The presidential candidates have declared their intentions on issues deemed important by the scientific community. And it turns out that there’s not much difference between them.

That’s not surprising, given the near absence of ideological controversy over scientific matters and the scientific community’s deliberate aloofness from partisan politics. But it is unfortunate that both candidates have essentially brushed off the scientists with syrupy assurances. There are many changes that would be beneficial for the support and utilization of science, but in the context of big-league politics, they’re small stuff, not worth precious time in the middle of a bitter election campaign.

The scientific community’s government wish list is small and tidy: Send more money, minimize regulations affecting research, and show us respect. And essentially, that’s what it got in Obama’s and McCain’s responses to 14 policy questions submitted by a broad-based organization of scientists called ”Science Debate 2008”, and now available for comparison. (I discussed Obama’s replies in a post on Sept. 4; McCain’s answers were issued on Sept. 15.)

The candidates are in harmony on the three big science-related issues that have stirred controversy throughout the Bush administration: climate change, stem-cell research, and protection of scientific integrity. Matching Obama, McCain acknowledges that climate change is a dangerous reality, thus going beyond the Bush administration’s grudging acceptance of a climate problem. Both candidates endorse the cap-and-trade method for reducing carbon emissions. McCain calls for building 45 nuclear reactors; Obama is for “a new generation of nuclear electric technologies.” Both are for federal support of stem-cell research, with nods of concern toward those who have moral qualms, and both agree that scientific findings should not be distorted or ignored for political purposes.

Taking a slap at the Bush administration’s demotion of science advice in the presidential staff structure, McCain says he’ll have “a science and technology adviser within the White House staff” and will revive the withered White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Obama is curiously silent about high-level science advice, except for promising to “establish the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies, and services for the 21st century.” Since the the job of presidential science adviser and the White House science office are beloved by the scientific establishment as their envoy and embassy in Washington, it may be that Obama’s inattention was inadvertent and not a signal of intended changes. But we don’t know for sure.

Both candidates endorse carrying on with NASA’s celestial turkey, the financially insatiable, but useless, International Space Station. No surprise there, given that the manned-space supporters are organized and fanatical about their only haven in space, while doubters are scattered and unfocused. Why stir up an issue that was long ago abandoned as hopeless by sensible observers of research policy?

Though both candidates are promising wide-ranging changes in the way Washington manages the nation’s business, neither addressed the dysfunctional condition of the Department of Energy, or the moribund management of the National Institutes of Health, where more grantees are over age 70 than are under age 30.

Outside of science, McCain and Obama differ greatly. Perhaps the winner will take a fresh look at the scientific enterprise and promote beneficial changes. But in their responses to the 14 questions, they show little difference.

(Test-tube photo by Flickr user jurvetson)