If you're like me, your eyes might have glazed over just a bit at the fields of red and blue text generated by ScienceDebate 2008. Obviously these issues are important, but a quick cut-and-paste job into my word processor reveals that the two candidates have written over 12,000 words in response to the 14 questions! Let's distill that information into slightly more digestible chunks.
1. Innovation
Obama: More money for schools, more NSF Fellowships, extend R&D tax credit for business.
McCain: White House Science and Tech adviser, Fund research (no specifics on how).
The Skinny: Obama has more concrete proposals -- but they're going to cost money.
2. Climate Change
Obama: 80 Percent GHG reduction by 2050, Cap and Trade system, Tech Transfer to 3rd world
McCain: 60 Percent GHG reduction by 2050, Cap and Trade system, Tax credits for energy efficiency
The Skinny: Not much difference here. Obama a little more focused on an international approach.
3. Energy
Obama: $150 billion for renewable energy over 10 years. Standards for increased energy efficiency.
McCain: Build 45 nuclear reactors by 2030. Develop wind power.
The Skinny: Obama's proposals seem to delay the time horizon less than McCain's. No funding for McCain's plans.
4. Education
Obama: Teacher scholarships, more scholarships.
McCain: Grants to community colleges, targeted to minority instruction, bonus pay for teachers, $250 million for online education
The Skinny: McCain's proposals seem to be very well-thought.
5. National Security
Obama: More money for financing defense-based research.
McCain: Ditto.
The Skinny: Not much difference here.
6. Pandemics and biosecurity
Obama: $5 billion for an international biosecurity effort, $10 billion to improve public health infrastructure
McCain: R&D for biosecurity
The Skinny: Obama has more concrete proposals -- hard to tell exactly what resources McCain would direct at this effort.
7. Genetics research
Obama: Supports genetic privacy, development of genetically engineered foods and medicines, and further research on safety of rDNA work
McCain: Supports genetic privacy and development of genetically engineered foods
The Skinny: Not much difference here -- Obama may have a slightly more nuanced view.
That's it for this installment. I'll finish this guide soon!
- Log in to post comments
Nice summary. The rhetorical fluff annoyed me too much to think about it clearly before now.
Im relieved to read that John McCain states he is uniquely qualified to lead our nation during this technological revolution by virtue of his use of radar and short-wave radios, not to mention how surprised I was to find out that under his guiding hand, mobile phones and Wi-Fi became available. Thankfully he didnt say he invented them.
Beyond his cheeky political hyperbole though, Senator McCains answers betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the governments role in science and technology. His view starts primarily at the point of commercialization, with very little time, effort or apparent thought given to the many years of work that goes into research prior to that step. It is exactly at these early stages where government funding is most efficiently deployed. These early years require sustained supportwithout which, we would have very little to commercialize. It is this support that has been horribly lacking through the latter part of the Bush administration and McCains answers indicate a dangerous continuation of that policy. The Bush administrations decisions over the last 5 years to overlook this type of research has done much to restrict the science and technology pipeline of its greatest assets---its junior members and data that will, with the help of entrepreneurs and industry, go into commercial products. This policy must be changed if we are to move forward and regain our momentum.
Moreover, McCains suggestion that significant savings can be found by imposing greater fiscal responsibility by improving the scientific and engineering management within the federal government is simply mystifying. Our federal science and technology funding agencies and research centers are some of the most efficient and transparent in the world and it is very disingenuous for the candidate to suggest our problems emanate from any direction other than from his own policy sourcethe Bush administration.
Lastly, and perhaps least important, is that Senator McCain appears slightly out of date---biotechnology is not precisely a new and emerging field. It contributes and has contributed for some time to significant economic activity. It can, however, be mismanaged like any other sector of the economy. We need a president that respects science and understands how it contributes to our countrys prosperity and well being.
Thanks for summarizing, Dave. One point I'm confused about after reading the answers and your summary is their GHG reduction goals. They each say they will reduce GHG emissions to 80% (Obama) or 60% (McCain) "below 1990 levels". I took that to mean 0.8 * CO2(1990) or 0.6 * CO2(1990), which makes McCain's goal more stringent/ambitious, not less as you read it - and this, obviously, puzzled me. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, and they mean goals of 1 -- [0.8 * CO2(1990)] or 1 -- [0.6 * CO2(1990)] ?!
Anyway, I've posted my own take on some of their questions here: Obama and McCain. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
if you've ever read Sewer, Gas, & Electric by Matt Ruff, this'll remind you of the stump speeches and campain platforms that, through computer analysis, were parsed down to: "If elected, I will plant [X] trees." the only difference in the book's candidates were the value of X
I'm not really thrilled by either, since it is hard to know whether they actually mean these things, or if they are put out as pablum. I'd prefer them to have answered these on the spur of the moment in a debate or interview, and to be honest I was a bit surprised by McCains handlers answers, given that he has had several weeks to read Obama's and formulate an answer. Too bad there weren't any questions on the age of the earth, or if the Flintstones was a documentary.
Madhu:
Those are percentages *below*, not percentages *of* (your blog says you teach; imagine similar statements about a person getting "X% below class average" for an analogue). Your second interpretation is correct.
McCain's answers should be taken in the context of Joe Romm's long series of articles on McCain's lies. Example.
Thanks, Brian D. I got that - my initial reading was hurried and I'm not used to this way of referring to percentages. Could be, as another friend suggested, because I'm not a "native" English speaker (at least of the American version!).
:-)