Sadly, I find this is not possible, because one candidate's response is so superficial and lacking in substance that I am genuinely at a loss of what to highlight. Really. Nevertheless, the following is worth reading if you are a scientist or someone affected by science (i.e., if you are anyone) and if your vote is still up for grabs.
Question: 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?
McCain:
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. We must ensure that our research is addressing our national needs and taking advantage of new areas of opportunities and that the results of this research can enter the marketplace. We must also ensure that basic research money is allocated to the best science based on quality and peer review, not politics and earmarks.
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.
Obama:
Federally supported basic research, aimed at understanding many features of nature— from the size of the universe to subatomic particles, from the chemical reactions that support a living cell to interactions that sustain ecosystems—has been an essential feature of American life for over fifty years. While the outcomes of specific projects are never predictable, basic research has been a reliable source of new knowledge that has fueled important developments in fields ranging from telecommunications to medicine, yielding remarkable rates of economic return and ensuring American leadership in industry, military power, and higher education. I believe that continued investment in fundamental research is essential for ensuring healthier lives, better sources of energy, superior military capacity, and high-wage jobs for our nation’s future.
Yet, today, we are clearly under-investing in research across the spectrum of scientific and engineering disciplines. Federal support for the physical sciences and engineering has been declining as a fraction of GDP for decades, and, after a period of growth of the life sciences, the NIH budget has been steadily losing buying power for the past six years. As a result, our science agencies are often able to support no more than one in ten proposals that they receive, arresting the careers of our young scientists and blocking our ability to pursue many remarkable recent advances. Furthermore, in this environment, scientists are less likely to pursue the risky research that may lead to the most important breakthroughs. Finally, we are reducing support for science at a time when many other nations are increasing it, a situation that already threatens our leadership in many critical areas of science.
This situation is unacceptable. As president, I will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade.
Sustained and predictable increases in research funding will allow the United States to accomplish a great deal. First, we can expand the frontiers of human knowledge. Second, we can provide greater support for high-risk, high-return research and for young scientists at the beginning of their careers. Third, we can harness science and technology to address the “grand challenges” of the 21st century: energy, health, food and water, national security, information technology, and manufacturing capacity.
Does this mean I am voting my own self-interest? You're goddamn right I am. And you should, too.
The candidates' responses to this and other science policy questions can be seen at sciencedebate2008.com.
9 comments:
science is great, but i think its rather ironic to destroy human lives for the sake of saving some.
and this is really what the debate is about.
No, it isn't Gino. Not even close.
"science is great, but i think its rather ironic to destroy human lives for the sake of saving some."
WHAT?
If all of this proposed research is going to be so beneficial and fruitful, then why aren't private industries pursuing them? It couldn't be because there are little to no economical benefits could it? Oh fuck, I forgot! That is completely in accordance with government objectives. Spend a billion to make a million, right?
embrionic research is the only research that anybody objects.
if 1/2 the budget went to science, generally most folks wouldnt mind, or notice, unless somebody thought they could get elected making an issue out it.
did i miss the boat entirely on this one, brian? :)
speaking of science...
just got back from neurosurgeon.
i signed some form that lets them share my case for eduactional/research purposes.
maybe some future good may come out this.
and i guess i'm not as finished with diagnotsic tests as i thought i was.
you know anything about gammaknife stuff?
chris--This oversimplifies more than a little, but...the private sector (and I'm speaking mainly about the pharmaceutical industry here, because that's what I know a thing or two about) feeds off publicly funded research in at least two ways:
1) High-risk "discovery", otherwise known as pure research, is overwhelmingly done under public funding. Most of the drug targets you hear about Merck or Pfizer or Amgen chasing right now were research projects people like me were doing with public money 20 years ago.
2. The vast majority of their scientific work force is trained on public money--either on training grants or on grants to investigators at universities--and we aren't cheap to train.
If you want to have innovative science that improves the lives of people, you have to be willing to support a lot of stuff that will in all likelihood fail. Most shareholders view this as a lousy business model, and rightly so.
Gino, I'm not talking about stem cells (at least not in this post). This is about the much larger issue of funding priorities, of which stem cell research is just one of many.
My real point here is that McCain's response reflects virtually no critical assessment of the current state of American science. His answers are generic platitudes about support, and some troubling rhetoric about top-down setting of scientific priorities (which, frankly, directly contradicts his point about money being "allocated ... based on quality and peer review, not politics".
Obama, on the other hand, at least appears to have an advisor or two that's done their homework, and possibly even spoken to an actual scientist or two, because his assessment (esp. the parts I bolded) is spot-on.
And no, I don't know much about the gamma knife, though I know someone who had a pituitary tumor removed with one and he is doing extremely well.
Keep us posted on the rest...you remain in my thoughts...
B--
Your argument overlooks the simple fact that government can only invest and train at the expense of the private economy. What you describe is what does happen due to government's intervention in the first place. And they're much more efficient than private enterprise would have been without them, right?
Post a Comment