The War on Science. Shawn Lawrence Otto
them why they weren’t covering this remarkable situation. Here we had virtually the entire US science and technology enterprise—which, by the way, is the main engine of the economy—calling for the presidential candidates to debate enormous science policy issues, and the candidates were dodging us. That sounded a lot like news, and yet it was getting very little coverage.
The people I spoke to said they thought it was a niche topic, and the public wasn’t interested. So ScienceDebate and the nonprofit Research!America teamed up to do a little science to test that assumption. We commissioned a national poll and found that 85 percent of the American public thought that the candidates should debate the major science issues. Support was virtually identical among Democrats and Republicans. Religious people clearly were not put off by the idea either. Only the candidates and the press, it seemed, were reticent.
Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail
With the window closing for a debate before the endorsing conventions, I recruited Jane Lubchenco, a marine scientist and former AAAS president, to help organize a science debate in Oregon in August. But Obama and McCain refused this one too, opting instead to hold yet another faith forum, this time at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. The scientific, academic, and high-tech communities were stunned. Science was responsible for more than half of all US economic growth since World War II. It lies at the core of most major unsolved policy challenges the world over. How could people who wanted to lead America avoid talking about science? Intel chairman Craig Barrett reached out to former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina on the McCain side to encourage his participation, and Varmus redoubled his efforts to convince Obama.
Meanwhile, our supporters had submitted more than 3,400 questions that they wanted to ask the candidates. Political staffers at the campaigns told me they were concerned about candidates appearing foolish. One Republican said they wanted to avoid a “Dan Quayle moment.” I explained that we weren’t interested in asking them technical questions about the third digit of pi or the details of cell mitosis. We were interested in big science policy questions. Still, they were skeptical. So, working with several leading science organizations, I culled the crowdsourced questions into “The Top 14 Science Questions Facing America,” and released them publicly as a sort of open-book test.
The Original Top 14 Science Questions Facing America
These are the original fourteen final questions we arrived at. We stated them very broadly—some might say too broadly—in an effort to show how policy-oriented they were. But the candidates still ignored us.
1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since World War II. 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?
2. Climate Change. Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. Please set out what your positions are 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, firm carbon-emissions targets, and/or research. What other policies would you support?
3. Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States during this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?
4. Education. A comparison of fifteen-year-olds in thirty wealthy nations found that average science scores among US students ranked seventeenth, while average US math scores ranked twenty-fourth. What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K–12 students for the science- and technology-driven twenty-first century?
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?
6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. Some estimates suggest that an emerging pandemic could kill more than three hundred 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 and deliberate biological attacks?
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?
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 are your positions on government regulation and funding of stem-cell research?
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 term to protect ocean health?
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?
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?
12. Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists have reported political interference in their work. 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?
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?
14. Health. Americans are increasingly concerned about the cost, quality, and availability of health care. How do you see science, research, and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life, and what do you believe is the solution to America’s “health-care crisis”?
Presidential Antiscience
The war on science wasn’t limited to candidates and the media. The George W. Bush White House had become notoriously antiscience, which legitimized science denial in a way the world is still dealing with. Bush appointed ideologues to key agency posts throughout the federal government and empowered them to hold back or alter scientific reports with which they disagreed. This represented a marked change from the Republican Party of just ten years prior. Consider the following quote by President George H. W. Bush, George W.’s father:
Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.
Then consider this one by his son’s White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, thirteen years later:
This administration looks at the facts, and reviews the best available science based on what’s right for the American people.
The first approach uses knowledge as a basis for public policy. The second looks first to a predetermined political agenda (“what’s right for the American people”) and seeks only those facts that support it. It is antiscience.
After Bush’s 2004 reelection, scientists noticed that the problem was becoming worse. One example was Bush’s appointment of George Deutsch, a twenty-four-year-old Texas A&M University dropout and Bush campaign intern, to a key position in NASA’s public-relations