A number of questions have surfaced here on Florida's Spacecoast as well as in other parts of the country about Barack Oabama's position on science funding in general and space exploration specifically. And by questions, I mean a whisper campaign that a democratic President will make significant cutbacks at NASA and elsewhere. I hope to have more in the next few weeks, but a solid outline of Sen. Obama's views on U.S science policy can be found here which includes the following quote and bullet points (H/T Tdar at Hope in the Space Coast):

Support Scientific Research: In the past, government funding for scientific research has yielded innovations that have improved the landscape of American life, technologies like the Internet, digital photography, bar codes, Global Positioning System technology, laser surgery, and chemotherapy. ...He will work to diversify the makeup of the scientific community and provide federal research programs a much needed infusion of funds. [Emphasis mine DS]

• Monitor the Forces and Effects of Climate Change.
• Maintain Surveillance to Strengthen National Security.
• Develop the Next-Generation of Space Vehicles & Continue Unmanned Missions.
• Strengthen Math and Science Education.

Never forget it was a young democratic President who challenged us to go to the moon, 'not because it was easy, but because it was hard.' Given the historical record and recent events, if there is anyone left who sincerely believes that a severely technology challenged John McSame serving out George Bush's third, batshit crazy, antiscience term would be a more reliable patron of legitimate science than Barack Obama, please, let me know. I'd like to introduce them to an online acquaintance from Nigeria who needs immediate help with an important financial transaction.

Tom Levenson writing at the Inverse Square Blog identifies several ways the Bush administration has effectively reversed progress in US science policy using official denialism, direct pressure on scientists and scientific organizations, and by nurturing public contempt. He then goes on to analyze how science might fare under McCain and points out several dismal realities including:

To deliver on his commitments on taxes, defense and fiscal responsibility, John McCain would have to eliminate all discretionary spending — including the few tens of billions spent on science R & D. ... McCain’s priorities are very clear — trillions for defense; trillions more for tax cuts.

I may a have short, somewhat tangentially related post tomorrow on the Saturday Open Science Thread with some, err.., breaking bloggy news.

It's over; I've made my determination.  Who I will support for president is the candidate whose science policy best reflects the deep concern I have for the state of Science in America and who, in my opinion, offers the most significant vision in terms of breadth and depth in addressing the need to repair the most crippled area of our national lives, after our Constitutional government.

The War on Science must end.  Only a Democrat can bring this nation from the brink of a neo-Dark Age wrought by the intelligent and malicious design of the neo-cons on science to an era of neo-Enlightenment that will embrace scientific intelligence by design.

Who do I think will be the best president for this job of returning American scientific preeminence?  The candidate whose science policy will do the most to reverse the damage done to science in this country and whose policy is broadest and deepest in its scope to repair the Republican  "assault on reason."  

Hillary Clinton spoke about science policy to the Carnegie Institution for Science today. She used the 50th Anniversary of the launch of Sputnik in 1957 to lay out what would be her administration's science policy, and to attack the Bush administration's attack on science over the last 7 years. As a professional scientist, I found her words to be very encouraging. It has been a very depressing time for scientists throughout the Bush years. Attacks on the independence of science and an unprecedented contraction in funding for research have made it a tough time. Most welcome were her remarks on stem cell research. The Bush policy has been yet another fiasco (they pretty much own the word now). Below, I wanted to touch on a few of the things Hillary said. But it was a pretty good speech. Scientists can look forward to a much more supportive White House if she becomes the President. Most of us scientists look back fondly on Bill Clinton's administration as the most supportive any of us can remember.

  A new organization representing concerned scientists and citizens called "Scientists and Engineers for America" (SEA) has formed to defend the proper use of science by the government.  Their mission is "dedicated to electing public officials who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy."  More on this group and its mission is posted below.