhead projector" for a Planetarium an extravagance, or a crucial investment into our scientific and educational plan for the United States? Does intelligence design deserve equal presentation in a science classroom to neo-darwinian evolution? Is pure scientific research an investment that America needs to make, even in tough times?
On Tuesday, America gets to decide. However you decide, please go vote.
Related Articles:
- About.com Election '08 coverage
- Science Debate 2008
- Scientific American - Science and the U.S. Election coverage
- Popular Mechanics - Geek the Vote '08
- Popular Science - Research Development: How will the next American president keep the country at the center of the high-tech universe?
- Popular Science - Tech's Top 10 Election Lows
- New Scientist - Special Report on U.S. Election 2008
- New Scientist - Why 61 Nobel Laureates endorsed Obama by Lawrence Krauss
- New Scientist - Will reason or unreason prevail? by Lawrence Krauss
- A Call for Pure Research
- FactCheck.org
- PhysicsWorld - Has Bush Been Good for Science? by John H. Marburger, White House science advisor
Comments
Well said.