At breakfast today, a friend of mine informed me that Obama had finally responded to the 14 science policy questions sent to the candidates months ago [1]. These questions arose from the “Science Debate 2008” grass-roots effort, an effort supported by 38,000 signers to get the presidential candidates to engage on science policy issues. Recently, when the candidates participated in a religious forum moderated by a “megapastor”, some of my colleagues grew even more frustrated with this year’s presidential process. Why wouldn’t they engage on science issues, we wondered?
Obama finally has. McCain has promised to respond, by Obama’s responses are in. Ref. [1] lists the questions and all of his answers. Globally, these responses are full of policy details, lots of them. I was VERY pleased to see the campaign take this so seriously, and respond with many levels of detail to the many questions. I also like that Obama clearly sees the interconnections between many of these issues – research, education, competition, energy – he draws connections in the answers that point to a deep and interwoven science policy view, a policy with many options on the table.
I had a few responses I wanted to comment on. You should read them and find your own issues.
Investment in Research
My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. We will increase research grants for early-career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs.
This language is right in line with the “Innovation Agenda”. I was very pleased as a young researcher to see a focus on encouraging and supporting my peer group. Entering a faculty position, and knowing that I am competing against established physicists for the same cruddy pot of cash, is already difficult. A policy like the one Obama supports would additionally remove the frustration of knowing that granting agencies will weigh a researcher with a track record against young researchers trying to establish a track record. A policy like this can prevent this dangerous cycle from getting off the ground.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education
STEM education is no longer only for those pursuing STEM careers; it should enable all citizens to solve problems, collaborate, weigh evidence, and communicate ideas.
This, I really like. Science education is indeed NOT just for scientists – it’s a key ingredient in critical thinking. While not everybody is going to take to it, it should be available and encouraged for everybody. Every one of us has a scientist in us (I had this very conversation with an older gentleman named Arthur at the Farmer’s Market this morning), but realizing it and embracing it is critical to being an active and informed citizen. Bravo to Obama for seeing this important feature of STEM education.
I recently introduced the “Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education Act of 2008” that would establish a STEM Education Committee within the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to coordinate the efforts of federal agencies engaged in STEM education, consolidate the STEM education initiatives that exist within the Department of Education under the direction of an Office of STEM Education, and create a State Consortium for STEM Education.
I noted this because I feel it points to some of the actual actions Obama has taken as a Senator. Every Senator introduces legislation; I am pleased that Obama highlights a positive aspect of his record in the Senate. I wish, however, that he and McCain had bothered to show up in the Senate back in 2007 for the Omnibus bill vote. That was also critical for science, and there they both failed to act.
High-Risk, High-Return
. . . we can provide greater support for high-risk, high-return research and for young scientists at the beginning of their careers.
Nothing more to say here. It’s a good policy. Jodi and I have discussed the role of senior and junior faculty in the grant process. Mentoring and transition are both important for the younger faculty. We need more policies that encourage senior faculty to step aside and make the junior faculty the principal investigators on grants, after mentoring them for years on how to do this job. Universities need to come up with policies for this, too; taking some steps at the Federal level can’t hurt.
Obama and Senate Experience
I also recently sponsored an amendment, which became law, to the America Competes Act that established a competitive state grant program to support summer learning opportunities with curricula that emphasize mathematics and problem solving.
I like this because it points to a specific action taken by Obama that became law. In one sentence, he highlights his prowess as a Senator by enacting something important to him in the ACA. Sadly, the ACA is authorization; not much has happened at the appropriations level to realize the ACA.
Stem Cells
I recognize that some people object to government support of research that requires cells to be harvested from human embryos. However, hundreds of thousands of embryos stored in the U.S. in in-vitro fertilization clinics will not be used for reproductive purposes, and will eventually be destroyed. I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose.
I like that Obama addresses the ethical and practical issue head on. The issue of disposed embryos has always been a serious weak point in the ethical argument against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. For instance, as I and other have commented when Bush vetoed the stem cell funding bill in front of kids born from frozen embryos, the argument falls flat since those kids can’t have been made from disposed frozen embryos [2]. Rather than try to take on moral and ethical issues “above his pay grade”, I am glad to see that Obama approached this from a pragmatic viewpoint.
Basic Research
Federally supported basic research, aimed at understanding many features of nature— from the size of the universe to subatomic particles, from the chemical reactions that support a living cell to interactions that sustain ecosystems—has been an essential feature of American life for over fifty years.
All research is important. Doesn’t matter whether it’s “basic” or not. But, chemistry and math and physics are so critical to all areas of research it’s a damn shame to neglect them in favor of sexier things. I am glad to see Obama nod to the important of the subatomic and the cosmic in the lives of Americans. He goes on to note:
While the outcomes of specific projects are never predictable, basic research has been a reliable source of new knowledge that has fueled important developments in fields ranging from telecommunications to medicine . . .
Federal support for the physical sciences and engineering has been declining as a fraction of GDP for decades . . . As a result, our science agencies are often able to support no more than one in ten proposals that they receive, arresting the careers of our young scientists and blocking our ability to pursue many remarkable recent advances.
Again, he nods to the young researchers. He hits the issue of connecting science and society, through medicine and technology. Good. These arguments we in the science community have made for years are ringing, and that makes me feel good.
Ultimately, what matters are the policies a President puts in place for the Congress to act upon. Only together can Congress and the President establish a new respect for science and education. Only together can we Americans pick up the sprint and get back to the head of the pack in science and technology. I hope that these answers stand against rhetoric on the specificity of Obama’s promises. I just hope that either candidate sticks to what they say – but, I always hope that. I also hope McCain responds to these questions soon. I need to see how both of them approach these issues.
[1] http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40
[2] http://www.cooleysekula.net/blogs/steve/taomph/2006/07/20/test-253/
