Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 24 September 2008 | Nature 455, 446-449 (2008) | doi:10.1038/455446a
News Feature: Q&A
US election: Questioning the candidates
Barack Obama accepted Nature's invitation to answer 18 science-related questions in writing; John McCain's campaign declined. Obama's answers to many of the questions are printed here; answers to additional questions (on topics including biosecurity, the nuclear weapons laboratories and US participation in international projects) can be found at http://www.nature.com/uselection. Wherever possible, Nature has noted what McCain has said at other times on these topics.
What will be your highest priority in the science and technology arena?
Barack Obama: I am committed to strengthening US leadership in science, technology and innovation, and doing so will be a central priority for my administration. Our talent for innovation is still the envy of the world, but we face unprecedented challenges that demand new approaches.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
It's really a pity that only one of the president candidates are interested enough about science to answer the Nature poll .
One can check replies by both Obama and McCain to a total of 14 questions on science and envirnoment, asked by more than 38,000 scientist, engineers, and public in general, here: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42
To Stephanie Lager: Rather than a pity, it's a clean line between Obama and McCain - clearly, Obama is progressive in science and sees how all are helped by science separated from politics. Makes our choice easy here in the States.
I see that not only does John McCain steal Obama's signs and slogans, he's willing to say just about anything Obama has said -- as long as he doesn't get caught on another day somewhere else saying something different, or reminded of how he actually voted on the issue! Thanks to Jordi for that link. The criticism I've heard most often about Obama is "all talk, no substance." On this issue at least it seems the roles are entirely reversed. But while "Cap-and-trade" is a better stance than none, carbon tax plans provide the better plan for the environment. See... http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/ But as we all know, and Canada's Stephane Dion *should* have known, you can't say the word "tax" in any North American election if you want to be elected.
By answering to the Nature poll, i believe Obama has clear interest in science and would surely increase funding and encourage new avenues for research.
I have the impression that McCain is less passionate about science itself, but more on how much contribution it has to the country. On immigration, he also phrased smart people as "highly skilled worker".
McCain's belief in evolution must be of an extremely threadbare sort, given that his VP pick, Sarah Palin, is a ?teach both? conservative who has said, in answer to a straight-up query about whether she believes in evolution, "I believe we have a creator" (but who refused to answer the question more explicitly: http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html). Ditto for the scientific consensus on climate change, which McCain purports to ackowledge but which his picked one-heartbeat-away successor, Palin, denies, though she lately has taken to lying about having taken that position (http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/09/16/palin-changes-position-on-global-warming-then-denies-it/). Meawhile, Obama, who has received major donations from the nuclear industry (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/for_both_clinton_and_obama_nuc.html), asserts as received doctrine, without argument, that "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option." Given nuclear power's gold-plated price tag and ultra-slow deployment rate, that's like asserting that "It is unlikely that a family of 4 on food stamps can meet its dietary goals if it eliminates filet mignon as an option." We do not, of course, need all options on the table, because we cannot afford to put them there. . . . The needle of my hope gauge is very near the Empty line. Still I?d far rather Obama?s Empire as Usual approach than McCain?s arrogant, erratic, and dangerous temperament wired to half the world?s nuclear weapons.
Why didn't this article mention any third-party candidates? I support Ralph Nader and would like to read his responses to these questions! Also, LET RALPH DEBATE!
McCain's lack of response has nothing to do with lack of 'interest' in science. It has to do with his party making sure he doesn't say something contrary to what he has said before or that what he says is as close as possible to what the party believes the public wants to hear. Think about it. Why do you think some of his answers are not coming directly from him, but rather from an advisor, Jay Khosla. We hear about Sarah Palin being shielded from the media, a close look shows John McCain being very much in the same boat. He's made a few gaffes lately. Does anyone really believe that John McCain chooses to bypass the first presidential debate because he believes he's sorely needed in the bailout discussions. These words may be coming from him, but you can bet it's his campaign team that is scared half to death he'll say the wrong thing in debate or open discussion.
Communication is key in every life situation without it we are left in a stew of confusion and misunderstanding. I find it particularly interesting (in the case of these two presidential candidates) the brow beating of one for offering and sharing his critical thinking on any given topic, and the less than lucid, and at times child like, responses offered by the other without fanfair or correction from himself or his team. If I don't know something I'm not too proud to say, hey I have no frame of reference on this topic. A simple and truthful response easy to say with no scars left behind. It is hard for me to believe that the ladder candidate has held a position in the political arena making decisions that affect our lives for over 20 years. How did this happen? Whatever happened to the old adage that a person's word is his bond. Without a robust and thriving scientific community this country would be quite different on many levels. Obviously Mr. Obama is intelligent enough to recognize this fact. Thank goodness! MRL
The whole part about auctioning off the carbon credits? *mwah*kiss* That's beautiful, make them work for it. But seriously folks, Can we all just except the fact that Obama was clearly educated and informed when making these taking these questions into account in a thoughtful and pragmatic (love that word) way. I'll be truly grateful for a President who listens to all sides to make the best informed decision. In order for America to climb from this economic pit you have to undergo a massive expansion and entice visitors to engage in scientific research and expansion. Shoot for Mars 2050! And that's the way I feel about that.
Just because Mr. Obama chose to answer the questions, while Mr. McCain chose not to, should not be seen as clear evidence that President Obama would be better for science than President McCain (or any other candidate). Being a scientist myself, I prefer a president who leaves science to the scientists. We have had 8 years now with a president meddling with areas of science and technology that he didn't fully understand, and the result has (in my view) been rather negative for scientific progress. With all due respect to Mr. Obama, if he does indeed get elected President, I hope he will refrain from trying to "guide" the scientific direction too much.
Dumb question -- didn't the United States already land a man on the moon in 1969? Also, did Obama really write these responses himself? Why, then, does he use the British spelling "programme" instead of the American spelling "program"? Did somebody modify or edit this before it was published? And although I am for Obama, it may not necessarily be the case that John McCain himself declined to answer -- it could have been a spokesperson or handler who may have refused on his behalf.
For what its worth, Obama may be wrong on his comments about Yucca mountain nuclear waste storaage. See Dr Richard Muller's take on this in his recent book, PHYSICS FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS. Burgy (www.burgy.50megs.com)
To "Comedian Dan Nainan" -- I don't know whether Obama wrote these answers himself, but the use of "programme" isn't evidence one way or another. Nature is a British publication, so they quite naturally alter American spellings to the British forms.
McCain keeps mocking a bear DNA project in his speeches as an example of what he thinks is not worth spending money on. I don't know any details of the project, but I think it clearly gives the impression that he think genomics research is of no value. Seems like the choice for most scientists should be easy...
The basic difference between the Democratic team and the Republican team is this: the Democratic team will listen to the scientists and then make decisions based on their findings. The Republicans will make their decisions and then look high and low until they can find some lone "scientist" who is willing to divert his research findings so that they will purport to support what the administration wants to show. That's how it's been for the last half a century, only in spades with the last administration. That's how it will be. More than 60 Nobel Prize winners now agree with me, as you know if you suscribe to Science. They signed an open letter and published it there, advising one and all to vote for Obama-Biden.
In recent decades, one of the presidential nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties has almost always been an incumbent president or a sitting or former vice president. When the candidate has not been a president or vice president, nominees of the two main parties have been state Governors or U.S. Senators. The last nominee from either party who had not previously served in such an office was General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who won the Republican nomination and ultimately the presidency in the 1952 election.A number of trends in the political experience of presidents have been observed over the years. The first was the place of Secretary of State as a "stepping-stone" to the White House, with five of the six Presidents who served between 1801 and 1841 previously holding that office. However, since 1841, only one Secretary of State has gone on to be President (James Buchanan). Contemporary electoral success has clearly favored state governors. Of the last five presidents, four (Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) have been governors of a state (all except for George H. W. Bush). Geographically, these presidents were from either very large states (California, Texas) or from a state south of the Mason-Dixon Line and east of Texas (Georgia, Arkansas). In all, sixteen presidents have been former governors, including seven who were in office as governor as the time of their election to the presidency. ---------------------------------------- francis http://drivenwide.com
In my opinion a good deal of information about how the candidates respond or will respond to science can be gleaned from who is advising them on these issues. Obama's chief adviser is a former head of the National Institute of Health and a Nobel Laureate. A good number of McCain's advisers are people who have been in the defense sector. This alone shows us that what the candidates plan to do with science budgets and science in general could be totally different.
I think it's easy as scientists to want to get more funding for research -- the devil's advocate in me says that it's self-serving. The reason Obama's response is so compelling is that his scientific agenda is for economic reasons. Yes, I do laud his idealogical stances on nuclear power and embryonic stem-cell research. However, we can see his funding for space is driven by the innovation it creates on our planet, and the new markets fosters. I think a push for Mars in 2050 and the search for life outside of Earth is, well -frankly- dumb. And science for science's sake only to satisfy human curiosity is not self-sustaining, it is art.
Yes, I am an Obama supporter and a scientist, both before I read his well-thought out responses to these important questions, and even more so now. If you really want understand McCain's attitude towards scientific research, go back to the archives of the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, (2000 or 2004) in which he mocked government-supported research of carbon emissions by cattle and vowed to put an end to funding for such a ridiculous use of taxpayer dollars. I also recall a more recent comment by McCain while campaigning in which he lended credence to the theory that childhood immunizations cause autism, despite lack of evidence and the proven contribution of immunization programs to the health of children worldwide. What other medical protocol can claim to have saved so many lives through disease prevention? If a presidential candidate makes such an irresponsible comment that could lead to fewer children being vaccinated, just imagine the possibilities if he does win the election. Obama is right on so many issues: Americans must be competitive technologically, or we will continue to lag behind in terms of the economy, military,and energy, while China and India sprint ahead.
Science At The 2008 National Election Western Culture Wavers At 2008 Junction 1) What, grosso modo, is "Western Culture" http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=262 "Western culture" is the ongoing dynamically evolving science-informed culture, initiated in Western Europe, tinted with a variety of regional/national/ethnic/religious aspects. Its essential characteristic is a continuous flexible adaptation to ever evolving science-informed findings-comprehensions, with various degrees and modes of concurrent dismissal or modification of traditional supernatural cultural phenotypic aspects". (my definition.DH) 2) But since the 1920s "western culture" has an additional major feature; "Societal Implications Of Science And Technology Evolution Since The 1920s" http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/61.page#215 Since the 1920s technology development has been THE TOOL of capital formation and accumulation together with their inherent social and societal values, attitudes and life style and even together with their inherent individual and societal-social ethics. Basic, non-applied science, since the 18th century Enlightenment the banner of social and societal evolution out of entrenched traditional doctrines and values, has been abandoned and presently barely survives in few institutions. Enlightenment's inherent philosophy and attitudes in regards to individualism, universal human progress and the applications of reason have been pushed off the western culture highway by the ever rising flood of values, attitudes and texture of life of the technology era. The values, attitudes and texture of life of the technology era include a "freely competitive capitalistic market", free of government regulation. This has been both good and bad. The good has been the wide public-based "capital formation and accumulation" that enabled extensive economic growth. The bad has been the regulation-free manipulation of this capital to accumulate gain far in excess of the market value of the production by this accumulated capital. This excess non-productive speculative investment kept inflating until exploded, until realization that it has been plundered, not utilized in production of sellable products. It has been realized now that this bad aspect of the hitherto technology culture must be modified, must become regulated with rational political control, to overcome the societal damages that might be inflicted by the natural human element, greed. 3) "Biological Evolution Of The Concepts Energy, Religion and God" http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/40/122.page#772 http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=300&#entry376941 Humans comprehend now that life is one of the products of evolution of energy-transformation-storage systems... ...that the universe undergoes continuous evolution consisting of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations, life being one of them... ...that energy is the essence-matrix of the cosmos and of life... that energy is everything, including all biologies and hence all of cultures... 4) "Basic Study Of Life Ceased In The 21st Century" http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/54.page#412 In "biological evolution" the subject is "evolution", the evolution of biological processes. In "evolutionary biology" the subject is "biology", the biology of evolutionary processes. - Basic, non-applied science, since the 18th century Enlightenment the banner of social and societal evolution out of entrenched traditional doctrines and values, has been abandoned and presently barely survives in few institutions. Enlightenment's inherent philosophy and attitudes in regards to individualism, universal human progress and the applications of reason have been pushed off the western culture highway by the ever rising flood of values, attitudes and texture of life of the technology era. - Are we sure that the present Technology Culture is the culture we want to reign supreme from now on forever? - We are what we decide to be, and for electing what to be some of us want to know the nature of our essentiality and our place and function in the universe; science may never be sufficient for this, but our continuous endless quest, science, is an inherent human characteristic... 5) Western Culture Is Wavering At 2008 Junction We are facing now a period of several years of painful exposures and treatments of more and more malignant pnenomena of economic-cultural aspects of our societal organisation. We need a fresh authoritative scientific organization, freed from the hitherto politically correct webs of "spititual realms" and "technologically-applicable-only" cultures. An Enlightenment course of societal evolution matrixed on rational scientific grounds may become probable and possible if a fresh authoritative scientific organization is established "by and for the people including scientists", in which scientists operate and make editorial decisions on scientific rather than on political grounds. It is obvious that our culture must undergo a radical change, in nationally considered and planned direction and manner, with national and global security and welfare considerations. Are we up to it? Dov Henis http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1
Reading through Obama's direct and well articulated responses to Nature questions one could convince himself of the right interest of the man for science. I really command his vision on stem cells' research. I believe this is a resourceful man that has solutions to most of the current challenges facing the United States of America. I believe in him to be the key to the american economic revival, a way to scientific and technological uplifting in the State.
When I discovered the secret of real space travel as used by the Flying Saucers and patented it, I was stupid enough to offer it to Nasa. They were not interested, it would make the Propulsion Engineers obsolete. The person who was running the DOD was not interested in it when I proposed the application of the E-Bomb. Dr. Teller, whom I had informed about the how-to-do, got the credit. The DOD used my invention and other applications anyway, without paying me. So the US Govermnment is very interested in using any invention, as long as they can use it for free. Of course being a Canadian did not help either. A Flying Saucer takes power right out of the aether. Tesla used that application for his electric Pierce Arrow Car in 1931.
Honestly speaking after economy this is one of the vital question which which new resident of India must explicitly pronounce. It is sad that McCain dint answer the question. The magnitude of human related problem which is increasing day by day all over the globe; needs a continuous and rapid scientific and technical break through to tackle the growing problem which humanity is facing on this Earth.But one thing should be remembered that honesty is required to share the new invention with other nation of the world. It requires money, courage and vision and honesty from the President and his administration to use the new invention or discovery to share to other nation for the greater cause of serving the suffering humanity. http://www.statedemocracy.org
Sen. Obama responded as a manager should; reasonable, rational and clear with a tolerable level of political glad handing. Sen. McCain responded with vaguely scented silence. Is this acceptable? Must we accept silence as reasonable? I find this intolerable. I am curious how our pity for the mental bumblings of George W. Bush has translated into Us vs. Them anti-intellectualism. Must we now accept bumbling as politically correct and not press for clear intellectual responses from our candidates for, what should be seen as, a position of near absolute power. How has stupidity and inanity been equated with hard fought critical thinking? This has not been a dumbing down it is a dumbing up. How have we, as scientifically trained individuals, become fearful? Is there a cowardly nature to intellectualism? Is the schoolyard bully right: Might above Reason or, is the mafia code of business management still dominant: Loyalty before Competence?? It must be something more than the loss of funding that makes us timorous. Ronald Reagan slashed intellectual pursuit but we somehow survived. George W. Bush installed cronies in positions of control demoting scientific reason to an ancillary condition of a stale political culture but, we survived. We lack trust in ourselves where science has become the last place to look for an acceptable opinion. Are opinions difficult for us? Training in rhetoric is available but training in backbone is somehow missing. - Stefani D?Artou
I laud Senator Obama's well thought-out responses to Nature's questions. I agree with most of his positions, especially his stated intention to de-politicize science and science education. However, I disagree with his goals for returning to the moon and travel to Mars. NASA's manned space flight program is and always has been a drain on the unmanned programs which have produced nearly all of the science that leads to a better understanding of the universe. While manned flight has rightfully been a focus of national pride and may have been necessary early on to gain public approval for funding space science, these flights have produced very little else that could not have been gained by unmanned probes. It has also lead to the otherwise unnecessary use of nonhuman primates and other animals to feed our national ego and the egos of individuals who have striven to become "the first" of their nation, gender, or profession to orbit the earth. I'm all for expending public funds for real science, but any future human space missions should be privately funded. It's time to end NASA's most expensive and unnecessary pork barrel project - the manned space program.