First Diary...
As a young Ph.D student in biology, the candidates views on science are very important to me as they will directly affect my future (job availability, funding, the quality and number of colleagues/students to collaborate with/train and teach). I've been following the Science Debate 2008 for some time and would like to provide some analysis and my opinions, as a scientist, on Obama's responses to the 'top 14 science questions facing America.' (Full answers here)
This turned out longer than I was expecting...
- Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?
Obama wrote:
My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. We will increase research grants for early-career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs.
This is very good news. An increase in federal funding helps the academics who are at the forefront of training new scientists. It would increase the availability of jobs for young professors, post-docs, and grad students. These are the people doing the research that advances technology, health sciences and our understanding of the universe. This also feeds directly into industry as many people move from academia, which is largely federally funded, into industry. More and better trained scientists entering industry would stimulate the economy and innovation. This then feeds back into academia as companies and individuals donate money/buildings to their alma maters and thus stimulate more research/innovation. I see this in my own life. My father did early tissue engineering work as an academic, then moved to industry and started several biomedical companies. I see my coworkers interviewing for jobs in both academia and industry. I see places like UCSF opening Genentech Hall donated by former UCSFers who started Genentech. Academia and industry feed off of each other training scientists, creating jobs and new technologies, and the government can do a lot to help both by increasing funding of basic research.
- Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change—a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?
Not much on this I can say that hasn't been said already. We need to change. It's going to be an uphill battle making people accept the need to change significantly and then doing so in a timely manner. A metaphor: let's say you get a bacterial infection. The doctor tells you that you have to take antibiotics, drink fluids, and rest. You decided that you don't believe the doctor's hypothesis that there are microorganisms growing in you. You've felt bad before and had a fever and it went away, sickness is a periodic natural phenomenon. Besides, buying medicine and changing your habits is a pain. So you do nothing. People would tell you that modern sciences says, you're an idiot. When your liver shuts down and you realize something is actually wrong and you seek help, it's too late. You're screwed. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (gram and kilogram for those who use the metric system).
- Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?
First, I have proposed programs that, taken together, will increase federal investment in the clean energy research, development, and deployment by $150 billion over ten years. This research will cover:
As before, I'm all for funding basic research. Given the transfer of ideas and people between academia and industry helping one will help the other. Competition between individual labs/companies also helps to drive this research forwards, competition for money and competition to publish/patent novel ideas.
Obama proposes increasing standards of efficiency for buildings and cars, but doesn't specifically mention anything about retrofitting existing buildings/cars. This is a major issue I feel, there are millions of cars on the road that won't be replaced for many years, so even if we have more efficient cars now, the old ones will continue to pollute for decades to come. This is especially a problem in developing/poorer nations.
- Education. A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th. What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?
This is a major problem.
I've taught upper level biology courses and been stunned by the lack of knowledge and the lack of interest in my students. This is especially a problem in the area of lab skills/hands on research. We're sending out kids with a degree in biology who have no idea what it is to do research, how knowledge is generated, how to think about or design an experiment, how to draw conclusions from an experiment, how to implement the scientific method and it appalls me. I know that my students don't know these things because there isn't money to have descent lab classes that are small enough for the students to learn from somebody experienced, or run real experiments. There isn't the money for the students to join labs as undergraduate researchers and get actual experience. I know that many of the students just don't care, but with some actual experience they will be better prepared to think about and vote on issues like genetic privacy, stem cell research and global warming.
Some of this is attitude. People don't want to be 'nerds' being smart (Al Gore?) can be a bad thing. While I don't think it's necessary for everybody to be able to clone a gene, people need to be informed if they're going to be able to make intelligent decisions in a world being transformed by science and technology.
I went to a good public high school in an affluent suburb and the science education was pretty pitiful. Until I took an AP biology class I got a better science education at home from my dad (excluding that time my dad took over my 8th grad science class to teach a unit). Sadly this isn't something many people have access too, especially with therecent crackdown on home chemistry/science kits. Given the lack of role model scientists in popular culture/the media, we need to be able in interest children as early as possible, and without the money to get better teachers, equipment, courses that demonstrate the scientific method and the 'coolness' of science we can't do that effectively.
- National Security. Science and technology are at the core of national security like never before. What is your view of how science and technology can best be used to ensure national security and where should we put our focus?
This is probably best dealt with by funding basic research in these areas. As much as I'm against war in general, DARPA does fund a lot of important and interesting projects. I knew people who worked on vehicles for the Grand Challenge which is DARPA funded. These sorts of technologies are useful for national security, but also would find their way into the normal domestic market easily.
Obama also mentions cyber and bio security which are interesting areas that also would feed back into the domestic market pretty quickly (biosensors used for detecting bioweapons also could be used by NASA to look for life on Mars for example and vice versa).
- Pandemics and Biosecurity. Some estimates suggest that if H5N1 Avian Flu becomes a pandemic it could kill more than 300 million people. In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?
This is a very interesting problem both scientifically and policy-wise.
The US is very large, and microorganisms are very small, so detecting any malicious or dangerous strain entering the US isn't very practical. Add to that the fact that most of the worlds prokaryotes haven't been sequenced/identified then detecting a new dangerous strain isn't very practical. Sadly detecting the effects on the population would be the first indication we'd get of a pandemic/bioweapon attack. For this to work efficiently we need communication between agencies on the front lines (hospitals/emergency services) and somebody who can make an informed decision about whether or not there's an emergency. Bush's strategy of political appointees who are more concerned with implementing his grand vision, securing their own position, and their subordinates political views rather than being informed about the work they are doing would be disastrous. Imagine 'Heckuva Job Brownie' trying to manage a flu pandemic! Imagine a CDC scientist worrying about whether or not their new hires were pro-life rather than competent scientists able to cope with a biological attack.
Obama does address some of these concerns, proposing electronic systems to link hospitals, and money to develop vaccines and diagnostic tests. I also trust that his appointed officials and their employees would be hired based on their ability to perform their respective jobs.
Random rant: Resistance to Antibiotics. Money needs to be allocated for development of new antibiotics. Drug companies aren't too interested in this for economic reasons. Basically the most lucrative drugs are those that someone must take for the rest of their life: controlling diabetes, blood pressure, heart disease and other chronic illnesses. Antibiotics are taken for a few weeks. New antibiotics that are effective against drug resistant bacteria will be used sparingly as a last resort. If they are used widely that increases the chances of bacteria developing resistances to them thus rendering them useless. Developing a drug can cost billions of dollars and take years, especially with the requisite FDA testing. So there's little motivation for big pharma to develop new drugs for multiple drug resistant bacteria. This is and will continue to be a serious problem.
- Genetics research. The field of genetics has the potential to improve human health and nutrition, but many people are concerned about the effects of genetic modification both in humans and in agriculture. What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?
This is a major ethical problem that comes up in various mandatory ethics classes I've had to take.
As everybody who has seen GATTACA knows, genetic discrimination/privacy will some day be a major issue. Obama notes that he has supported the "Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act" and legislation regulating genetic testing companies, both of which are worthy causes. He also notes that he supports genetic modification of plants and therapies based on the recommendations of experts and rigorous testing. One of the problems with these issues is that the impact on humans is very difficult to determine. Humans have a very long life-cycle so determining the effects of treatments/diseases/modifications/etc on people isn't practical, thus animal testing is used instead (of course there are also ethical concerns for testing humans (and animals)). Also the environmental impacts are equally difficult to assess in a laboratory setting, the drift of modified genes from GM crops to non-GM crops wasn't predicted.
This is a complicated topic, some modifications I feel are beneficial, trying to engineer rice and other staples that provide essential vitamins that otherwise aren't in people's diets is a good modification. Monsanto and others' pesticide resistant/pest killing crops are mixed, in theory good, though the following increased use of pesticides is harmful to the environment (think ground water contamination, absorption into the food chain) and may damage other insect populations (butterflies for example). Some things are just frivolous, cloning your pets or the GFP Bunny and the money spent on those projects could be better used.
Gene therapy is a large topic, but basically I agree with supporting it as there are many potential uses for it, if it ever works.
- Stem cells. Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?
Obama brings up a number of good points that the people in favor of stem cell research usually cite:
I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations.
I recognize that some people object to government support of research that requires cells to be harvested from human embryos. However, hundreds of thousands of embryos stored in the U.S. in in-vitro fertilization clinics will not be used for reproductive purposes, and will eventually be destroyed. I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose.
While adult stem cells, such as those harvested from blood or bone marrow, are already used for treatment of some diseases, they do not have the versatility of embryonic stem cells and cannot replace them.
Rather than restrict the funding of such research, I favor responsible oversight of it, in accord with recent reports from the National Research Council.
That's a pretty progressive stance on this research. It's a complex topic, I may write about it in detail some other time. Suffice it to say, there's a great deal of potential and Bush has severely hurt our ability to do research.
- Ocean Health. Scientists estimate that some 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are in serious decline and habitats around the world like coral reefs are seriously threatened. What steps, if any, should the United States take during your presidency to protect ocean health?
I don't know much about this subject. Basically Obama brings up climate change and says we should protect our coastlines.
Vaguely related, Craig Venter's yacht sailed around the world for three years sampling ocean water and sequencing all the DNA. One of their results was that we have no idea what's actually in the ocean, in terms of microorganisms. The diversity of life has barely been sampled and a huge amount of that life is in the ocean. If the oceans change we will lose a huge amount of biomass that we know nothing about, not only nothing about their individual characteristics and the useful things they may be able to do, but we don't know how their loss will affect all life within the ocean and on land.
- Water. Thirty-nine states expect some level of water shortage over the next decade, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of our water resources are at risk. What policies would you support to meet demand for water resources?
Again I don't really know much about this.
- Space. The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?
This is important in regards to something I wrote earlier about getting children interested in science. Astronauts were heroes and inspired a generation to be interested in math and science. Perhaps they could do the same for another generation (trip to mars?).
- Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?
Obama writes:
I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees.
• Appoint individuals with strong science and technology backgrounds and unquestioned reputations for integrity and objectivity to the growing number of senior management positions where decisions must incorporate science and technology advice. These positions will be filled promptly with ethical, highly qualified individuals on a non-partisan basis;
I touched on this earlier, that appointing people based on policy rather than ability for technical jobs is a terrible idea. It almost guarantees a lower level of ability and experience, not something you want from your technical advisers and technical staff. Obama takes the right path here.
- Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?
The Iraq war costs ~$10 billion a month while, according to the 2007 Budget breakdown the DOE, NASA, NIH, and NSF got a combined ~$45 billion for basic science research. Some of that money is used for administration, and many people get funding through states, universities, HHMI or other private sources. Still, the money spent on four months in Iraq could practically double the money spent by the government on basic science research.
the NIH budget has been steadily losing buying power for the past six years. As a result, our science agencies are often able to support no more than one in ten proposals that they receive, arresting the careers of our young scientists and blocking our ability to pursue many remarkable recent advances.
This has a major impact on me and my peers. Who wants to join a new and exciting lab if there's a good chance there won't be funding in a few years? People take the less exciting, less new and innovative research path because it can get funding rather than pursuing something new, exciting, but potentially less productive in the short term.
This situation is unacceptable. As president, I will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade.
That's a good start.
- Health. Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality and availability of health care. How do you see science, research and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?
This is much more of a health care policy than a science policy question. As I wrote above, industry is interested in things that make money, and that's long-term treatment of people with money/insurance, diseases of the rich. Because of a lack of funding for basic research we study things that impact on major diseases, cancer, heart disease, certain infections, and ignore many other health issues that just don't have the money to be researched properly.
Concluding Remarks
Based on what was written, Obama has a good, comprehensive plan for promoting science research, education and facing some of the major challenges of our day. This includes progressive plans on funding research, stem cell and genetic modification/testing/privacy issues, climate change and alternative energy usage. As a scientist who will likely be trying to get my own research funded in the next 4-8 years I feel that this plan will help me and my peers be able to do interesting and important basic science research in an environment that fosters innovation, exploration of new ideas and scientific integrity.