Tonight, I attended a presidential forum/debate on health and science policy entitled "Candidates’ Forum for Innovation & the Elections: Presidential Perspectives on Health", hosted by Scientists and Engineers for America, FASEB, and several other science advocacy organizations. Unfortunately, the candidates themselves were not there, but they sent surrogates: Dr. Dora Hughes for the Obama campaign and Jay Khosla for the McCain campaign.
In a nutshell: If you needed some more reasons to support Obama in this election, I’ve got ‘em for you.
Below, I will summarize some key points from the forum. Two things to note: First, I am focusing on topics that may not make the cable news/NY Times/etc. We’ll all hear the candidates themselves discuss health insurance coverage; however, I’m not sure we’ll hear about in-vitro fertilization or even the public health infrastructure. This forum may be the only statements we get on some of those topics, and so I’m focusing my efforts on that. Second, I’m focusing on where (in my opinion) the surrogates added new information to what was previously available.
Also, thank you for reading my very first Daily Kos diary! I hope it's helpful to the community.
Opening statements: Despite the forum being hosted by a group called "Scientists and Engineers for America" as well as almost every major science advocacy organization in the country, Khosla’s (the McCain surrogate) opening statement did not mention science. Hughes (the Obama surrogate) discussed not only health care reform, but also research, focusing on the budget for basic science, genomics, stem cell research, and restoring integrity to federally-supported science-related agencies.
Stem cell research: A couple months ago, it seemed as if many in the science community thought both McCain and Obama would overturn President Bush’s policy of prohibiting federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cell lines derived after 2002. Since then, McCain’s statements on the issue have become more vague, and then with the selection of super-pro-life Sarah Palin as the VP candidate, people really started to suspect a flip-flop. Well, I don’t know if McCain is actually flip-flopping, or if he is just trying to get the religious right-wing to think he is. What I do know is that every time the moderator asked Khosla whether McCain would overturn Bush’s policy or not, Khosla refused to answer, insisting over and over that people look at his voting record in favor of stem cell research. That’s as good as saying that he’ll keep Bush’s prohibition on stem cell research. Khosla didn’t fool this crowd though, or the moderator for that matter.
Science policy advisors: The surrogates were asked to name their top science policy advisors. I’m sure most of the room knew that the Obama campaign released the names of their top four advisors: http://blog.wired.com/... Hughes only named one—Dr. Harold Varmus, former NIH Director and definitely THE guy I’d want on my side in science policy—at the forum. Khosla wouldn’t name any, noting that he is a health advisor, not a science advisor (!), but encouraged the person asking the question to call the McCain campaign’s communications shop. OK, if that’s all it took, we’d all know who the advisors are, but we don’t. I’m concerned that he doesn’t have any.
In-vitro fertilization: This was a surprising but good question. The surrogates were asked whether their candidates want to ban in-vitro fertilization. Actually, they were asked (paraphrasing) "if you don’t support stem cell research, why don’t you support a ban on in-vitro fertilization?", since the process creates the very embryos on which the current president’s policy prohibits research. Hughes said Obama wouldn’t ban in-vitro. Of course. Who would? Maybe McCain: Khosla wouldn’t answer the question.
Funding: Hughes clearly stated that Obama supports increasing funding for basic research and the public health infrastructure in general. Khosla didn’t say the same for McCain.
The applause line of the night: This is a room full of NIH grantees, so of course someone asked why the federal government can afford to spend hundreds of billions annually on the Department of Defense but only $30 billion on NIH. I’m sure no one expected a real answer from either surrogate, which begs the question of why Khosla chose to add what he did. He actually stated (again, paraphrasing), "McCain is the only candidate in this election who actually voted to double funding for the NIH". Science-y types will know why this statement is absurd: there was a successful effort to double the NIH budget...over the years 1998 to 2003, before Obama was elected to the US Senate. Therefore, Obama couldn’t have voted for it. Again, the crowd was savvy, and didn’t buy this line for a second. There were lots of groans and giggles.
In summary: Obama +1, McCain - 999. To be fair, this was a pro-Obama crowd to begin with, but I was shocked at how unprepared the McCain campaign was to respond to the questions they had to know were coming in this forum. Obama has already made his many pro-science stances known, so we didn’t really get new information, but we didn’t need to. I feel as if we finally got clarification on McCain’s stem cell research stance, which in my opinion is the most disappointing flip-flop of all to come from McCain during this election. Even the personalities of the surrogates matched the tone of the campaigns: Khosla was negative, combative, and even interrupted Hughes at the end; Hughes was extraordinarily knowledgeable and cool as a cucumber, straight out of the refrigerator, on the South Pole (really, she’s great, and if I see her around DC I will buy her a martini as a thank you). Finally, Hughes offered an anecdote about how Obama has stumped some staff members on public health issues, which, while it was just a story, contributed to my belief that Obama has what it takes to make this country better.
You can watch the forum in its entirety at http://sharp.sefora.org/... It should be available on Friday (Sept. 19) morning.