US presidential candidates and their views on scientific issues

Jan 03, 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

Explore further: Interactivity tools can boost persuasiveness of websites

Related Stories

Pro-Saudi hackers seize Iran TV's social media accounts

7 hours ago

Hackers took over the social media accounts of Iran's Al-Alam television Sunday and posted material supportive of the Saudi-led air war against Iran-backed rebels in Yemen, the Arabic-language channel said.

Subzero learning environment enabling avalanche research

7 hours ago

A recent article about avalanche research in Popular Science referred to the effort toward knowing more about the avalanche in its subhead as "snowslide science," and the article was about the interesting lab wo ...

Recommended for you

Music: Will climate change give us the blues?

Apr 14, 2015

Climate change is predicted to intrude into almost every area of life—from where we live, to what we eat and whom we war with. Now music can be added to the list.

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

out7x
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2008
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
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2008
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
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2008
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.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.