US presidential candidates and their views on scientific issues

January 3, 2008

What are the United States presidential candidates’ positions on scientific topics ranging from evolution to global warming? A special news report, which is being published in the 4 January issue of the journal Science, addresses these questions and profiles the nine leading candidates on where they stand on important scientific issues.

The 10-page special report, “Science and the Next U.S. President” profiles Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson and offers voters a glimpse at each candidate’s views on science.

"Science felt that it was important to find out what the presidential candidates think about issues that may not be part of their standard stump speeches but that are vital to the future of the country--from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to improving science and math education,” said Jeffrey Mervis, deputy news editor, who oversees election coverage for the magazine's news department. “We hope that the coverage may also kick off a broader discussion of the role of science and technology in decisions being made in Washington and around the world.”

Mervis writes in the article’s introduction that “the issues seem likely to remain relevant no matter who becomes the 44th president of the United States.” Here are some of the reports from Science’s news writers:

Hillary Clinton gives “the most detailed examination of science policy that any presidential candidate has offered to date” emphasizing innovation to drive economic growth, writes Eli Kintisch. She has proposed a “$50 billion research and deployment fund for green energy that she’d pay for by increasing federal taxes and royalties on oil companies. She would also establish a national energy council to oversee federal climate and greentech research and deployment programs.” And, “her science adviser would report directly to her.”

John Edwards would end censoring research and slanting policy on climate change, air pollution, stem cell research and would increase science funding, write Jocelyn Kaiser and Eliot Marshall. He would oppose expanding nuclear power and proposes “to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, using a cap-and-trade system to auction off permits as a regulatory incentive.”

Rudy Giuliani’s “campaign successfully discouraged key advisers from speaking to Science about specific issues,” writes Marshall. On abortion, he would with reservations let the woman decide what to do. And, that the “League of Conservation Voters reports that Giuliani has ‘no articulated position’ on most of the environmental issues it tracks.”

John McCain views global warming as “the most urgent issue facing the world” and makes climate change on of the top issues of his campaign, writes Constance Holden. On the human embryonic stem cell issue, “he draws the line at human nuclear transfer, or research cloning, arguing that there is no ethical difference between cloning for research and cloning for reproduction.”

Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science


print this article email this article download pdf blog this article bookmark this article     Stumble it Digg this share on Facebook retweet share on Reddit add to delicious
Rate this story - 3.6 /5 (13 votes)

Rank Filter

Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

  • out7x - Jan 04, 2008
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
    This shows the political ignorance about science. "green energy" the 2% solution. Global warming - look at the Greenland icecores. Global warming happens every 100,000 years. Ever hear of Milankovich cycles?
  • nilbud - Jan 10, 2008
    • Rank: not rated yet
    How these idiots think 6 billion people are having no impact on the environment is an enduring mystery. Perhaps knee jerk republicanism should be reclassified as a mental disorder.
  • Scottar - Apr 25, 2008
    • Rank: not rated yet
    The current politicos are knee jerking to a lot of envirocrat hysteria. This article at CO2 Science exposes that.
    http://www.co2sci...EDIT.php

    There's a difference from pseudo science and real science based on the scientific method.

January 3, 2008 all stories

Comments: 3

3.6 /5 (13 votes)
  • Stumble this up

  • Digg this

  • share this

  • hide
  • Related Stories




  • hide
  • Relevant PhysicsForums posts

Other News

Study: Credit crisis, debt load a double whammy for investment

Other Sciences / Economics

created 46 minutes ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

Firms with heavy long-term debt that came due amid the nation's recent credit crisis slashed investment more than three times as much as companies whose paybacks ducked the meltdown, a new University of Illinois study found.


Failing the sniff test: Researchers find new way to spot fraud

Other Sciences / Economics

created 9 hours ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 1

Companies that commit fraud can find innovative ways to fudge the numbers, making it hard to tell something is wrong by just looking at their financial statements. But research from North Carolina State University unveils ...


Remains of Minoan-style painting discovered during excavations of Canaanite palace

Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

created 6 hours ago | popularity 4.5 / 5 (2) | comments 0

The remains of a Minoan-style wall painting, recognizable by a blue background, the first of its kind to be found in Israel, was discovered in the course of the recent excavation season at Tel Kabri. This fresco joins others ...


National anti-gun violence program largely successful, study finds

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created 3 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (2) | comments 0

Project Safe Neighborhoods - a community-based policing effort launched in 2001 - has been largely successful in its goal of reducing violent crime, according to an analysis by Michigan State University, the national research ...


RIT scholars explore the impact of imaging on our reality

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created 4 hours ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

Imaging is the use of machines to enhance humans' ability to perceive things, often by producing visible phenomena that cannot be seen with the naked eye. But, can imaging technology distort reality and even change what humans ...