Friday night was the first debate between Republican presidential nominee John McCain and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. While the debate focused mainly on national security and economics, the candidates did manage to touch on some topics of interest to scientists, primarily energy, nuclear proliferation, and science and math education.
PHYSICS TODAY invites you to share your opinion of Friday’s debate. Simply write down your reactions, no matter how short, to the science policy issues discussed (or not discussed), in the comment section below. Or send them to us at pt@aip.org with the subject line “Campaign 2008.” Please include your name and affiliation. If you would rather that your posting be anonymous, let us know. All comments are moderated; the best comments will be listed at the top of the page.
With the economy so much in the news, and foreign affairs the announced subject of the debate, I didn't expect to have much to say here.
I was wrong.
Science and technology issues are big parts of both candidates' programs, as enunciated in the debate. Additionally, Obama released his S&T policy (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/FactSheetScience.pdf) on Thursday, but you might have missed it among all the other news.
Jim Lehrer's second question, "What are you going to have to give up as a result of the financial rescue plan?" set off the S&T discussion. Obama listed four priority areas: energy independence, health care, education, and infrastructure. All involve S&T, and he explicitly mentioned science and math as an important part of education, broadband expansion as part of infrastructure. He sees beefing up the S&T base as a big part of increasing US competitiveness.
McCain also spoke of the importance of energy policy, emphasizing offshore drilling and nuclear power. He said that 45 new nuclear plants over a couple of decades will provide 700,000 new jobs. He returned to nuclear power again during the debate, mentioning reprocessing twice. My sense has been that "recycling" is the more popular word in government these days. He also said that he had supported the Nunn-Lugar program in the 1990s to deal with nuclear waste, but that was incorrect. The Nunn-Lugar program addresses safe storage and handling of nuclear weapons materials in Russia, not nuclear waste from US reactors.
Obama spoke of nonproliferation issues several times, making the connection to potential nuclear terrorism and mentioning the bill he introduced with Richard Lugar (R, NE) to address a number of related issues, including taking missiles off alert and continued support for Nunn-Lugar.
McCain said very little about nonproliferation. I think the increase in nuclear plants will be a hard sell unless he couples it with increased safety and protection against proliferation. He mentioned missile defense in response to Lehrer's question about the possibility of another 9/11 attack. He said missile defense was a "major factor in bringing about the end of the Cold War."
I was glad to see so much S&T discussion. I thought that Obama presented more facts and specific policies, but I've been in the tank for Obama for some time now.
I managed to catch the debate on the radio. Science got mentioned once - when Obama was talking about improving infrastructure and education. I guess that was a win.
I've not looked at the pundit sites yet, but here is what I thought. Ick. I really didn't like McCain. He reminded me of one of those high school bullies. The things he wanted to do were simplistic - his "Freeze all spending!" is the poster child for this approach. Obama had a much more nuanced position. Both of them, but McCain in particular, seemed to try to distort each other's voting record. McCain's "you voted against our troops" attack was typical - give me a break. It was a random fictional president who said it best: "You can't run such a great country on four words". And half the time McCain would ignore the moderator's request and just say whatever his favorite attack was. I spend my life trying to understand complex subjects - as do many people - and it is very very rare these days there is a "yes" or "no" answer to any of the questions I'm studying. It is the same with running our country. It felt like Obama fully recognized that difference, and McCain was all about yes/no.
McCain clearly won the sound-bite contest, however. I wasn't very interested in voting for him before this debate, but I'm interested even less so now. Disappointed.
— Gordon Watts, Professor of Physics
University of Washington Seattle
Endorsements, transitions, budgets, and the debate — week of 21 September 2008
Barack Obama releases more information on his science proposals, while John McCain plans to freeze federal domestic discretionary spending that could hit science hard.
Although the stock market and attempts to save it have gained most of the attention this week, two notable developments occurred in the presidential campaign. The first development was that the Obama campaign released an 11-page document specifying how science and scientists will be integrated into his administration. The second was a letter by 61 Nobel Prize recipients including 22 physicists that endorsed Obama and stated that the Bush administration had jeopardized “our once dominant position in the scientific world” and “lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.” The final paragraph states, “Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal investments in science and technology are crucial elements in successful governance of the world’s leading country. We hope you will join us as we work together to ensure his election in November.”
Obama’s plan
The document fleshes out the brief details that have been on his website for some time. The highlights include previously stated positions such as restoring and enhancing the role of the president’s science and technology adviser, and appointing independently qualified individuals with strong science credentials to key positions and advisory committees.
Education is a key focus of Obama’s campaign and the document discusses dramatically reshaping “No Child Left Behind” legislation to provide more incentives for students to study science, technology, and engineering, and adding incentives for qualified scientists to become science teachers.
Immigration requirements will be changed to allow a fast-track process by which foreign students who receive advanced technical degrees can get an employment-based visa without having to return to their home country.
The investment in the US R&D budget over the next 10 years has been reformulated to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Encouraging interdisciplinary research remains one of Obama’s key policy points. The document does not discuss funds for DARPA, the National Nuclear Security Administration, or the Defense Department’s overall R&D budgets although it does call for increased investment in some areas, such as information technology research. DARPA is singled out as having moved away from its original mission to do long term high risk research. An Obama administration intends to redirect DARPA back to those goals, particularly in microsystems, nanotechnology, information technology, synthetic biology, and advanced manufacturing. According to the documents, the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency is “under-staffed and in disarray”, and it will be subject to a dramatic shakeup that will tie its fortunes closely to partnerships with industry and academia.
McCain’s budget proposal
Not so good news was delivered to a coalition of scientific and professional societies called the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation at a private gathering in Washington, DC attendees heard from Ike Brannon, an economist and senior policy adviser to McCain. Brannon said that if McCain is elected president, they could expect the federal domestic discretionary budget to be frozen." "The purpose of the freeze is to evaluate each and every program, looking at which ones are worthwhile and which are a waste of taxpayer dollars.” Such a freeze is likely to hit research agencies particularly hard as inflation takes a bigger bite out of their budget. Despite heavy lobbying by the taskforce, the McCain group refused to show flexibility on the issue says ScienceNOW .
There is some flexibility by both candidates however for an additional $25 billion loan to the US domestic automakers for this and next year for R&D purposes. In an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor, General Motors President Troy Clark says the money is for “R&D in advanced batteries and alternative fuels, and retooling our factories to build new vehicles that use these advanced technologies” that the companies cannot afford to find on their own.
Who is leaving?
On Wednesday, Elias Zerhouni, the director of the National Institutes of Health announced his resignation to pursue writing projects. John Marburger, the current science adviser to President Bush, will leave as soon as time permits, and both the Obama and McCain campaigns have suggested that Michael Griffin will not be asked to stay on as NASA administrator.
The Obama campaign has been drawing up a short list of candidates for science and technology related positions in the government based on input from more than 100 scientists and policy experts. Little information is available from the McCain campaign on who he is approaching for such positions.
The same approach is seen in the candidates' responses to questions from Nature and Physics Today on what their plans are for science. This week Nature published responses from the Obama campaign but the McCain campaign declined to answer. Nature editor, Alexandra Witze highlighted quotes from Senator McCain on the topics raised in order to attempt to give some balance. Physics Today will be publishing Senator Obama’s responses to its questions next week.
Paul Guinnessy
An Open Letter to the American People
This year’s presidential election is among the most significant in our nation’s history. The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.
We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.
During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country’s scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support. The government’s scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations. As a result, our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.
We have watched Senator Obama’s approach to these issues with admiration. We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation’s competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take – through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research – to meet the nation’s and the world’s most urgent needs.
Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal investments in science and technology are crucial elements in successful governance of the world’s leading country. We hope you will join us as we work together to ensure his election in November.
Science questions, advisers, and climate change — week of 14 September 2008
With less than seven weeks remaining before the November 4 presidential election, John McCain’s campaign finally answered questions on science policy issues that were put to both candidates months ago by “Science Debate 2008,” a coalition of scientific societies, universities, and other organizations. Barack Obama had provided his answers to the group in late August. Obama also replied to a separate list of questions posed by PHYSICS TODAY. McCain, however, turned down repeated invitations to respond to the questions.
Questions & Answers
McCain’s answers to the questionnaire touted his experience with science and technology issues from his years as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. “Under my guiding hand,” McCain boasted, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that led to widespread use of cell phones and Wi-Fi technology. Not surprisingly, McCain was most specific in reply to questions on climate change and the energy crunch. He pledged to follow through on his legislative attempts to institute a cap-and-trade regulatory system to lower emissions of carbon dioxide, provide tax credits for zero-emission vehicles, and offer a $300 million prize to developers of a battery capable of “leapfrog[ging] the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.” McCain did not say what PHEVs and electric cars are currently available.
McCain’s “all of the above” approach to energy policy would include “put[ting] the country on track” to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, devote $2 billion per year to clean-coal R&D, ratchet up automotive fuel economy standards, and reform the existing patchwork of tax credits for renewable energy. For improving education, he proposes direct federal funds to reward mathematics and science teachers, as well as to reward educators who teach in challenging schools and succeed in raising student achievement levels.
As for space policy, McCain focused his answers on NASA’s human spaceflight mission, calling its continued support a “top priority.” He promised to maximize the research capabilities and commercialization possibilities for the International Space Station, and minimize the gap between retirement of the space shuttles and completion of their replacement, the Constellation Program. McCain recently joined two of his Senate colleagues in urging NASA to delay the shuttles’ 2010 retirement date.
Like Obama, McCain committed himself to early appointment of a science adviser, and “restor[ing] the credibility and role of [the Office of Science and Technology Policy] as an office within the White House structure.” That was an apparent reference to President Bush’s decision to move the science adviser down a notch in the White House pecking order, from the “assistant to the president” title it held prior to Bush taking office to its current “deputy assistant to the president” rank. Bush also evicted OSTP, whose director is the science adviser, from the executive office building adjacent to the White House and relocated to its current home in an office building down Pennsylvania Avenue.
While promising to reinvigorate federal support for basic research programs, McCain notably did not join Obama in committing to double funding for basic physical sciences research at the Department of Energy, NSF and NIST.
The Alaska factor
Despite the complete financial meltdown affecting coverage on the campaign trail, Governor Sarah Palin’s influence on McCain’s climate change position received more scrutiny this week as the National Parks Examiner looks closely to report Palin commissioned as governor of Alaska on the impact of climate change on the state (which was the only mention of climate change on the Republican Convention website two weeks ago).The report describes the damage that could be done to the Alaskan environment and calculates Alaska’s CO2 emissions, but does not describe any solutions to reducing the state’s carbon footprint. The state’s strategy document ignores the human factor in global warming by describing climate change as “the variation in Earth’s global and regional atmosphere over time.”
Advice for president-elect
In other news, the National Academy of Sciences unveiled its quadrennial unsolicited primer on science policy to the next president. The academy’s Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy echoes calls for the newly elected president to choose a science adviser before inauguration day. While the science adviser could not formally assume command of OSTP until being confirmed to that post by the Senate, the science adviser post requires no such consent. The chosen individual could help identify qualified candidates for other key appointments in the agencies that involve S&T issues. In actuality, the appointment has rarely been a priority for incoming administrations. The current job holder, John Marburger, was nominated by Bush more than five months after inauguration, and three more months passed before his nomination was actually submitted to the Senate.
The Obama campaign, at least, appears to be taking scientific advice somewhat seriously. This week it publicly identified the five members of its circle of advisers on scientific issues that helped to prepare its responses to the Science Debate 2008 questionnaire. Chaired by Harold Varmus, the Nobel laureate and former director of the National Institutes of Health, the committee includes just one member from the physical sciences: University of Chicago astrophysicist Donald Lamb. Others are University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn, a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Nobel laureate Peter Agre, director of the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute; and Stanford University professor Sharon Long. Varmus and Lamb also were instrumental in Obama’s responses to the questions that were submitted by PT. More than 75 scientists are believed to be directly working with the Obama campaign. On the other hand, the most prominent spokesperson for the McCain campaign on scientific issues is an economist.
1. 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?
I have a broad and cohesive vision for the future of American innovation. My policies will provide broad pools of capital, low taxes and incentives for research in America, a commitment to a skilled and educated workforce, and a dedication to opening markets around the globe. I am committed to streamlining burdensome regulations and effectively protecting American intellectual property in the United States and around the globe.
Transformative information and communications technologies permeate every aspect of our daily lives. In the last decade, there has been an explosion in the ways Americans communicate with family, friends, and business partners; shop and connect with global markets; educate themselves; become more engaged politically; and consume and even create entertainment. America has led the world into this technology revolution because we have enabled innovation to take root, grow, and prosper. Nurturing technology and innovation is essential for solving the critical problems facing our country: developing alternative fuels, addressing climate change, encouraging commercialization of new technologies, deploying technology to manage cost and enable new jobs, stopping the spiraling expense of health care, and better educating our children and our workforce.
I am uniquely qualified to lead our nation during this technological revolution. While in the Navy, I depended upon the technologies and information provided by our nation’s scientists and engineers with during each mission. I am the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee plays a major role in the development of technology policy, specifically any legislation affecting communications services, the Internet, cable television and other technologies. 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.
Above all, my commitment to innovation is a commitment to the well-established entrepreneurial spirit and creativity of America’s thinkers and tinkerers whose inventions have improved our lives and promoted prosperity. To maintain American leadership, I believe we must nurture the conditions under which entrepreneurs can continue to prosper by bringing new innovators to market and the American people can reap the rewards.
As President, I will ---
Focus on addressing national needs to make the United States a leader in developing, deploying, and exporting new technologies;
Utilize the nation’s science and technology infrastructure to develop a framework for economic growth both domestically and globally;
Appoint a Science and Technology Advisor within the White House to ensure that the role of science and technology in policies is fully recognized and leveraged, that policies will be based upon sound science, and that the scientific integrity of federal research is restored;
Eliminate wasteful earmarks in order to allocate funds for science and technology investments;
Fund basic and applied research in new and emerging fields such as nanotechnology and biotechnology, and in greater breakthroughs in information technology;
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;
Ensure U.S. leadership in space by promoting an exploration agenda that will combine the discoveries of our unmanned probes with new technologies to take Americans to the Moon, Mars, and beyond;
Grow public understanding and popularity of mathematics and science by reforming mathematics and science education in schools;
2. 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. No challenge of energy is to be taken lightly, and least of all, the need to avoid the consequences of global warming. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we act to meet the challenge, and act quickly.
To dramatically reduce carbon emissions, I will institute a new cap-and-trade system that over time will change the dynamic of our energy economy. By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emissions, by 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. In doing this, we will transition into a low carbon energy future while promoting the technological innovations that keep us on a course of economic growth. The purpose of this approach is to give American businesses new incentives and rewards to seek cheaper emission reductions, instead of just new taxes to pay and new regulations to follow. This approach gives people time to adapt, instead of causing a sudden jolt to electricity bills and potential shutdowns of tradition coal-fired plants.
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.
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. We will commit up to a 5,000 dollar tax credit to each and every customer who buys that car. In the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure. From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success.
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.
I will continue to support the US Global Change Research Program and ensure that the program’s activities support the Nation’s needs for climate related information to help it prepare for the future.
Leverage technologies to create employment in rural areas and deploy the displaced workforce;
Create greater transparency in government and encourage more citizens-government dialogs using current technology; and
Develop and implement a global competitive agenda through a series of business roundtables with industry and academia leaders.
3. 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?
Over time, I believe that we must reform our entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power sources that meet the multiple shared objective of promoting environmental, economic and national security. One of the prevailing issues of our time and the next presidency will be how to deal with the issues of energy security and sustainability. It is important that we shift to sustainable, clean burning energy sources or advance to technologies that make our more traditional resources cleaner burning.
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.
In the progress of other alternative energy sources -- such as wind, solar, geothermal, tide, and hydroelectric --government must be an ally but not an arbiter. In less than a generation, wind power alone could account for a fifth or more of all our electricity. And just in recent memory, solar energy has gone from a novelty to a fast-growing industry. 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. 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. 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 will also commit the federal government to a prosperous clean technology agenda and to becoming the world leader in green technologies. Americans have always been the world's leaders in innovation, and it's time for our economy to adapt and take an active role in the new green international economy.
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.
4. 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?
My Administration will promote economic policies that will spur economic growth and a focus on an innovative economy. Critical to these efforts is the creation of the best trained, best prepared workforce to drive this economy through the 21st century. America’s ability to compete in the global market is dependent on the availability of a skilled workforce. Less than 20 percent of our undergraduate students obtaining degrees in math or science, and the number of computer science majors have fallen by half over the last eight years. America must address these trends in education and training if it hopes to compete successfully.
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.
Beyond the basics of enabling every student to reach their potential, our country is faced with a critical shortage of students with specific skills fundamental to our ability to compete globally.
The diminishing number of science, technology, engineering and math graduates at the college level poses a fundamental and immediate threat to American competitiveness.
We must fill the pipeline to our colleges and universities with students prepared for the rigors of advanced engineering, math, science and technology degrees.
We must move aggressively to provide opportunities from elementary school on, for students to explore the sciences through laboratory experimentation, science fairs and competitions.
We must bring private corporations more directly into the process, leveraging their creativity, and experience to identify and maximize the potential of students who are interested and have the unique potential to excel in math and science.
We must strengthen skills of existing science and math teachers through training and education, through professional development programs and community colleges. I believe we must provide funding for needed professional teacher development. Where federal funds are involved, teacher development money should be used to enhance the ability of teachers to perform in today’s technology driven environment. We need to provide teachers with high quality professional development opportunities with a primary focus on instructional strategies that address the academic needs of their students. The first 35 percent of Title II funding would be directed to the school level so principals and teachers could focus these resources on the specific needs of their schools.
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.
I will allocate $250 million through a competitive grant program to support states that commit to expanding online education opportunities. States can use these funds to build virtual math and science academies to help expand the availability of AP Math, Science, and Computer Sciences courses, online tutoring support for students in traditional schools, and foreign language courses.
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.
5. 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?
I have been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation's obligations both at home and abroad. I have fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.
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.
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.
6. 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?
It is impossible to know whether the H5N1 virus will cause a human pandemic. The widespread nature of H5N1 in birds, the high mortality rates in exposed humans, and the likelihood of mutations over time have illustrated, however, the potentially catastrophic consequences that could arise from a pandemic, whether it arises from the current H5N1 strain or a different strain of the virus. That awareness requires the international community, the federal government, state and local governments, the health care industry, research community and the business community to develop and implement strategies to address this threat. The positive news is that such efforts are underway. They need continued development and attention, however, because by their very nature pandemics have the potential to overwhelm society’s response capabilities.
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.
When faced with a global pandemic, the United States must have in place and implement a layered strategy to save lives and protect the continuity of a functioning society. First, we must limit the spread of disease to the United States. Second, we must limit the spread of disease within the United States. This must be accomplished at the community level with strategies that have worked in past pandemics and can be adapted to a current crisis. Third, we must mitigate symptoms of the disease and minimize suffering and death with effective treatments and countermeasures. And fourth, we must maintain a functioning economy, public service sector and community.
The strategy requires a focus on: preparedness (the activities that should be undertaken before a pandemic to ensure preparedness); communication (the roles and responsibilities of all levels of government and segments of society); surveillance and detection ( both domestic and international systems that provide continuous situational awareness to ensure the earliest warning possible to protect the population); and response and containment (actions to limit the spread of the outbreak and to mitigate the health, social and economic impacts of a pandemic).
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.
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.
7. 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?
Genetic research holds great promise, but also demands great responsibility. We stand on the threshold of life-changing breakthroughs shepherded by the human genome project. I share in the wonder that unlocking the human genetic code affords and the life-changing treatments and therapies it could allow. But this discovery should inspire restraint to equal to its promise to ensure nascent discoveries are not abused. 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. 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.
Genetic research can already provide real assistance for those in some of the poorest regions who lack access to adequate food sources. Through increased research and development, we can help foster a new Green Revolution like the one that transformed Asia several decades ago. In partnership with government institutions, our colleges and universities should help train a new generation of African agro-scientists. 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.
8. 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. 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 oppose the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes and I voted to ban the practice of “fetal farming,” making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes.
9. 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?
As a former Navy officer I was constantly reminded of the power, wonder and complexity of our world’s oceans. As Americans we are blessed by our location, surrounded by two of the world’s great Oceans, along with the magnificent Great Lakes along our Northern border. Oceans and coastal waters provide us with critical resources, hours of recreation and protection. The environmental health of the oceans and the Great Lakes is a complex, multi-faceted issue requiring attention and action from numerous perspectives. 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. For example, the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico which appears every summer does not result from human activities in the Gulf of Mexico, but from human activities across the Mid-West. 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. This is at least partly due to the fact that so many of the human activities that adversely affect ocean health are not “ocean activities”, but are landside activities. Regional and ecosystem management concepts are easy to talk about, but are complicated to implement effectively, and they depend of obtaining a commitment from various necessary stakeholders.
Ocean health and policy requires better management focus; however, we also need a better scientific understanding of the oceans. In no area is this truer than in obtaining a better understanding of the interaction of climate change and the oceans. We need to better understand the ocean’s role in the carbon cycle, in the effects of the massive amount of fresh water resulting from the melting of polar ice, which could dramatically affect global weather patterns, and in the effects of warmer ocean waters on weather – especially coastal storms - and on marine life. Ocean science and engineering is a field that deserves greater attention and focus.
Although I have served the State of Arizona in the United States Senate, I have always had an enormous attraction to and appreciation for our oceans. Their health requires an increased focus and commitment from all Americans, not just from those who derive their livelihood from them or live on theirs shores.
10. 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?
As a westerner, I understand the vital role that water plays in the development of western economies and to maintaining a high quality of life. Water is truly our lifeblood. I believe that we must develop, manage, and use our limited water supplies wisely and with a conservation ethic to ensure that we have sufficient supplies to meet municipal, tribal, industrial, agricultural, recreational, and environmental needs. I believe that water rights must be respected, and that disputes are better resolved not in the courts but through negotiations that build consensus, and provide justly for the needs of the west’s diverse interests and needs. I understand the importance of state law and local prerogatives in the allocation of water resources, and that all levels of government must work together with stakeholders to ensure that our lifeblood is protected, managed, and utilized in a wise, just, and sustainable manner.
I support constructive, continuing cooperation and dialogue among the states and the water users in a manner that is fully consistent with existing compacts and agreements. This is an approach that is forward looking, and ensures cooperation in achieving implementation of water agreements among the states and the Department of the Interior and is mindful of potential technological developments that could potentially reduce water demands in certain areas.
11. 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?
The real question is whether we can afford not to. We must ensure that we have a balanced approach to our space investments along with proper management controls. Today, we rely more upon our space based assets than at any other time in history. We need the technological advances of these systems to effectively address tremendous challenges such as climate change. Failure to properly address these problems will have devastating effects on the future of the planet.
For the past 50 years, space activities have contributed greatly to US scientific discovery, national security, economic development, and national innovation, pride and power (the ultimate example of which was the U.S. victory over the Soviets in the race to the moon). Spurred on by the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, the world's first satellite, and the concern that the U.S was falling behind in science and technology, U.S. policymakers enacted several policy actions to firmly establish the U.S. dominance in science and technology. Among them were the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the national Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), increased research funding, and a reformulation of the nation's science and technology education system.
Today, more than 50 years after Sputnik, the US faces a very different world. The end of the Cold War and the space race has greatly reduced the profile of space exploration as a point of national pride and an emblem of U.S. power and thus created some degree of "mission-rut" for NASA. At the same time, the scientific community views the use of space as an important observation platform for advancing science by increasing our understanding of the solar system and the universe. In addition, our recent comprehension of the Earth's changing climate is based on data that we have received from our weather and Earth observation satellites. Much of our communications infrastructure is dependent upon space based assets that are essential to the quality of our everyday lives and the economy.
China, Russia, India, Japan and Europe are all active players in space exploration. Both Japan and China launched robotic lunar orbiters in 2007. India is planning to launch a lunar orbiter later this year. The European Space Agency (ESA) is looking into a moon-lander, but is more focused on Mars. China also is actively pursuing a manned space program and, in 2003, became only the third country after the USSR and the US to demonstrate the capability to send man to space. China is developing plans for a manned lunar mission in the next decade and the establishment of a lunar base after 2020.
Activity within the commercial sector continues to increase beyond the traditional role of launching satellites. In 2007, the X-Prize Foundation announced a prize of $30 million in a global competition to build the first robotic rover capable of landing on the Moon. Several companies are planning to develop and build spacecraft for space tourism.
I understand the importance of investments in key industries such as space to the future of our national security, environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, and national pride as a technological leader. Although the general view in the research community is that human exploration is not an efficient way to increase scientific discoveries given the expense and logistical limitations, the role of manned space flight goes well beyond the issue of scientific discovery and is reflection of national power and pride.
History provides some guide to this. In 1971, when the Nixon Administration was looking at canceling the Apollo program and not approving the development of the Space Shuttle - then Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Casper Weinberger stated that such a policy: "would be confirming in some respects a belief that I fear is gaining credence at home and abroad: That our best years are behind us, that we are turning inward, reducing our defense commitments, and voluntarily starting to give up our super-power status and our desire to maintain world superiority." Three and a half decades later this seems equally valid, if not more so given the increased number of countries that are making significant investments in space.
I have been involved in a number of efforts to improve America's scientific prowess within the space arena. As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I played a major role in legislation to provide funding for space exploration (manned and unmanned), space science, Earth science, and aeronautics research. I also sponsored legislation to support the up and coming commercial space industry, and led the Senate's efforts to implement improvements to NASA after the Columbia accident. I also spearheaded efforts to control costs at NASA and promote a space exploration agenda based on sound management, safe practices, and fiscal responsibility.
Current U.S. space operations policy commits the U.S. to completing the International Space Station (ISS) by 2010 and then terminating the Space Shuttle flights, with the completion of the ISS. I have called on the Bush Administration to suspend its decommissioning of the shuttle until the next President is in office, and to retain the option of continuing shuttle flights to the ISS in the interim period until the Ares/Orion vehicle is in service.
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.
12. 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?
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.
I support having a science and technology advisor within the White House staff and restoring the credibility and role of OSTP as an office within the White House structure. I will work to fill early in my Administration both the position of Science Adviser and at least four assistant directors within OSTP. I am committed to asking the most qualified scientists and engineers to join not only my OSTP, but all of the key technical positions in my Administration.
Integrity is critical in scientific research. Scientific research cannot succeed without integrity and trust. My own record speaks for integrity and putting the country first, not political agendas.
13. 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. 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.
14. 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. When we understand the science of our illnesses because of the extensive research that we have conducted, we are in a better position to develop treatment technologies. With this additional knowledge, we are also able to do a better evaluation of the effectiveness of our treatment plans.
As in many other areas, science, research, and technology offer many opportunities to improve productivity and reduce cost. For instance, we are just beginning to realize the vast potential of telemedicine. It allows doctors to be able to reach more patients, especially those located in remote areas. In many cases, telemedicine is the only means by which some patients would ever be able receive treatment for their illnesses. Applications such as this leads to an improved health and quality of life for those affected patients. Ultimately, improved quality of life is the purpose of any technology.
And while technologies and the latest research can go a long way toward finding new treatments and reducing costs, government policies must increase the availability of these to the American people. 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.
Negative campaigning drown out news on science — week of 07 September 2008
As the Republicans and John McCain openly try to turn the presidential campaign away from highlighting differences between McCain and Barack Obama on energy, education, economics, and national security, and toward a referendum on "culture and values," serious discussions of issues related to science have been hard to come by. Instead, it was a week filled with manufactured controversies (lipstick on a pig), silly measures of experience (small town mayor versus community organizer), and the media's role in perpetuating dirty campaigning (balance at the cost of truth).
But underneath the mud, there have been a few science-related issues that have made it into the news.
Climate of change?
MinnPost.com, a virtual newspaper in the Twin Cities (site of the Republican convention) ran an analysis piece on September 11, headlined "Climate Change Getting the Attention of Both Parties." The story noted that the Republican convention ended with John McCain agreeing with scientists and Obama that global warming is an urgent problem calling for major changes in marketing and use of energy.
"This is a first, where you not only have both candidates agree that climate change is real and we are causing it but also agree that we need a market-based approach to it," MinnPost.com quoted J. Drake Hamilton, science policy director for Fresh Energy, a nonprofit organization in St. Paul that promotes clean energy. The article goes on to look at the differences between the "cap and trade" plans the candidates support.
Opinions raised on energy debate
The energy debate, such as it is, continued to focus on the Republican mantra "Drill, baby, drill." About 12,000 McCain supporters took up the chant during a massive rally in Virginia during the week.
While Obama has moved his position toward allowing more offshore drilling than is currently allowed as part of a wider alternative energy plan, the Republicans are still hammering the Democrats for slowing the "drilling" solution to high gasoline prices. The argument seems to have gained credence among many voters despite a Department of Energy assessment that more drilling wouldn't have any impact on prices for a least a decade, and then would result in at best a marginal change.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, appearing on Meet the Press Sunday, criticized the Republican focus on drilling as a solution to the energy crisis. In a quote that Democrats are circulating on the Web, Friedman noted that the Republicans are missing the arrival of the energy technology revolution.
FRIEDMAN: I’m actually not against drilling. What I’m against is making that the center of our focus because we are on the eve of a new revolution, the energy technology revolution. It would be as if on the eve of the IT revolution, the revolution of PCs and the internet, someone was up there standing and demanding, “IBM Selectric typewriters, IBM Selectric typewriters.” That’s what “drill, drill, drill” is the equivalent of today.
A New York Times editorial jumped into the energy issue on Sunday, September 7, with, "John McCain's Energy Follies." The Times says "increasing oil production remains the centerpiece of his strategy," and then notes that McCain's positions divert public attention from an "unavoidable truth: a nation that uses one-quarter of the world's oil while owning only 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness or self-sufficiency."
Energy policy moves
But in Congress, Democrats were trying to quell the calls for more drilling by offering a new offshore drilling plan that is part of a broader energy package that would roll back tax breaks for the largest oil companies and require them to pay royalties to spur renewable energy programs and conservation. That story, with all of the standard back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, was detailed in many reports, including the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and, insightfully, TheHill.Com.
Bloomberg News wrote an analysis that concluded the cost of John McCain's plan to revive the US nuclear power industry with 45 new reactors would be $315 billion, with taxpayers bearing much of the financial risk.
Meanwhile, the Houston Chronicle covered an appearance by oilman T. Boone Pickens, who continued to pitch his plan for building a wind power corridor in the Midwest to replace power now produced by natural gas. Pickens told the Society of American Business Editors and Writers that he has already accomplished one of his goals in proposing the $58 million wind program. "What I wanted when I started this campaign of mine, what my plan was, was to get it elevated so the candidates were going to talk about it," Pickens said. He said he's talked to both presidential candidates about his program, and "both of them were 10s as far as interest."
Stem Cells
Stem cell research entered the campaign when the New York Times wrote a September 9 piece titled: “Back and Forth on Stem-Cell Research Energizes Race.” Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden criticized the Republican platform stance against any form of human embryonic stem-cell research. He linked stem-cell research to helping babies born with birth defects. Republicans immediately charged him with attacking their vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, who recently gave birth to a Down syndrome baby. She is opposed to stem-cell research.
Akron Beacon Journal medical writer Tracy Wheeler did a story: "Health-Care Chasm for McCain, Obama." The piece looks at the proposals of both candidates. "While McCain's plan relies on free-market forces, tax credits, deregulation, and rescinding the tax-exempt status of employer-sponsored benefits, Obama's plan centers on new public and private insurance programs, regulation of the insurance market, and a mandate that employers either provide health insurance or pay a tax to help cover the uninsured.”
In other stories:
USA Today ran a short piece on the differences between the candidates on subsidies for innovation.
The New York Times went after the McCain campaign for a misleading TV ad saying Obama favors comprehensive sex education for kindergarten students. Obama actually voted for a bill that called for teaching kindergartners how to defend themselves against sexual predators. In many schools, it is taught as a "good touch, bad touch" program.
The Washington Post ran a piece about an intelligence forecast being prepared for the next president that predicts a steady decline in US dominance "as the world is reshaped by globalization, battered by climate change, and destabilized by regional upheavals over shortages of food, water and energy.”
The New York Times, on September 7, ran an interesting piece on the “unintended consequences” of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which was intended to allow universities and their researchers to profit from their scientific work. Instead, the piece says, many university research labs are functioning like corporate research laboratories, keeping new discoveries under wraps for competitive reasons.
Obama answers science questions, new facts rise up over McCain's VP choice — week of 31 August 2008
As the Republicans gathered in St. Paul for their presidential convention (see our coverage of days 1, 2, 3, and 4) the Obama campaign released answers to a long list of questions suggested by Sciencedebate.com, a collation of science organizations (the American Institute of Physics was one of the organizations that provided advice on the questions). Nearly every science magazine, including Physics Today, has been submitting questions to the candidates for months without any response, despite both campaigns having a number of scientists working as advisers.
The Obama campaign move is the first part of a process that will see a number of answers to policy questions on science released to media organizations, says Obama’s press office. The McCain campaign is still refusing to answer any science policy questions.
In fact, the convention this week saw a number of misinterpretations appear from the Republican camp of Obama’s position on a number of science issues, including in McCain’s speech at the convention last night--in which he talked about "clean energy" but didn't explain how he would invest in the technology and claimed that Obama has said that the US could achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. Obama has stated that he is in favor of nuclear power if the waste issue and safety concerns are addressed, and has agreed to compromise on offshore drilling as long as it is part of a large energy package that favors renewable energy.
What did Obama say on Science?
Obama’s answers to the Sciencedebate.com questions indicate that his administration aims to “increase federal investment in clean energy research, development, and deployment by $150 billion over ten years.”
He would also
•double funding in basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering over the next decade
• increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at science agencies
• expand access to higher education, work to draw more of these students into science and engineering, and increase National Science Foundation (NSF) graduate fellowships
• create a Global Energy Forum—based on the G8+5, which includes all G8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa—comprising the largest energy-consuming nations from both the developed and developing worlds to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues
• respond to threats such as asymmetric conflicts, cyber attacks, biological terror, and nuclear proliferation by investing in math and science education
• revitalize NASA to focus not only on space but also on Earth observation and reestablish an over-reaching agency to monitor all US space-based activities
• appoint individuals with strong science and technology backgrounds and unquestioned reputations for integrity and objectivity to the growing number of senior management positions where decisions must incorporate science and technology advice
• strengthen the role of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and put back the science adviser as reporting directly to the president.
Hidden issues
Meanwhile, at the Republican convention, the lack of substantial policy discussions did not go unnoticed. Harold Meyerson points out that the Democrats had more than 20 public forums discussing “green” jobs while the Republican convention had one (see day 4 of our coverage).
On the Republican convention website, a search for the keyword “climate change” brings up one entry: Gov. Sarah Palin’s biography, which talks about how she has set up a committee to look at the impact of climate change on Alaska. Palin is not convinced that global warming is the result of human activity. A search for “energy” creates a list of 20 individuals and one press conference (which was reported on day 3 of our coverage).
Palin's views
According to Inside Higher Ed, Palin as governor approved a 7% increase in the University of Alaska’s education budget at a time of record prices for oil. “At the same time, the governor vetoed energy research and cooperative extension programs that were, according to the university system, endorsed by the Alaska State Legislature, in addition to vetoing an endorsed increase for tutoring and distance learning for the Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program.”
Thomas Friedman isn’t impressed with McCain, describing McCain’s vice-presidential pick as completing "his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.”
"John McCain was all about global warming and the integrity of the science. The selection of Sarah Palin is a complete reversal from that position," said Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC). "She is disturbingly part of the pattern of the Bush administration in their approach to science generally and the science of the environment in particular."
John McCain has long been an avowed fan of Theodore Roosevelt, one of the nation's most charismatic presidents and one of its first and most influential environmental advocates. So it's not surprising that Roosevelt's great-grandson, Theodore Roosevelt IV, is someone the Republican presidential nominee has turned to for advice and perspective when confronted with high-profile environmental policy decisions.
Over the course of about a year, McCain has had repeated conversations about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) with Roosevelt, a managing director for Lehman Brothers who spoke Friday at a gathering for Republican National Convention delegates and officials. Many in McCain's party want to drill for oil in the wilderness area. McCain, though, has listened repeatedly over the past year to Roosevelt make his case for protecting the area. Finally, Roosevelt got a call from McCain one day at his office.
When Roosevelt picked up the phone, the Arizona senator's gravelly voice announced that Roosevelt had won his case. The line he used drew laughter as Roosevelt relayed it to a room full of McCain delegates: "Ted, I'm with you, but you can't tell a goddamned person until I release it.''
Green Republicans
Roosevelt was the guest of honor at a session sponsored by a group whose symbol is the green elephant: Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP). At a convention where delegates' shouts of "Drill, baby, drill" interrupted speeches by both McCain and his vice presidential pick Sarah Palin, the REP gathering was a welcome dose of straight talk about the need for stewardship and about both the realities and the challenges of shifting from fossil fuels to sustainable energy sources. "Conservation is Conservative'' proclaimed the banner across the top of the gathering room in St. Paul's historic Hamm Building.
While the event got a good turnout of delegates, it wasn't jammed with either party devotees or the media. And that's a shame. The REP is the real deal when it comes to environmental advocacy and doesn't pull any punches for candidates either inside or outside the Republican Party.
Unlike many gatherings that were closed to the press, the REP welcomed bloggers and reporters. David Jenkins, the REP's government affairs director, spent a great deal of time with me explaining the group's mission and its history. One of the key things he mentioned is that the group did not endorse President Bush in 2000 or 2004. The reason? Bush fell short when the group sat down and looked at his policies and track record as an environmental steward.
This year, the REP is endorsing John McCain. And, like Roosevelt arguing on behalf of the ANWR, they make a good case. McCain, they believe, is a conservative who understands the value of stewardship. McCain's vote to safeguard the ANWR, one of Dwight D. Eisenhower's conservation legacies, is just one small part of McCain's record that has garnered the REP's approval.
According to the REP:
- McCain was the first senator of either party to introduce comprehensive climate change legislation.
- He's seen evidence of climate change firsthand and taken his congressional colleagues with him on various trips to win their support.
- He has a balanced energy policy to pilot the nation through a transitional energy era.
- He's helped reform the way Congress funds water projects and has blocked big-spending proposals that would have negatively impacted waterways and wetlands.
Roosevelt, who described himself as a “moderate Republican,“ added his strong voice to the REP's support for McCain. But he also offered up some blunt talk about the nation's energy policy, the economy, and some of the remedies that have been proposed at the RNC gathering. Roosevelt was very concerned about the economy, saying it is worse than the current leadership has acknowledged and that it is going to take time to recover. And that recovery will involve raising interest rates, increasing taxes, and cutting spending.
Sustainable energy
Roosevelt said Republicans need to embrace the shift to sustainable energy because it is intertwined with the economy and will help drive the recovery. He chided the party's call for energy independence, saying it's probably not possible because oil is the lifeblood of transportation energy. But, he said, it is possible for the nation to reduce its dependency on foreign energy sources.
Roosevelt also mentioned some of the key energy issues addressed at the RNC, which ended its four-day run Thursday with McCain's speech.
For example, "clean coal" is something of a holy energy grail that's been mentioned in speeches before the main body of delegates at the Xcel Energy Center and also by House Republican leadership at an energy press conference held during the convention. Roosevelt noted correctly that practical clean coal technology doesn’t exist yet. If anything, Roosevelt said, we're still 10 to 15 years away from where we need to be. And that's with some kind of private–public partnership to accelerate development.
Roosevelt also urged McCain to stay the course on the ANWR. Palin is for drilling in the ANWR. Roosevelt said he understood why she'd take that position as the governor of Alaska. But Roosevelt, who is open to some offshore drilling, said the environmental risks of drilling in the ANWR are too great. The oil is in pockets and there would need to be an extensive network of pipelines. Pipelines, he noted, have a questionable safety record. Roosevelt said he didn't believe McCain would change his stance on the ANWR even though his vice presidential pick believes in opening it up to drilling. Roosevelt said he hopes that Palin will "have to toe the line" in a McCain administration
The right candidate
According to Roosevelt, McCain is the right candidate to lead the country at this critical time. Citing his long conversation with McCain concerning the ANWR, he asked the crowd which candidate is more willing to listen to the evidence before making a decision on the environment and energy? The crowd enthusiastically replied: "McCain!" Roosevelt posed a similar question, "Who is more likely to stand up to Congress and cut spending?" and got the same response.
Although McCain seemed to take a more hardline approach, in his acceptance speech Thursday night, on expanding drilling opportunities, the REP gathering offered a heartening glimpse of the candidate and a different but still clearly influential wing of the GOP. That influence is much more visible in McCain's platform (LINK HERE) than it has been during the convention.
On Friday morning, the delegates and protesters began returning home. Crews were returning the Xcel Energy Center to its regular use: a hockey arena for the Minnesota Wild. It was clear, though, that despite the rhetoric, common ground exists between the Republicans and the Democrats when it comes to energy and the environment. The shift to more sustainable energy sources was clearly supported all this week, as well as widespread acknowledgment of the economic gold mine this shift represents. There are policy differences, to be sure, but a general sense of where the nation needs to go. That's a reassuring feeling as we head into what is sure to be a hard-fought campaign in the weeks ahead with no clear sense of who will emerge the victor on election day.
Day 3 of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, was one in which broad hints were dropped about future energy policy if John McCain wins the White House in November. The most obvious one came from an unexpected source: the delegates themselves.
As former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani warmed up the crowd for vice presidential pick Sarah Palin, delegates at a packed Xcel Energy Center erupted in “Drill baby, drill!” chants at the mention of energy independence. Palin herself highlighted domestic energy development as one key issue in a speech mostly meant as a personal introduction to the nation.
Noting her familiarity with the Arctic as Alaska’s governor, Palin said the North Slope has the oil and gas needed to break the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, despite evidence from the Department of Energy to the contrary.
Laying more pipelines, building more nuclear plants, burning more clean coal, and developing renewable energy sources would be a priority of the new administration, Palin said, beginning as soon as January if she and McCain take office.
“We need American sources of resources,” Palin told a cheering crowd that began a second wave of “Drill baby, drill!” chants.
Earlier in the day, House Republican leadership had called a press conference at the RNC to highlight the GOP’s American Energy Act. Among other things, the act would
• Open up more coastal areas and the Arctic coastal plain to oil exploration
• Develop shale oil resources
• Provide tax incentives to spur everything from driving fuel-efficient vehicles to making homes more energy efficient
• Permanently extend tax credits for alternative energy production.
Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who has been a prominent figure at the RNC and is considered a rising political star, called Republicans “freedom fighters” for American energy independence.
“We have energy galore in the United States, but we have a Prohibition-era mentality when it comes to American energy production,” said Bachmann, who represents a northern swath of suburbs near the Twin Cities.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said energy is “the number 1 issue” facing the nation and referred to the Energy Act as “all of the above” energy policy for its emphasis on both traditional and new energy sources. One traditional fuel Boehner highlighted was coal, calling the United States the “Saudi Arabia of coal” for its vast undeveloped reserves of this fossil fuel. Boehner’s emphasis on this traditional energy source comes at a time when battles are taking place across the nation over building new coal plants and how best to reduce carbon emissions from existing ones. He did not mention various policy remedies to reduce these emissions, such as cap-and-trade plans. Republicans generally oppose them, while Democrats support them.
Boehner also may have provided a sense of how the GOP will handle a key energy policy difference between McCain and his new running mate. McCain currently opposes drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Palin, whose husband works in the oil industry, favors it. Boehner was asked directly about the difference between the two candidates. His response suggested that Republicans are pushing McCain to reevaluate that stance. Boehner said McCain is mostly on board with the initiatives in the Energy Act and that Republicans are “working on him” to get him to 100 percent support.
Building more nuclear plants, a policy highlighted by Palin and strongly supported earlier in the campaign by McCain, also is a key part of the Energy Act. Georgia Congressman Tom Price, who represents a suburban Atlanta area, spoke to Physics Today after the press conference, laying out Republicans’ policy to fast-track construction of more nuclear plants.
Price noted that about 19 percent of the electricity the United States consumes comes from nuclear power. That compares with 77 percent from France, he said.
To boost nuclear power in the United States, more plants need to be built, he said. Republicans would encourage this by
• Decreasing regulation hurdles for new plants
• Limiting lawsuits’ ability to slow down plant construction
• Providing tax incentives to build new plants
• Developing better policy and options for dealing with spent nuclear waste.
On that last, controversial issue, Price said the party is looking to leading scientists to guide policy and shape the best solution.
Price said to expect energy policy and solutions to play a critical role in the election to come. In his district, soaring gas prices have led energy policy to topple immigration as the leading issue his constituents are worried about.
The first science moment of the day at the Republican National Convention came at 8:55 p.m. from an unlikely person: President Bush.
Beamed in by satellite onto the extra-large video screen dominating the dais at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minnesota, Bush veered for a second into actual policy on a day set aside officially to honor service to country and John McCain’s war record. Bush, who endorsed McCain as a man to follow when there’s a tough call to make,” also gave a brief nod to the Republican nominee’s future energy policy. In a statement that drew some of the president’s biggest cheers from the crowd of delegates, Bush said McCain would “lift the ban on drilling for offshore oil today.”
The day’s only other science moment would come about an hour later when Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman made a brief reference to McCain taking action on global warming, without saying exactly what it was that McCain had done or planned to do.
Hurricane Palin
After Hurricane Gustav delayed events on Monday, the RNC returned to business as usual on Tuesday, with delegates filing into Xcel later in the day for widely promoted speeches by Lieberman and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson. But the day was truly dominated by McCain’s vice presidential pick, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. News shows broadcast from Minnesota’s capital city talked of nothing but the predicament Palin and her family find themselves in by running on the national ticket.
Delegates also talked of little else. And while it was clear that the GOP was circling the wagons around the Palin, there was also a very clear sense that for many delegates, her addition to the ticket solidified their support for McCain and erased many doubts about his conservative credentials. If anything, it appeared to strengthen their support for Palin, with many criticizing the media and pundits for “elitist” comments regarding her background.
John D. Frier, an aide to a former Illinois governor, lambasted the nation’s obsession with Palin’s family, saying the election would be dominated by ”ticky-tacky” issues. “We are a tabloid country,” Frier said.
Science issues off the agenda
If the RNC is any indication, those monitoring the campaign ahead with science in mind are likely to come away feeling unsatisfied. Tuesday night was a time to highlight the candidates personally. But key themes emerged through the night in speeches that began with Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, who welcomed delegates to St. Paul, a city where he had been mayor and helped build the Xcel Energy Center, at which the convention is being held.
The speeches indicate that campaign issues ahead come straight out of the Republican playbook that has helped the party rally its base in the last two elections and win. Speaker after speaker touted McCain’s commitment to defending human life, along with his opposition to big government and raising taxes. Neither Palin nor McCain is expected to hit policy hard in their convention speeches ahead, meaning that answers about health care, funding for scientific research, energy policy, and various policy remedies for global warming need to be spelled out in the relatively short time remaining in the campaign.
A key figure to watch for in the convention speeches ahead is Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Widely considered the runner-up for the vice presidential pick, Pawlenty is viewed as a potential cabinet pick if McCain wins. It is highly likely he would be posted to the Department of Energy. In 2007, Pawlenty pushed policy called the Next Generation Energy Initiative, which set some of the nation’s most far-reaching greenhouse gas reduction goals. Pawlenty has also been an advocate at the national level in promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy strategies, and awareness of climate change as chair of the National Governors Association.
Tuesday was marred by protesters’ skirmishes with police late in the evening. More are expected Wednesday night, with local law enforcement on high alert as Palin and McCain finally arrive at the convention.
Jill Jungling, a Twin Cities–based freelance journalist, reports for Physics Today Online on the science-related events at this week’s Republican National Convention.
Nuclear power, climate change, alternative energy, drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas. Those are among the highest-profile science issues that John McCain and the GOP are expected to tackle this week as the Republican National Convention opened Monday in St. Paul, Minnesota's capital city, for a four-day run.
But on Monday, meteorology dominated the day as wary GOP officials kept watch on Hurricane Gustav, scaling back opening-day business as protesters marched through the streets. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had been expected, but they canceled as fears rose that Gustav could be as devastating as Hurricane Katrina. Instead, the kickoff day was one for political spouses, with Laura Bush and Cindy McCain expected to appear before delegates, and for some of the less glamorous business of a convention to take center stage. Delegates descended on St. Paul's Xcel Energy Center to get their credentials and to consider the party's platform.
Building unity on drilling, global warming
Much of the platform work had been done late last week across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, where GOP officials smoothed language and polished up the largely symbolic 48-page document ) that the delegates will consider. Part of those final touches involved climate change. Party officials softened the platform from its more questioning state to somewhat align it with McCain's views that global warming is manmade. The final document now calls for increasing America's energy supply and decreasing the nation's long-term demand for oil so that the country is "well-positioned to address the challenge of global warming."
Whether the party squares up McCain's opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with the opposing view of his vice presidential pick Sarah Palin, the current Alaska governor, is something to watch for when both candidates are expected to address the convention later this week. McCain, who has started to express willingness to compromise on ANWR drilling, has also called for ramping up the nation's use of nuclear energy. His speech, and Palin’s, whose husband is a BP employee, will come on the heels of the moderate handling of energy policy that the nation saw last week in Barack Obama's keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver Obama called for energy independence and investment in alternative fuels, but he did not offer up strong language on global warming, surprising some political observers. Palin is considered more skeptical of global warming than McCain and has questioned whether human impact is responsible for some of the changes scientists have documented.
Issues for protesters
Monday was expected to be the peak day for protesters. Late Monday morning a much smaller than anticipated crowd gathered in 90° heat on a grassy hill in front of Minnesota's state capitol. Upward of 50,000 people had been expected to march, something that had spurred local law enforcement to spend months and millions of dollars on security. It was clear by midafternoon that the numbers were nowhere near that. Officials first estimated that 10,000 were marching on the Xcel Center, then a revised count put it at about 2000. For the most part, the march was uneventful; skirmishes with the police were few, although there had been some arrests at a previous march over the weekend and preemptive raids at a number of houses on Saturday.
An antiwar vibe and signs dominated both the rally and the march, but protesters embraced in traditional and creative ways a number of other causes. High on the capitol's lawn, bands belted out war protest songs. Slogans on protester signs included the following:
- "Beware of Weapons of Mass Destruction"
- "War Is Not Green.''
Fran Hanlon of Austin, Texas, donned a negligee, pink glittery cap, and beauty-queen-style sash proclaiming her "Miss Clean Air'' for the rally. Mary Nelson of Chicago toted a sign whose pink foam letters said, "End Poverty, End War, End Warming.''
Nelson said protesters may be focusing on the war, but the nation's energy policy is inextricably linked to that. "We went to war for oil, as far as I'm concerned.'' She added that government needs to encourage investment in renewable energy and that more money is needed to clean up areas contaminated by industry; "There are good jobs in the clean-up process.'' Nelson said. She's also concerned about McCain's push for more nuclear power plants.
McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate left many protesters concerned. "I think she's really scary,'' said Liz Rogness, a teacher from St. Paul who noted Palin's positions on drilling in the Arctic and global warming.
Scott Walters and Kim Hunter, also of St. Paul, brought elaborate signs to the rally. Walters noted with a grin that his signs had already irritated Republican National Committee (RNC) officials who happened to be using the same Kinko's for other convention-related business.
Walters and Hunter agreed the causes they'd highlighted on their signs didn't include a lot of science, though Hunter pointed out that one of them had food safety highlighted. Still, Walters said, "I think energy policy's the sleeper issue.''
Too scary for an airport
Walters and Hunter are both members of the Union of Concerned Scientists. About a week ago, an antinuclear weapons advertisement that the organization had paid to display at the airport was taken down by Clear Channel Communications, which owns the billboard. The poster features an image of downtown Minneapolis with target cross hairs superimposed on it. "When only one nuclear bomb could destroy a city like Minneapolis," the headline reads, "we don't need 6,000." The subhead states: "Senator McCain: It's time to get serious about reducing the nuclear threat.” A similar billboard was displayed in Denver addressed to Obama and was also taken down.
Northwest Airlines, the official airline of the Republican National Convention, had forwarded complaints to Clear Channel that the billboard was "scary" and "anti-McCain.
A changing schedule
The RNC's schedule is still up in the air for the rest of the week at this point. However, one key event emphasizing science will take place Wednesday morning at an energy and commerce breakfast, where US Department of Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez is the expected keynote speaker. Other breakfast meetings, key events that typically include a heavy dose of policy and heavyweight speakers, will focus on such topics as health care innovation and intellectual property.
For now, though, it's unclear when or if the RNC agenda will return to normal. It's not the “Convention That Wasn't,” as was feared at one point. But what it will be, particularly related to science policy, remains to be seen.
