Science vs. the presidential candidates
Nature asks 15 questions of both candidates and reports their answers.
There are a bunch of other interesting comments/articles on the candidates' varied views on science here as well, but the interactive 15-question Flash box is a very good start.
Questions & responses I find especially telling about the two mens' opinions: (questions have been reworded)
2. Given recent charges of political bias, how would you ensure you receive genuinely impartial scientific advice?
Bush: Claims to have sought the "best scientific minds," that his commitment to independent advice is unwavering.
Kerry: "My administration would never utilize biased advice"
Not a terribly clear distinction here, but note that Bush never says that he looks for unbiased advice; merely the 'best' and 'independent'.
4. Do you support research into new nuclear weapons?
Bush: Uses a lot of words to not answer the question directly, but it's clear the answer is yes.
Kerry: No.
This alone should be enough to make you vote Kerry.
5. Given questions on the capability of missile defense systems being deployed, what would you do?
Bush: Deploy as fast as possible, and not answer the question.
Kerry: Not waste money on immediate deployment, and do more research to ensure they really work.
8. Concern has been expressed over a growing disparity in funding between biomed and other fields. Do you agree, and what would you do?
Bush: Doesn't answer the question.
Kerry: We'll increase funding to both NSF and NIH to make sure we stay strong in science & engineering.
9. Environmental problems can be attributed to massive consumption in the US and other developed countries. What can & will need to happen as other countries develop?
Bush: Doesn't say much useful stuff here.
Kerry: Must have strong leadership to put the interests of public health above those of polluters, and we'll reverse the Bush administration's environmental neglect.
12. Is fossil fuel pollution the main cause of global warming, is it an important problem for the US, and what should we do?
Bush: "Global climate change is a serious long-term issue" and the scientists I asked say there's a lot of uncertainty about what effects it will have on the environment. We're doing some things to mitigate pollution.
Kerry: Science proves that global warming is happening now, and pollution is making it worse. I've worked for years in the Senate for a balanced global warming treaty, and will take the US back to international negotiations on a new one while working to reduce pollution in the US.
To me, this is pretty damn obvious. Bush still doesn't believe it's a problem now, or will be in the near future, and therefore is doing as little as he can get away with. Kerry realizes that if we don't start improving our situation now, we're probably going to be fucked.
14. Is mad cow disease a potential problem here, and what should we do about it?
Bush: We've already done everything that needs doing.
Kerry: We'll improve the safety & inspection process including meat packing and ensuring feed bans are enforced; increase testing and inspections overall; make sure all suspect animals are analysed for BSE; establish a national tracking system on an aggressive timeline.
Clearly Bush is doing nothing here, while Kerry's plan might get us close to the level of safety that most of Europe is at, where every single animal is tested.
15. How would you change current stem-cell research policy?
Bush: With my policy we can "explore the potential" of stem cell research "while respecting the ethical and moral implications associated" with it.
Kerry: We must lift the barriers standing in the way of stem cell research so we can find the cures that may exist with it. "I will lift the ideologically driven restrictions on stem-cell research created by the Bush administration ... while ensuring rigorous ethical oversight."

What's my take-away from all this? If you believe in science, vote Kerry. Not that I think many of us really questioned this before...
- posted by Hoff @ 12:59 PM