Science and the Election, Continued

Both Nature [PDF] and Science have posted interviews with Bush and Kerry (or, more likely, with their science-policy surrogates) regarding their biggest science priorities for the next four years. The postings illustrate at least two things: (i) The country and the world face a lot of important near-term scientific issues and decisions; and (ii) both the Bush and Kerry campaigns can be remarkably adroit at avoiding or finessing hard questions.

(As a side note, the two interviews also illustrate some interesting characteristics of the candidates. According to the editorial that accompanies the Science candidates' forum, Kerry's answers came in on-time and at reasonable length -- whereas Bush's responses were three weeks late and prolix. Apparently, as with so much else, Bush assumes that he's entitled to special treatment -- and he got it from Science: The editorial dryly notes that "President Bush took 3 weeks more, so we let him have an untimed exam and got longer answers." Same pattern for the Nature interviews: "Bush's answers were some 30% over length, and have been edited; Kerry kept to the limit and his responses are presented in full." So Nature, at least, saw fit to administer a little editorial Immodium to Bush's logorrhea.)

Some highlights from the discussions:

--On climate change, Kerry is forthright, and aligns himself with the prevailing view of the scientific community -- i.e., the evidence for global warming is now clear and compelling, and we've got to do something about it. What Kerry would do, he says, is re-engage with the world community and adopt a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. Bush, by contrast, falls back on his long-standing view, buttressed by quotes yanked out of context from several NAS reports, that the science is inconclusive regarding human-induced climate change; in this, of course, he ignores the recent, widely covered release by the government's own climate change research directorate of a study that argued that some sort of human contribution to warming is an inescapable conclusion.

--On stem cells, the differences are even starker. Kerry would roll back Bush's ban on federal funding of stem cell lines created after August 2001, which has had a chilling effect on U.S. stem cell research. Kerry also seems to understand the difference between reproductive cloning (the creation of new human beings) and somatic-cell nuclear transfer, or "therapeutic" cloning (the creation of early embryos for biomedical research) -- he'd ban the former and allow the latter. Bush would ban all human cloning, and maintains, in a nice example of Bushian doublethink, that his decision to sharply limit the cell lines that could be used in federally funded stem cell research actually advanced the interests of that research.

--Both Bush and Kerry punt on the issue of creationism, falling back on the canard that school curricula are the province of local school boards and not the federal government. (Actually, the way the Science editors raised this question was rather odd: "Should 'intelligent design' or other scientific critiques of evolutionary theory be taught in public schools?" That wording suggests that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific critique of evolution by natural selection, rather than a clever set of untestable rhetorical devices rooted in the discredited "watch and watchmaker" arguments of the 18th century. Disappointing that Kerry in particular wasn't willing to say this -- but not surprising, given the country's general scientific ignorance and the pressing need, in modern politics, to avoid giving your opponent a sound bite with which to beat you over the head.)

--Kerry asserts that his administration would "never utilize biased advice as a foundation for public policy," something the Bush Administration has done repeatedly -- notwithstanding Bush's statement, answering the same question, that he has "sought out the best scientific minds -- inside and outside the government -- for policy input and advice. . . ." That must be why 60 Nobel laureates and other eminent researchers issued a statement in February 2004 "calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking," and why 48 Nobel prizewinners endorsed Kerry in June 2004, arguing that "the Bush administration is undermining the nation's future by impeding medical advances, turning away scientific talent with its immigration practices and ignoring scientific consensus on global warning and other critical issues."

--Most revealing, perhaps, were the candidates' answers to Science's questions on their three top priorities in science and technology. Bush threw out three eminently political answers: the "chicken in every pot" promise of broadband Internet access for everyone (one can question whether this is really a "science and technology" goal any more), next-generation hydrogen fuel research (a good idea, but also Bush's favorite way to avoid doing anything meaningful on climate change), and "recruiting science and technology to combat terrorism" (political significance obvious). Kerry, by contrast, took a broader view that stressed the long-term goals of restoring and enhancing America's scientific preeminence, boosting science education, and bringing scientific integrity back to policymaking.

Not surprisingly, there was overlap between the two interviews on a number of questions -- with sometimes comical results. In the area of space policy, both publications asked different but related questions on the issue of sending humans to the Moon and Mars, with Nature asking why humans should be sent instead of robots and Science asking what parts of the existing program should be scaled back to fund human exploration. Here's Kerry's response to Nature:

Today, thanks to decades of public investment in space exploration activities, a rotating international team of astronauts is living and working in space on the International Space Station, a dozen Americans have walked on the Moon, we have rovers exploring the surface of Mars, and an armada of spacecraft continues to explore our Solar System. NASA is an invaluable asset to the American people and must receive adequate resources to continue its important mission of exploration.

However, there is little to be gained from a space initiative that throws out lofty goals, but fails to support those goals with realistic funding. John Edwards and I are committed to increasing funding for NASA and space exploration because it not only makes critical contributions to our economy, it also expands our understanding of the world we live in.

In his more nuanced answer to Science, Kerry explores different aspects of capitalization, subject-verb agreement, and other matters of house style:

Today, thanks to decades of public investment in space exploration activities, a rotating international team of astronauts are living and working in space on the International Space Station, a dozen Americans have walked on the Moon, we have rovers exploring the surface of Mars, and an armada of spacecraft continue to explore our solar system. NASA is an invaluable asset to the American people and must receive adequate resources to continue its important mission of exploration.

However, there is little to be gained from a space initiative that throws out lofty goals but fails to support those goals with realistic funding. I am committed to increasing funding for NASA and space exploration because it not only makes critical contributions to our economy but also because it expands our understanding of the world we live in.

Bush's answers, too, seem quite similar between the two publications (though the fact that Nature edited Bush's copy means that direct comparisons of his answers aren't quite as ludicrous). In any event, the campaigns clearly weren't banking on having a geek like me out there doing line-by-line analyses.