ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Candidates speak out on science

Posted: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:30 PM by Alan Boyle


AP
Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama have responded to a
14-question presidential campaign quiz on science and technology issues.

GOP presidential candidate John McCain has joined Democrat Barack Obama in providing answers to 14 questions on science and technology. On two of the campaign's biggest science issues - climate change and stem cell research - the rivals aren't all that far apart, at least when you look at the big picture.

The questions were posed by Science Debate 2008, which has been working to raise the visibility of sci-tech issues in the campaign for nine months. The grass-roots group couldn't get the candidates together for a debate during the presidential primary season, but today's answers from McCain have finally turned the project into a two-party system. (Obama provided his answers to the 14-question quiz two weeks ago.)

"Most of America's major unsolved challenges revolve around these 14 questions," Science Debate 2008's chief executive officer, Minnesota screenwriter Shawn Otto, said today in a statement laying out McCain's answers. "To move America forward, the next president needs a substantive plan for tackling them going in, and voters deserve to know what that plan is."

Both candidates declare that technological innovation will be key for America's future, but each puts his party's particular political spin on proposals for promoting that innovation. Obama stresses the need for increased funding for basic research and education. McCain says he would provide "broad pools of capital, low taxes and incentives for research in America." He'd also streamline regulations and "eliminate wasteful earmarks in order to allocate funds for science and technology investments."

Climate change and energy
McCain's biggest departures from the traditional GOP spin come when he's talking about climate change and stem cells. For example, the party's conventional wisdom calls for a go-slow approach to doing something about greenhouse-gas emissions, but McCain has always bucked the trend.

Like Obama, McCain calls for a cap-and-trade system to encourage a departure from the carbon-based energy economy, with a reduction of carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Obama would like to see further reductions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 - McCain calls for a 60 percent reduction by that time. (Actually, it'll be up to successors in the White House to hit any of those goals.)

Both candidates give a nod to alternative energy sources (including nuclear power) as well as higher energy efficiency and cleaner-burning coal. McCain mentions specific proposals such as a tax credit of up to $5,000 for zero-emission cars and his plan for a $300 million prize program for better batteries. Obama serves up a smorgasbord of proposals in a $150 billion, 10-year R&D program.

Stem cell research
Embryonic stem cell research is another area where McCain has parted ways with the Bush administration in the past. Like Obama, McCain supported the expansion of federal funding in that area - even though President Bush vetoed the measure.

Some political observers wondered whether McCain would change his tune now that he's the GOP standard-bearer. His answer to ScienceDebate 2008's question indicates that the tune is still the same, but the volume has been turned down.

"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," McCain says. "Moreover, I believe that recent scientific breakthroughs raise the hope that one day this debate will be rendered academic."

McCain is referring to last year's dramatic finding that skin cells could be chemically converted into cells that appear to have the stemlike ability to transform themselves into a variety of tissue types. That research raised hopes that embryonic cells may not be necessary to create patient-specific tissues for transplant or medical testing. However, even the discoverers of the technique say embryonic stem cells will remain the "gold standard" for regenerative medicine - and the moral and ethical debate isn't likely to become academic anytime during the next four years.

Obama promises to ease the current limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research by executive order, while making sure "that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight."

... And much, much more
When the answers to the other questions are put side by side, it's clear that each candidate devotes the most attention to his own familiar political territory: For example, Obama provides more specifics on health care. McCain lays out a more detailed agenda for space exploration, including references to commercial spaceflight and efforts to bridge NASA's spaceflight gap. In contrast, Obama's big space pitch focuses on reviving the National Aeronautics and Space Council.

The topics covered in Science Debate 2008's questionnaire range from national security and bioterrorism to water and ocean policy. You'll want to check out the full rundown, as well as other comparisons of the candidates' stands that are sure to emerge in the next seven weeks.

Are any of these issues likely to come up in a real-time, head-to-head debate? That question itself is debatable - but Science Debate 2008's president, Matthew Chapman, is holding out hope.

"Science Debate 2008 and its partners once again extend an invitation to both candidates to attend a televised forum where these vital issues can be discussed in front of a broader audience," Chapman said.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I think science can be used to decentralize many of our products and services, thus lessening the need for fuel consuming transportation systems.  This would have an adverse effect upon corporate entities, and help independent, family owned, locally owned and operated businesses.  That is not going to happen if we depend on corporations to control science at  college, and business levels.  We need a federal and state system that generates funds for science.  Senator Obama's comfort with government involvement leads me to believe he would be the better choice for advancing scientific achievment and science as an answer to many of our problems.  We now need an outside threat like we had after Sputnik to thrust us into the future.  That threat has arrived, and her name is Sarah Palin.
The scientific community has to get out the vote, and not be apathetic about national elections despite how dirty the tactics are.
what about teaching creationism haha..they do that in church where it belongs...philosophy and religious mythology have their place and it is not in scientific debate or experimentation...why are you religious people so insecure in your beliefs that you need to force them upon other people? the difference is very clear, science uses physical testing and observation to come to logical conclusions while religion dismisses them in favor of an answer that suits their need for power and domination over others
Well said, Don!  In considering the competing theories of evolution and creationism, however, we don't want to neglect the third theory of the origins of life, that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Here's the site if you're unversed in this doctrine- our children deserve to know ; )
www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

also lol, the THEORY of evolution is presented as a theory and not as natural law.  find me an accepted scientific publication which claims that evolution as it is taught is natural law.  find me ONE.  do yourself a favor and get a dictionary and learn what theory means.  and quit reading things that arent there just to suit whatever agenda you obviously have
The flaw with secular beliefs is most believe that Darwin's theories cover how life began and it doesn't. The assumption that it does, shows ignorance of the uniformed. Even Darwin didn't deny the existence of a Creator.

You see science tells us that only life can create life. There is no scientific model that can be demonstrated otherwise. Science tells us that inanimate objects cannot create animate objects.

So using empirical science, life must have therefore been spontaneously created, then evolved. If life was spontaneously created then there is a Creator.

Time magazine stated that 90% of Americans believe in a Creator...I suspect the above is the reasoning why. You don't have to prescribe to any religion to believe in a Creator.

The other 10% are hateful, ignorant people with little understanding and obviously no reasoning capabilities.

Jeff/Atlanta...
exposure via the www is indeed a terrifying concept...google owns me right now...the refinements of the adwords responding to email text are startling...I have a huge email file going...with everything from soup to sedition discussed at various times...bring it on!
some of the links I get to see because of the bizarrely eclectic nature of my correspondence are amazing...this gadget is awesome!
I write constantly about the folly of becoming an Algorite...googlebots see only reference to Al Gore...I get all his hype to jab at without doing anything except raggin' on the guy...how awesomely serendipitous is that?
there's absolutely no escape...unless one wishes to become totally ineffectual, as I am seeing many Folks my age (61) doing...no can do!
nice to hear from you!
T'ROW DA BUMS OUT!
political commentary so it stays on topic, eh?
i don't want creationism taught in school & i think christians wouldn't want science taught in church. if you allow one relegion in the classroom, then you have to allow the others. aren't there already private schools that do that? i don't want "belief" in the classroom. i want facts.

Wow talk about Biased, If I saw more of McCain in this article I would have to check to see a panty line. I'm sick of the media sucking up to this same old same old Republican who cant even use a computer let alone lead us into the future. Yes there was "Some" mention of Obama but it was more of a nod to his existence rather than the facts of what his term in office as our President in 2008 would really mean for Science and Technology.

More Focus on Facts! Sensationalism belongs in Tabloids!


[ALAN ADDS: Maybe part of the reason for the appearance that there's more emphasis on McCain's views is that Obama had sent in his answers a couple of weeks earlier, which I noted in this item:]

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/05/1355855.aspx

Some people think that both science and creationism should be taught in schools and let our children decide for themselves. One problem, they only want to teach christian creationism, they have no regard for those of other faiths. Don't you think this would be offensive to those of the jewish, muslim, hindu faiths. Not to mention that most sects of christianity can't even begin to agree on which version of the bible should be used! This is why we are supposed to have a separation of church and state! If you want your child to be taught creationism put them in a private christian school, and quit trying to convert the masses!
Creationism DOES NOT need to be alongside science classes in public schools.  If one wants to learn about it, they have the freedom to choose from a myriad of religious institutions, churches, temples, etc.  That "option" is already available from established private institutions for those who wish to "learn about it".  We should be free to choose if we want to be religious in this country or not.    
TR wrote:

"I would love to hear what Palin has to say on these issues.
Climate change- "Is A MYTH"
Energy - "Chants DRILL BABY DRILL"
Stem Cell Research - "Killing Babies"
Space - To easy she has "only been abroad a few times, to Canada, Mexico & recently to Kuwait" I was unaware that Canada & Mexico were "Abroad".

Gov. Palin knows a lot about space.  She can see it from her house.
Competent centered teachers with real life labor (4 letter word - WORK) experience would be a welcome anomally in public school as well as universities. I say anomally because it will never be the custom to have experienced educators with real life skills (labor) as an added virtue.Self proclaimed certified Intellectuals guard the gates of the ivory towers and had sooner die than allow common smart experienced business professional into the teaching establishments.Theory of Evolution, and or The Holy Christian Bible as text should be a right of each individual state voted on for approval by the citizens every four years.Screw The Supreme Court because they have shown themselves to not be supreme.  
If you want your kids to learn creationism, PUT THEM IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL THAT TEACHES IT!!!! Its just that simple. Public schools have subjects that the entire country must teach, you eliviate other children's religions by teaching such a thing. Teach science by the book, if you want your son or daughter to learn christianity, take them to church. I'm sooo tired of parents that want teachers to raise their kids for them. STOP BEING LAZY!
William, Springfield...Excellent point ! I have always wondered about what the real motive is for putting kids in church based schools. Roman Catholic being on top of the heap. You can bet that the parents in many situations are passing them off to get their dose of "religiousness" while never or rarely seeing the inside of a church.
It would really surprise me if any of the canidates has any degree in SCIENCE.  I don't consider sitting on a science committee and listening to mostly lawyers as substituting for science.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1398744

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google