McCain, Obama Weigh in on Science
Anokhi Kapasi
Tuesday, 16 September 2008 17:34 UTC
As you may know, there have been many inquiries about the possibility of a presidential debate covering science topics. During the 2008 US primaries, a group of citizens formed the Sciencedebate 2008. A list of 3,400 questions were narrowed down to 14, and each candidate has given their prospective regarding these important scientific topics. For those of you who would like to post replies, please do so with the intent of continuing scientific discourse.
-
Replies
-
A thoughtful (and opinionated) analysis of mccain’s technology policy can be found here .
I was disappointed with the vague responses by both candidates, but I guess that’s par for presidential politics. Being too specific can land you in trouble while campaigning.
Still, it’s a safe bet that Obama would funnel more money to the major funding agencies. For example, he has been very consistent in stating his desire to double funding for the NIH over 10 years.
More food for thought: Look at the top 20 donors to the Obama campaign by employer: Open Secrets
Goldman Sachs $691,930
University of California $611,207
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
Harvard University $435,769
Google Inc $420,174
UBS AG $404,750
National Amusements Inc $389,140
Microsoft Corp $377,235
Lehman Brothers $370,524
Sidley Austin LLP $350,302
Moveon.org $347,463
Skadden, Arps et al $340,264
Time Warner $338,527
Wilmerhale Llp $335,398
Morgan Stanley $318,070
Latham & Watkins $297,400
Jones Day $289,476
University of Chicago $278,885
Stanford University $276,038It includes 4 universities and UC is #2! It seems large universities wield the kind of power that labor unions used to. All those 50$ donations by faculty & staff add up.
Now compare that to the top 20 donors for McCain… ’nuff said.
-
Erik, your link on McCain’s technology policy is very revealing.
A televised debate about science would be very helpful, the topic is certainly more subtantive than talking about faith at the saddleback church! -
This may be of interest to those following the presidential race:
-
Something that Sen. McCain said at the debate last Friday really irked me. He said, in reference to his stance against earmarks and pork-barrel spending,
“You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don’t know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers’ money. And it has got to be brought under control."
Now, I don’t know anything about why Montana was testing bear DNA or why it cost so much, and maybe it was wasteful spending, but it struck me that non-scientist senators (or presidents) should not be judging the value of basic research. Who knows what those scientists were looking for or what they found out about behavior, evolution, or health of the local bear population that might have important consequences for conservation or population management. Or even if they just found something out about bears that we didn’t know before, I would consider that of significant scientific value. Since McCain is the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I would expect he’d have a sense of appreciation for basic research.
-
By Monday morning I’d forgotten about bears in Montana, but then I came across this at factcheck.org. Here’s what they had to say about McCain’s comment on $3 million dollar bear DNA at the debate:
McCain’s been playing this for laughs since 2003. The study in question was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is – but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark. In fact, he voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding.
-
The bear study actually sounds like worthy research; grizzlies are threatened in the lower 48, and it seems that the ecologists are testing to make sure the population is sufficiently large and not in-bred.
But regardless of the worthiness of the research, it should not be funded by earmarks. McCain is right about that, though it’s annoying that he singled out this study when so many earmarks go to worthless military research that not even the pentagon wants.
-
