• More Blogs
• Observations »
• Bering in Mind »
• Cross-check »
• Extinction Countdown »
• Solar at Home »
• Expeditions »
• Guest Blog »
• Anecdotes from the Archive »

Newly minted Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has made clear she's open to teaching creationism in public school science classes and to oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). While her running mate, John McCain, has spoken up on some science issues (pro-off shore drilling, anti-opening ANWR to oil exploration), less is known about his positions than those of his Democratic opponent Barack Obama, who recently answered a series of questions on everything from climate change and energy to stem-cell research.

Some highlights: Obama says he would lift a ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem-cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001 -- a measure signed into law by President Bush, who vetoed legislation designed to lift the limit. Obama also supports genetic engineering of plants and "water smart" landscaping over irrigated lawns to conserve H20, according to his responses to questions from Science Debate 2008, a consortium of Nobel laureates and business leaders.

"The responses are more detailed and substantive than anything we've seen from an endorsed presidential candidate before the election," says Shawn Otto, the group's CEO. "That’s important because science and technology issues really are the political issues of the 21st century."

He says that McCain has agreed to answer the questions, which were posed to both candidates in June; his campaign did not immediately respond to an email and call from ScientificAmerican.com asking when. (Scientific American editor in chief John Rennie is on SD08's steering committee.)

Scientific American asks its own questions of the candidates in next month's issue of the magazine, some of the answers to which weren't clear from Obama's SD08 responses, or from McCain's stated platforms. (McCain explains his climate strategy here and space policy here. He caused a flap when he seemed to be softening his opposition to ANWR fuel exploration and flipped to support offshore drilling. Obama's VP, Sen. Joe Biden, said he "does not believe the uncertain oil recovery justifies the risk of potentially great harm to this rich environment" of the ANWR, according to Popular Mechanics. On the controversial issue of abortion, Obama and Biden favor abortion rights, McCain and Palin do not.)

Among the remaining questions: Why support cap-and-trade programs to cut carbon emissions when those plans have been problematic in Europe? And why stick with corn ethanol when it's the least green biofuel?

What do you think about Obama's and McCain's science platforms? What unanswered science questions do you have of the candidates?

(Image courtesy of iStockphoto, Copyright: Matthew Pullicino)

9 Comments

1. 1. tharriss 05:54 PM 9/4/08

   Hahahah, I think the preferred Republican approach to science is, if it ain't in the Bible, it ain't "real science".
   
   It is clear (from looking at the current Republican platform for one) that John McCain had to give the keys and the driver seat to the social conservatives, and since God wouldn't let the world get too hot, there is nothing to fear from Global warming.... unless of course it is time for the End of Days, in which case, why worry about anything anyway?
   
   And to make matters worse, the Democratic party thinks it is helping things by courting the religious voters. I don't think either candidate needs to seriously think about ANY of the issues... they only need to ask themselves "what would Jesus do?" and then pray really hard until God gives them the answers.
   
   Hey, it worked for G.W. Bush didn't it?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Steven Edwards 06:26 PM 9/4/08

   Do you support zero-point energy research?
   
   Do you believe conditions affecting our injured soldiers (the Wounded Warriors like traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, and post-traumatic stress disorder) deserve a higher priority than others, either through targeted NIH funding or tax incentives?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Mimi M. 11:21 AM 9/5/08

   How do they feel about where pharmaceuticals are headed and how money for pharmaceutical research ends up in multi-million dollar ads instead of just lowering overall prescription costs?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. oldfart 03:51 AM 9/6/08

   Global warming is a fact! Many of the effects have moved from the distant radar screen to the now reality:e.g. shifting rainfall patterns, retreating glaciers, melting permafrost. The big question that very few politicians (or scientists for that matter) are facing is: "O.K. its happening, how will we deal with the changes? Its too late to reverse them, there are too many reinforcing feedback loops emerging. We need to consider the impending changes in living conditions, habitat, and economic patterns. We need to retool our society for hotter/wetter/drier environments, greater energy demands, and alternative food sources. Then we can look at the crises which are currently beyond vision from a secure standpoint.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. gjs___ 06:13 PM 9/6/08

   I think questions about current hot topics are likely to get answers crafted
   for appeal to the conflicting interests involved (commercial, political,
   emotional, ...). I would prefer some more basic questions, which may reveal
   something about the candidates' scientific knowledge and attitudes. For
   example:
   
   - What does the word "science" mean to you?
   
   - What was the original motivation for the Endangered Species Act?
   
   - Why do we need the EPA?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Maverick Green 10:01 AM 9/7/08

   How should the government consider the link between environmental health and public health in their policies? Lately it seems that the Greenhouse Effect and energy are the only issues that even enter the thought process of our leaders. Meanwhile, the incidence of "environmental diseases"(asthma, cancer, etc.) continues to rise. In particular, do you believe that clean air, clean water, clean food, and access to health care, are essential pro-life issues? And should the cost of illness be considered when envirornmental and energy issues are decided?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. nekroluma 10:51 AM 9/12/08

   3 months and no reply says it all the Republican Committee, whoever that is has declared war on science and plans to teach their insane interpretation of ancient Jewish writings on creationism. Which are not even translated accurately, the King James Bible being the poorest translation of ancient texts in existence.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. nekroluma 10:56 AM 9/12/08

   3 months waiting a reply from the Republican party says it all. The republican party is only concerned with large investment interest and protection. They are against humanity a social cancer in the stream of the human being. They plan the brainwashing of all who are not their gang. Teaching creationism from the King James Bible, the worlds poorest translation with not 2 words in the book substantiated. What a travesty of care, wisdom and rationale.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. aimeeofca 06:05 PM 9/19/08

   In the Bill Oreilly interview of Barack Obama, regarding the discussion about Obama’s energy plan, in response to Bill asking Barack, what if the development of alternate energy sources don’t deliver. Obama compared his approach to John Kennedy’s space program, and how if you go for it , the answers will come. But, the distinction between our space program and our energy challenge is … If it had taken us longer than we thought to get to the moon … or, if we hadn’t gotten to the moon … no big deal. But, if we put all our hopes into alternative energy, and it doesn’t happen in time … or, if it doesn’t work, our entire economy, as well as our national security could end up in ruins. Our country’s entire energy infrastructure revolves around petroleum. 167,000 gas stations, the 250 million vehicles. Democrats keep citing how long it will take to get more oil out of the ground. But, even if an alternative fuel is found tomorrow, how long will it take America to transition from our existing infrastructure to a completely new one? In the meantime, people have to get to work, and goods have to get to market. This is an important reason to secure our energy needs with oil drilling and mining oil shale, while we try to develop alternate energy. Obama and Pelosi also want to dip into the strategic oil reserve, as a way of pandering to voters, but what if we have a true emergency, like Hurricane Ike, or Hugo Chavez cuts us off, or Amadinajad cripples the straits of Hormuz? Obama seems to be playing fast and loose with our country’s future … gambling with our future, all based on hope and faith … with consequences which could be dire. Obama’s plans, or lack thereof, are extremely irresponsible. Not suprising from a candidate who does not have the experience, qualifications, or judgement to lead, as President of the United States.Furthermore, check these clash videos I found yesterday about the US Presidential candidates have talked taxes. Well, it’s entitled Obama v. McCain on Taxes. Watch these statements – then vote in http://clashorama.com/index.php?id=194

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this