Last week I wrote about Obama's responses to "the top 14 science questions facing America," since then McCain has put forth his answers.
- 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?
Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park.
McCain invented Wi-Fi?
Seriously, McCain's response here is formulated oddly. Much of it is economically focused rather than being concerned with funding or otherwise encouraging innovation. For example:
• Utilize the nation’s science and technology infrastructure to develop a framework for economic growth both domestically and globally;
• Promote greater fiscal responsibility by improving the scientific and engineering management within the federal government;
• Encourage and facilitate commercialization of new innovations, especially those created from federally funded research;
• Eliminate wasteful earmarks in order to allocate funds for science and technology investments;
As other people have pointed out, earmarks are a tiny fraction of our national budget, so eliminating them won't help fund science if you also intend on cutting taxes and maintaining the current military spending.
Other points are very vague and don't really seem to propose anything:
• Create greater transparency in government and encourage more citizens-government dialogs using current technology; and
Have people email the government? Put more documents online? Have people text their opinions on legislation to their Congressmen during debates?
• Develop and implement a global competitive agenda through a series of business roundtables with industry and academia leaders.
I assume this translates to: ask the experts what we need to do, and then do it.
There are some good points here:
• Fund basic and applied research in new and emerging fields such as nanotechnology and biotechnology, and in greater breakthroughs in information technology;
• Grow public understanding and popularity of mathematics and science by reforming mathematics and science education in schools;
There's a lot of vague, grandiose statements I'm not quoting, and a lot of focus on the commercial use of innovation and technology and a lot less on how we increase innovation: funding basic research and educating children so that they want to become scientists.
- 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?
We know that greenhouse gas emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten disastrous changes in the climate. The same fossil-fuels that power our economic engine also produced greenhouse gases that retain heat and thus threaten to alter the global climate
I would say it's a bit more than "threaten to alter the global climate."
I have long supported CAFE standards - the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers' cars must meet. Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars. But I believe that the penalties for not following these standards must be effective enough to compel all carmakers to promote the development of fuel-efficient vehicles. I will strengthen the penalties for violating CAFE standards, and make certain they are effectively enforced.
A good step, but perhaps increasing standards would be also useful.
To bolster research efforts, government must do more by opening new paths of invention and ingenuity. A McCain administration would establish a permanent research and development tax credit equal to ten percent of wages spent on R&D, to open the door to a new generation of environmental entrepreneurs. I am also committed to investing two billion dollars every year for the next 15 years on clean coal technologies, to unlock the potential of America's oldest and most abundant resource. And we will issue a Clean Car Challenge to automakers, in the form of a tax credit to the American people, for every automaker who can sell a zero-emission vehicle.
A tax credit encouraging companies to do research is good. Cleaner technologies are also good, but where are proposals to fund alternative, renewable energies? Tidal? Geothermal? Wind? Solar? Those are the long-range technologies that will actually make a difference a few decades down the line. That's where the money, be it direct or indirect really needs to go.
I further propose we inspire the ingenuity and resolve of the American people by offering a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. This is one dollar for every man, woman and child in the U.S. -- a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency – and curb the dangerous effects of global climate change.
Great, but without a real push this technology will have a hard time actually being used by automakers and becoming widespread. There are many other simple (well, relatively simple) things that can be done by the government that will make a more immediate meaningful difference: support mass transit, support international treaties/guidelines or mandate that new buildings must be made more energy efficient.
To me this plan feels very short-sighted. It focuses on either making cars more efficient (enforce existing regulations or make a prize for a good battery or a tax rebate for zero-emissions cars (not that anybody who can afford current zero-emission cars really needs that)) or clean coal and a tax credit for doing research. Renewable energy is completely missing from this answer, and that scares me.
- 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?
Alright, the alternative tech is all in this answer, but still, they're a major weapon against global warming (assuming you believe in global warming).
It is important that we shift to sustainable, clean burning energy sources or advance to technologies that make our more traditional resources cleaner burning.
Um, most sustainable technologies aren't "clean burning" they don't burn anything at all.
As President, I will put the country on track to building 45 new reactors by 2030 so that we can meet our growing energy demand and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is a proven, domestic, zero-emission source of energy and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear energy. The U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. Currently, nuclear power provides 20 percent of our overall energy portfolio. Other countries such as China, India and Russia are looking to increase the role of nuclear power in their energy portfolio and the U.S. should not just look to maintain, but increase its own use.
True, but the major issue isn't whether we should increase reactors, but what do we do with the waste? It emits no greenhouse gasses, but the waste byproducts are vastly more dangerous and we need a reasonable plan to deal with them.
We will reform this effort so that it is fair, rational, and permanent, letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy.
I'm leery of letting the market decide since the oil industry currently controls the market and influences the legislation so much. Besides, we're seeing how the market has left the banking industry and I don't want that to happen to alternative energies.
These investments by government into basic research along with aggressive and realistic targets for greenhouse gas emissions will be critical in spurring revolutionary innovations in energy that will, over the long term, reduce energy costs and increase economic growth.
This is a reasonable plan, but I get a feeling of reluctance and reservation from the answer:
I've voted against the current patchwork of tax credits for renewable power because they were temporary, and often the result of who had the best lobbyist instead of who had the best ideas.
If you know better, than propose something better! or ask for help and get a plan formulated by those with good ideas.
But the objective itself was right and urgent. And when I'm signing laws, instead of casting one of a hundred votes, I intend to see that objective better served.
Maybe you could have done something before? You voted against it before out of principle because while you agreed with the goal you felt that it wasn't the right way to get there. And we're just supposed to trust that as president you'll be able to figure out the way to get to that goal correctly? Even though you've been a senator for 20+ years and haven't proposed/gotten passed something right yet?
The answer is heading in the right direction but seems to have a few reservations.
- 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?
I will devote 60 percent of Title II funding for incentive bonuses for high performing teachers to locate in the most challenging educational settings, for teachers to teach subjects like math and science, and for teachers who demonstrate student improvement. Payments will be made directly to teachers. Funds should also be devoted to provide performance bonuses to teachers who raise student achievement and enhance the school-wide learning environment. Principals may also consider other issues in addition to test scores such as peer evaluations, student subgroup improvements, or being removed from the state’s "in need of improvement" list.
My problem with this kind of program is that it comes down to standardized test scores which are not necessarily a good indication of a student's understanding of a subject and promote bad teaching. Mine was one of the first classes to take the MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assesment System) and it was terrible, we wasted weeks taking stupid exams, and placing so much importance on these badly designed exams encourages teaching test taking skills (useless later in life) and teaching for the exams and ignoring the detail and breadth of most subjects.
We must move aggressively to provide opportunities from elementary school on, for students to explore the sciences through laboratory experimentation, science fairs and competitions.
I will also continue to support STEM education programs at NSF, DOE, NASA, and NOAA. These scientific agencies can and should play a key role in the education of its future engineers and scientists. These agencies have the opportunity to add a practical component to the theoretical aspects of the students' educational process.
I greatly support having practical components to science education. There's a big difference between reading about science and doing experiments, or reading about engineering and building something.
But I believe that education is an ongoing process. Thus our nation’s education system should not only focus on graduating new students; we must also help re-train displaced workers as they prepare for the rapidly evolving economy. Invigorating our community college system is a good place to start. For example, recognizing this, I have long supported grants for educational instruction in digital and wireless technologies, targeted to minorities and low-income students who may not otherwise be exposed to these fields.
An interesting point I hadn't really considered.
- 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?
As President, I will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.
Not on topic.
We are benefiting today from technology that was invented for military use a quarter of a century ago (e.g. the Internet, email, GPS, Teflon). And today, the American military has some of the most advanced technologies in the world to support them as they defend America’s interest. We need to ensure that America retains the edge in the most strategic areas and I will continue to encourage this with advanced R&D research funding.
Funding whom? Something that both candidates should mention/think about is how does the technology filter back to the rest of us from the military. Something like GPS has had a big impact on normal life and that flow from classified military tech to ubiquitous civilian tech is important.
- 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?
Medical surveillance and biological detection technology continues to advance rapidly, but it is not where we need it to be. Samples from currently-deployed detectors must be collected by hand and analyzed in laboratories. This can mean that up to 30 hours elapses between when a biological agent is released and when it is analyzed and identified in a lab. We need to continue to develop and facilitate the development of next generation automated detectors that can analyze as well as sample biological agents and feed information real-time to public heath and emergency management officials.
For both pandemics and biological attacks, our final and perhaps most important line of defense are effective medical countermeasures. We must fund research and development of new medicines and vaccines and make sure that we have adequate stockpiles of countermeasures and a robust and well thought out distribution plan in case crisis strikes.
Quite right. McCain's answer to this question is quite well thought out. He brings up needing increase our capabilities to detect diseases/bioweapons, various levels of preparation: medical, organization, communications. In fact the only thing I don't like about the answer is:
There are many common elements to the strategies needed to address pandemics and biological attacks; however, elements of the strategies differ, because we must focus more on containment and response with respect to the former, and prevention and early detection with respect to the latter.
...
Similar response capabilities would be necessary if a deliberate biological attack were to occur; but the best defense is deterring the attack from the outset. We must focus on efforts to disrupt and prevent attacks by terrorist groups like al-Qaeda through robust intelligence and counter-terrorism capabilities. If an attack were to occur, we must be ready.
I disagree with the preemptive strike strategy, but that's not a scientific quibble.
I think that for either issue, pandemics or biological weapons, the keys are to be able to detect a problem as quickly as possible, identify the disease/agent so that we are able to formulate the appropriate response quickly. Funding detection, sequencing and bioinformatic projects will advance these capabilities. Our best chances of dealing with a live agent will come from sequencing it fully, and then being able to compare its genome to other variants of the same bacteria/virus so that we can see how it has become more dangerous, which will inform us on how to treat it ie what drugs are most likely to be effective because their target hasn't been mutated much.
- 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?
As genetic research becomes increasingly deployed, the need to ensure privacy of human records will become all the more essential, as will be the rigor to ensure there is no genetic discrimination.
Very important as we learn more about which mutations are risk factors for late-onset diseases and conditions and the cost/technical hurdles/data analysis of individual genomes makes it feasible to actually analyze a random individual easily.
The scientific potential and ethical issues associated with genetics are important and complex enough that I will actively seek out the wise counsel of experts about how to ensure that we are best serving the needs of the American people.
Which experts? Obama mentions a committee of the NIH, a group I would likely trust.
Our aid programs should help focus on research into higher-yielding crops and make investments in infrastructure that will help farmers increase their yields and deliver their products to market.
This is something I mentioned in my previous post as being something most people can support: modifying staple crops to provide necessary nutrients/vitamins that otherwise might not be part of a normal diet. As McCain mentions much of this research will have to be government/academic because the industry won't make money selling crops to people who have no money, "the market" wouldn't solve this problem.
Nothing mentioned about the promise of disease treatment in this answer, which is the major reasons people care about genetics. Perhaps because the ethical issues of modifying genes in humans is much more complicated. However, most people would agree that debilitating diseases are conditions where trying to modify a person's genome is understandable and acceptable.
- 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?
While I support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, I believe clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress.
Aside: but we can sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of national security?
Moreover, I believe that recent scientific breakthroughs raise the hope that one day this debate will be rendered academic. I also support funding for other research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research which hold much scientific promise and do not involve the use of embryos.
I agree there are major ethical issues with stem cell research. However, I believe that research can be performed ethically on ES (embryonic stem cells) and the potential benefits are enormous.
Briefly
—Most cells in your body can divide to provide another cell of the same type, a skin cell will divide to make two skin cells, a liver cell will divide to make two liver cells.
—A stem cell will divide and make a stem cell and another cell which will differentiate into a specific cell type. Stem cells in an adult can often produce cells of several different types. There are specific signals that tell a progenitor cell what to become, some are from cell-cell contacts some are diffusible signals released by other cells.
—Adult stem cells are multipotent, they can divide to form several different kinds of cells.
—ES are pluripotent they can divide to form many different kinds of descendants. A single ES could divide to form any part of a body.
-Given ES cells and enough knowledge about the signals that determine a cell's fate, a scientist could grow any part of a body to replace damaged cells/organs.
Disease states that we may some day be able to cure/treat include: leukemia, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, some kinds of brain damage, replace skin for burn victims, Alzheimer's, diabetes etc.
There are so many things we could possible treat, if we have the knowledge, if we've done the research to determine how we can direct stem cells to take on the correct fate. The blocks on funding that Bush has and that McCain would continue greatly restrict our ability to do very important 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?
This answer identifies problems, and problems with addressing the problems but offers no solutions or ideas.
The environmental health of the oceans and the Great Lakes is a complex, multi-faceted issue requiring attention and action from numerous perspectives.
It's a complicated problem.
It requires effective coastal zone and watershed management, both point and non-point water pollution management, and more effective fisheries management. It requires coordination and action by local, state and federal government agencies, by addressing issues like invasive aquatic species to agricultural runoff. It is one of the more complex management challenges facing the environment because the ocean ecosystem is affected by so many different activities and sources under so many different management jurisdictions – from sewage discharge treatment facilities, to air pollution depositions, to climate change.
It's a really complicated problem.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has provided government leaders with an "Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century" that has many good ideas; however, even it struggled with the enormity of the management challenge that lies before us, and recognized that there are no easy answers.
We know there are issues and that it's a problem.
Ocean science and engineering is a field that deserves greater attention and focus.
Yes, but how do you propose to deal with this enormous, complicated, important problem? Obama mentions specific programs that he would like to see implemented:
I will work to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act in ways that strengthen the collaboration between federal agencies and state and local organizations. The National Marine Sanctuaries and the Oceans and Human Health Acts provide essential protection for ocean resources and support the research needed to implement a comprehensive ocean policy. These programs will be strengthened and reauthorized.
- 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?
I'm a cell biologist and I don't know much about water resources.
- 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?
I support NASA and funding our space activities for several reasons: I support basic science research, a great deal of spin-off technology has come from NASA, astronauts have long been high profile scientist-heroes that have inspired people to become scientists/engineers.
As President, I will --
• Ensure that space exploration is top priority and that the U.S. remains a leader;
• Commit to funding the NASA Constellation program to ensure it has the resources it needs to begin a new era of human space exploration.
• Review and explore all options to ensure U.S. access to space by minimizing the gap between the termination of the Space Shuttle and the availability of its replacement vehicle;
• Ensure the national space workforce is maintained and fully utilized; Complete construction of the ISS National Laboratory;
• Seek to maximize the research capability and commercialization possibilities of the ISS National Laboratory;
• Maintain infrastructure investments in Earth-monitoring satellites and support systems;
• Seek to maintain the nation's space infrastructure;
• Prevent wasteful earmarks from diverting precious resources from critical scientific research;
• and ensure adequate investments in aeronautics research.
I like these goals, maintaining a presence in space, looking to do research, and applying new technologies back home. The second to last point is silly because, as people have noted before there isn't that much money being wasted on earmarks compared to things like the military. So really, try to convince me you'll find the money for this some other way, because I'm not sure you can.
- 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?
This really is something that bothers me. Scientists are supposed to be pure, making their decisions based on observation, measurements, hypotheses and testing. People expect scientists to be logical and thoughtful and not be influenced by things like the government.
We have invested huge amounts of public funds in scientific research. The public deserves to have the results of that research. Our job as elected officials is to develop the policies in response to those research results. Many times our research results have identified critical problems for our country. Denial of the facts will not solve any of these problems. Solutions can only come about as a result of a complete understanding of the problem. I believe policy should be based upon sound science. Good policy development will make for good politics.
Integrity is critical in scientific research. Scientific research cannot succeed without integrity and trust.
I agree.
My own record speaks for integrity and putting the country first, not political agendas.
Aside from objections to McCain's record, putting the country first is not the role of a government scientist. Our job is to put the truth (as deduced from observations of the results of experiments) first, even if the results aren't for the good of the country or the corporations or whomever our employer/funding source is.
- 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?
With spending constraints, it will be more important than ever to ensure we are maximizing our investments in basic research and minimizing the bureaucratic requirements that eat away at the money designed for funding scientists and science. Basic research serves as the foundation for many new discoveries and represents a critical investment for the future of the country and the innovations that drive our economy and protect our people. I have supported significant increases in basic research at the National Science Foundation. I also called for a plan developed by our top scientists on how the funding should be utilized.
I agree, we need to increase funding for basic research as it is the foundation from which we make new discoveries in science and technology. That's what you have supported, what do you propose to do if you become president?
I am committed to reinvigorating America’s commitment to basic research, and will ensure my administration funds research activities accordingly. I have supported increased funding at DOE, NSF, and NIH for years and will continue to do so. I will continue my commitment to ensure that the funding is properly managed and that the nation's research needs are adequately addressed.
Good. Increased funding helps the basic research which employees people. Those people become well trained and join industry and help the economy, create jobs, address problems that are talked about in this diary such as global warming, pandemics/bioweapons prevention/detection/treatment.
- 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?
Each one of us who has been to the doctor in recent years has benefited greatly by the scientific and technological developments that have come from our nation’s commitment to biomedical research. With every passing day our researchers are one day closer to finding potential cures to some of the most devastating diseases. Our engineers and technicians are developing new technologies and tests to discover health problems earlier and earlier, increasing the likelihood and effectiveness of intervention.
True. The basis of modern health care is to understand the disease state and then treat it. Without the basic understanding we can't do much.
The biggest concern with the American health care system is that it costs too much. Small businesses and families pay more and more every year to get what they often consider to be inadequate attention or poor care. And those who want to buy insurance are often unable to afford health insurance because of the high cost. By promoting research and development of new treatment models, promoting wellness, investing in technology and empowering Americans with better information on quality, we can make health care more affordable.
(emphasis mine)
I think this won't work so well. Often new treatments/diagnostic techniques are in fact the most expensive because they are newest, least tested and require the most highly trained operators. In time technology will filter down and become more common and more available. Reducing the cost of health care is an issue to take up with insurance companies, not by developing newer technologies. Those newer technologies may help in the long run by eventually reducing the costs of diagnosing and treating disease, but probably not any time soon. Even if they could, the companies marketing them would try to prevent that as they are worried about their bottom line.
Concluding remarks:
McCain does have some good ideas, supporting basic research, being enthusiastic about NASA, some of his teaching answer is good as well. I disagree with 'letting the market' deal with alternative energy sources. That needs to be promoted soon so that we don't run out of time and find that the market is adjusting during a major, immediate crisis.
I feel that, based on other factors, McCain is less likely to have the money available for increasing the budgets of basic science research, especially science that isn't immediately applicable to "National Security." I do not like his statement comparing his integrity and putting country first to the integrity of the scientists he would employ. Repeatedly stating that reducing earmarks would provide funding for science research doesn't reassure me in the slightest.
McCain had far fewer specifics of programs, departments, agencies or acts that he would support, strengthen or increase the funding of. This made his answers seem far less well thought out and researched.
In general the McCain responses were vaguer, more ideological, focusing more on past accomplishments and less on future plans, more focus on economics and industry and how the government can help them. For example:
We are benefiting today from technology that was invented for military use a quarter of a century ago (e.g. the Internet, email, GPS, Teflon). And today, the American military has some of the most advanced technologies in the world to support them as they defend America’s interest. We need to ensure that America retains the edge in the most strategic areas and I will continue to encourage this with advanced R&D research funding.
vs
Finally, we will act to reverse the erosion of the U.S. manufacturing base - which could jeopardize our technical superiority. We need to continue to develop the finest defense systems in the world. But, we are losing domestic production capability for critical defense components and systems. I will implement the recommendations of the Defense Science Board on defense manufacturing, strengthen efforts at DoD’s Manufacturing Technology program, and invest in innovative manufacturing sciences and processes to cut manufacturing costs and increase efficiency.
Based on these answers I would support Obama especially in light of the clear differences between the two on the urgency of alternative energies, stem cell research and genetics.