With the presidential nominating process set to kick off tonight in Iowa, Science magazine published today profiles of the leading contenders and their stands on science-related policy issues.
Science noted that, except for climate change, these topics are “not getting much play” in the race. The articles nevertheless offer a summary and guide to divisions among the Democrats and Republicans on issues like climate change, evolution, and human-embryonic-stem-cell research.
A profile of Mitt Romney reinforces his reputation for having flip-flopped on major issues. Soon after he became governor of Massachusetts in 2003, the Republican called for the state’s research universities to help expand the biotechnology industry there, and he vowed “to make sure we are absolutely at the front edge” of stem-cell research.
However, in 2005 — when he steered toward the right to prepare for a presidential run — he vetoed a bill to expand embryonic-stem-cell research.
John Edwards has drawn criticism from some scientists who say that as a trial lawyer in medical-malpractice cases, he misrepresented scientific data about the causes of cerebral palsy in newborns, Science reported. Mr. Edwards’s campaign told Science that he investigated such cases for months before taking only those that “were merited.”
Although Mike Huckabee has attracted criticism for his positions on evolution and AIDS, he might prove a friend of federal funds for biomedical research, Science reported. When the Arkansas legislature rejected his plan to use tobacco-settlement funds for health research, Mr. Huckabee — a former Republican governor of that state and a diabetic who lost 110 pounds through dieting — sponsored successfully a referendum to do so.
Rudolph W. Giuliani “loved learning biology” as a premed student at Manhattan College. But he also discouraged key advisers from giving interviews to Science.
The magazine called Fred Thompson “a cipher” on science and technology.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has offered the most-detailed statements on science policy to date among all candidates from both parties, Science said. While she, Mr. Edwards, and Barack Obama all support increasing government spending for research, it remains unclear how they would pay for it in a tight federal budget.
The three Democrats would also discourage the practice, seen repeatedly during the Bush administration, of political appointees meddling with scientific judgments and data for ideological reasons. However, the Democrats didn’t specify how, according to Science (The magazine’s articles are available to subscribers or for purchase.)
