Science Debate 2008, a puerile proposition enthusiastically embraced within and around the science establishment, has been sensibly brushed off by Senators Clinton and Obama.
The two, battling for the Democratic presidential nomination, were invited to “share their views on the environment, health and medicine, and science and technology policy” on April 18 in Philadelphia, a week before the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. The invitation was backed by the heavy artillery of science: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, the Council on Competitiveness, over 160 universities, and a requisite contingent of Nobel Laureates, some 25 of them in this instance.
The only common denominator among this melange is a ravenous appetite for federal funding of research, accompanied by minimal regulation. It might be noted, too, that there has been no dearth of primary oratory re the environment and health and medicine. What’s left to be said on these matters? Science alone has been virtually ignored. But whether that figured into the candidates’ negative RSVP’s is not known.
The invitation was a long shot, given that the science establishment, alone on the American landscape, takes a dainty approach to electoral politics. It does not organize to raise money to help its friends and hurt its enemies, a la physicians, gun owners, real-estate brokers, funeral directors , lawyers, veterans, and so on.
Instead, with deep faith in its own virtue, and unalloyed confidence in the support of the American people — as medievally ignorant of science as they may be — the science establishment tells stories about the worth and value of research, and counts on politicians’ good sense to provide higher appropriations. For added measure, the appeals are braced with alarmist warnings of threats to American leadership in science from China, Russia, Brazil, etc. Yet to be explained is why the U.S. should fear a cancer cure from abroad.
Scientists are understandably convinced that their work is crucially important for the well-being of the nation. And they are sincere in their belief — and correct — that potentially valuable research is mindlessly neglected for lack of relatively small sums. But the view from politics is that science is doing reasonably well at a very tough time. Moreover, long service on Capitol Hill is not needed to conclude that science is financially insatiable, that no budget increase can quell the clamor for more. The budget of the National Institutes of Health was fast-track doubled between 1998 and 2003, whereupon the mandarins of biomedical research mournfully proclaimed the urgency of even more money.
Constant surveying of what’s on the mind of the American people is yet to find the state of science ranking high, or even making the top 25. War, the economy, health care, education, the environment — these are the issues that for good reasons concern the voters, few of whom have ever heard of the National Science Foundation and its urgent need for continuous budget growth.
If the science establishment wants politicians to pay attention to its needs and show up for its debates, a couple of million dollars in campaign donations would do wonders.
Meanwhile, the promoters of Science Debate 2008 are inviting Clinton and Obama to debate prior to the Oregon primary next month.
In Pennsylvania, the campaign calendar is crowded, but the two contenders have found time to attend a “compassion forum” where they will discuss “policy and moral values.”
