Where's the science? Scientific American, in an attempt to compensate for the deficit of important science issues discussed and debated so far in the presidential campaign, today offers its evaluation of Gov. Mitt Romney's and Pres. Barack Obama's answers to the 14 top science questions facing the U.S. A grassroots citizens' initiative known as ScienceDebate.org formulated the questions with the input of such leading organizations as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Council on Competitiveness.

SA teamed up with ScienceDebate.org in this effort in order to inject more discussion about critical science issues into the 2012 election campaign. Think fixing the economy is more important than talking about science? Consider this: half the growth in U.S. GDP since World War II is directly tied to innovations in science and technology. In other words, a sound scientific policy is a crucial foundation necessary to build a better economy.

So how did we grade the campaigns' responses? We began by soliciting comments to the answers posted in September. After examining these comments for useful information, we then reached out to Scientific American's Board of Advisers and asked them to complete a 45-minute survey that allowed them to rank the answers on a five-point scale (with five being best), which consisted of directness and completeness, scientific accuracy, feasibility (which includes figuring out costs and benefits), sustainability (meaning how well the proposed solutions balance the needs of current and future generations), and a catch-all category of benefits for health, environment or education.

Finally, we asked our staff editors to rank the responses using the same survey and five-category rating system. They also had to give a written explanation of their conclusions. Overall, when compared, the board's and editors' ratings were similar. You can see the grades they gave the presidential candidates here.

We chose to use a star system (five stars signifying the highest mark) instead of letter grades so that the grading system would be also be understandable to our international readers.

Marissa Fessenden also asked 32 congressional leaders who sit on science and technology related committees, and thereby have a greater input into how science policy is formulated and funded, to respond to a subset of eight science questions. You can see those results here.

4 Comments

1. 1. Shoshin 08:02 PM 10/16/12

   As long as the Climate/Environment SCIAM editors are barred from the discussions, there may be a chance for some reasoned discourse.
   
   The SCIAM Climate/Environment editors don't know science from suckerfish. They add nothing to scientific debate. They only take away from it.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. rmauderer 09:23 AM 10/17/12

   Dregstudios needs to quit being a drone...science investigates facts, doesn't perpetuate propoganda. When you look at the FACTS, Romney has a much better track record, has actual proven EXPERIENCE in critical leadership, will not worship nature like a god that is above humans, and will actually work across the aisle and not shoot across it.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. ochar 07:41 PM 10/18/12

   BAD NEWS: In the 21st century, nobody mentioned in the U.S. presidential debate, nuclear power, nor hydropower: anachronistic position of those who bet on the war.
   
   We can assume that: Nuclear, due to national security; Hydro, because weapons do not work with it; and those mentioned, justify the continuity of the not mentioned.
   
   In the century of informatics, ie information for all; dinosaurs still exist, very smart, but small-minded, who think their country is the only one who will inherit the earth. Never mind that for that: they have to destroy it.
   
   Are not interested, or worse, are postponing for after his war, seizing the "OCEANOGENIC POWER"

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. hanmeng 09:58 PM 10/21/12

   How about the Obama administration's insistence on classifying marijuana in a more restrictive category than cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamines? And his drug policy in general. Not that Romney would be any better.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this