What does your candidate think about science?

Do we really want a president who once said he "didn't believe in the theory" when asked about evolution?

Candidates for the US presidency seem to spend more time telling me what they think of each other than telling me what they think about science. We hear the occasional sound bite about climate change, but what about those other issues that will have to be reckoned with, like the future of stem cells or alternative energy sources? (Or more responses to this administration’s reprehensible practice of altering data to fit desired conclusions?)

I’m grateful to the journal Science for including “Science and the next US President” in today’s issue. It’s a quick guide to what the leading candidates have said about big issues in science, and it makes no bones about the fact that science is not on the forefront of any campaign.

From the introduction:

"It's pretty hard to find a candidate from either party who is gung ho for science," laments Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), one of two Ph.D. physicists in Congress and an indefatigable promoter of science and technology.

Here are some excerpts from the article about last night’s big winners in the Iowa caucuses:

• Democrat Barack Obama:

Speaking last summer to a convention of bloggers in Chicago, Barack Obama accused the Bush Administration of ignoring or distorting data to shape its decisions on sciencerelated issues. He promised the audience that his policies would be based on "evidence and facts." Political rhetoric? Perhaps. But some scientists who have seen the first-term U.S. Democratic senator in action say that's how he operated as a community activist in Chicago and as an Illinois state legislator.

Obama's campaign sets out a number of lofty science policy goals that might be difficult to achieve in that real world, however. He'd like to double federal spending on basic research and help more Americans get on the Web by broadening Internet access. He also wants to spend $18 billion on education initiatives covering everything from early childhood learning and precollege math and science instruction to attracting more minority students into science and engineering. Ironically, he'd pay for it in part by delaying NASA's program to return to the moon and explore Mars--a project that would employ thousands of scientists and engineers.

Like the other Democratic contenders, Obama has made global warming an important part of his campaign. He supports a market-based carbon-trading system to cut carbon emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 and wants to invest $150 billion to develop biofuels. But he's also suffered some political bumps and scrapes along the way to that position.

Last year, for example, Obama introduced a bill to subsidize the conversion of coal to liquid fuel, arguing that it would make the United States less dependent on foreign oil. But environmentalists saw it as a sop to the multi-billion-dollar coal industry in his home state. Obama then backtracked, saying he would support liquefying coal only if the net carbon dioxide emissions from producing and burning the fuel were 20% lower than levels generated by petroleum-based fuels.

• Republican Mike Huckabee:

The first time Mike Huckabee was asked in a national candidates' debate if he believed in evolution, he raised his hand to say that he didn't accept the theory. The second time, Huckabee initially ducked the question and instead replied, "I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an 8th grade science book.”

One issue dear to his heart has been the promotion of healthy living…. “He would certainly be a friend" of the National Institutes of Health as president, says G. Richard Smith, who helped with the referendum and now directs the psychiatric research institute at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. On the campaign trail, Huckabee has talked about funding disease-prevention efforts along the lines of the indoor smoking ban he signed into law while governor.

In a presidential debate and in a television interview, Huckabee sidestepped questions about whether human actions are behind climate change, but he supported a 2006 statement by the National Governors Association calling for more climate change research. "Our responsibility to God means that we have to be good stewards of this Earth," he said in a May debate. That attitude, say environmental advocates, is a marked shift for someone who, as governor, declined to take sides in a court battle with Oklahoma about pollution in the shared Illinois River and once referred to environmentalists as "wackos."

(barely) related:

Damn dirty rhesus!


This just in: Ron Paul is not a hacker

Climate of Here