Please step away from my habitat.

Will the first element on the Periodic Chart of the Funding Elements be Obamantium or McCainistrite? Which Presidential candidate will best foster America’s role as a world scientific leader?  Even though the U.S. spends about $126.5 billion a year on scientific research and development, it’s a tiny fraction of its annual budget of $2.9 trillion.  But even this small 9-figure amount makes a huge difference in how and what science and research gets done on this planet.

But even that “tiny” amount relegated to science is going down.  Science budgets have continued to be slashed even under a democratic congress, cutting into the bone of a lot of fundamental science research.

So which potential President would would increase funding, set the right policies, and make science education a priority in the U.S.?

Believe me, there is a big part of me that would love to declare that both parties are equal when it comes to their support of science and science education, but you cannot manufacture a “balance” for some commonly repeated political narrative when events and facts say otherwise.  The complete contempt of the current administration for scientific research, integrity and education results in the Big Klaxon going off next to the lighting of a ten-foot tall red EPIC FAIL sign.

Neither party is perfect, of course. For instance, there have been isolated incidences in the Clinton administration of pressure on climate scientists, and the democratic Congress was ultimately in charge of deciding on that slash in the government’s science dollars.  But there is indeed a gap between the two parties and the two candidates on their approaches to science.  And it’s Grand Canyon sized.

If only we weren’t faced with the most important crisis of our civilization that depends on good science, might we choose to make this a lesser priority.  But we can’t.  There is just too much at stake, both with the consequences of global warming and the education of our children in a science and technology-driven world.  But despite the dire effects of the global warming crisis colliding with an anti-science U.S. government, one positive thing we can take away from this frustrating and dangerous struggle is an appreciation for how important science really is to our American culture, and to our survival of our species.  Perhaps we can rediscover, as Carl Sagan reminded us, that science is indeed a candle in the dark, leading us out of dangerous ignorance and the ideological self-deluding dogma that we tend to wrap ourselves in.

In short – this stuff matters.  Science policy is not just another item to be checked off a long list of itemized positions.  It should be very much at the top of the Presidential To Do list, receiving much more discussion in the public discourse than Jerimiah Wright or Palin’s impending grandchild.

Jennifer Ouellette of Physics of the Buffyverse (and well, blogging) fame has done the dirty work for you in trying to find out who’s the best candidate for science.  And it sure sounds like the process was icky, wading through all those press releases, parsing all those questionnaire responses and dodging those giant pop up ads full of red white and blue laden photos of the candidates posing for a future statue.  Go and read Jennifer’s whole article, but this paragraph sums up her finds on McCain’s position:

Nowhere is the difference between the two candidates more stark than in their stated policies on education. McCain predictably champions No Child Left Behind (NCLB), when every educator I know considers the program to be a major FAIL. Beyond that, his education policy is inexplicably vague and obsessed with giving parents greater control over where their kids attend schools — so much so, that I suspect it’s a bit of a “dog whistle,” i.e., code for something else that only those tuned to that particular frequency can hear. There is no specific mention of math and science education. At least he recognizes the potential for online learning through virtual schools, and offers financial support to help low-income students pay for access to those online resources.

So before you pull that lever in November, give a minute to reflect on what might happen if The United States of America gives up its leadership in science.  Other nearby countries are peering southward with envious eyes…

Trust me, you don't want anything made of Hoserium.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm and is filed under education, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.