Obama's answers to questions posed by ScienceDebate2008 (questions posed by scientists including Nobel Laureates) can be viewed here: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40

John McCain said he will also be answering the questions. We will update the link when the answers are posted on ScienceDebate2008.


A recent article including comments on the ScienceDebate2008 From Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=obama-and-mccain-on-science-where-d-2008-09-04

Scientific American asks its own questions of the candidates in next month's issue of the magazine.

Why do politicians think the answer for everything is another program? "I'll work closely with this... our comprehensive program will do that... we need to regain our leadership..." I'd rather like to see words along the lines of:

We need to strip-down the government agencies that oversee science and get out of scientists way so they can accomplish great things of which we know they are capable.

By streamlining drug and medical device approval processes, we can both 1) allow scientists to bring more drugs and medical devices to market and 2) produce them at much lower costs by giving them longer to recoup their R&D costs.

By joining with all of our foreign scientific community partners, we can jointly share drug approval expenses, rather than duplicating their efforts before Americans are allowed to take the life-saving and health extending drugs that our foreign partners have already approved.

By reducing the role of the FDA to monitoring safety and putting the burden of efficacy on the drug manufacturers, we can reduce the costs and time of the pharmaceutical pipeline by 50 to 75 percent.

How about those for some REAL innovative changes? Will we ever hear anything other than "I'll throw more money at this and develop another position or agency for that?"

Another issue we'd like to hear about from the candidates:

Quit parroting that "there's no longer any doubt, we're responsible for global warming", "gotta cut our CO2 footprint", etc. There is apparent real doubt cast upon the "science" that the IPCC used to proclaim that global warming is caused by our CO2 emissions:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Spend some money on real research and quit wasting it on worrying about our miniscule CO2 footprint. We have energy issues now--not in a decade, not in 15 years. We have diseases to cure and serious science toward slowing and halting the debilitating effects [and costs] of aging. We have medical devices and artificial tissues to engineer. Let's not forget we have people to feed, water to clean. Real problems. Why must politicians insist on chasing invented ones?

To help you answer the poll go to

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42

In November, 2007, a small group of six citizens - two screenwriters, a physicist, a marine biologist, a philosopher and a science journalist - began working to restore science and innovation to America’s political dialogue. They called themselves Science Debate 2008, and they called for a presidential debate on science. The call tapped a wellspring of concern over the state of American science.

Within weeks, more than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities. See who the signers are. Among other things, these signers submitted over 3,400 questions they want the candidates for President to answer about science and the future of America.

The Process

Beginning with these 3,400 questions, Science Debate 2008 worked with the leading organizations listed to craft the top 14 questions the candidates should answer. These questions are broad enough to allow for wide variations in response, but they are specific enough to help guide the discussion toward many of the largest and most important unresolved challenges currently facing the United States.

to see the side by side answers to the 14 key questoins click here

A new development in McCain's stem cell stance

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/mccain-on-stem.html

AND

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/mccain-skews-sc.html

I wanted to know.... As a scientist, the issue about a nuclear deal seems vague to me.... We all know that residual radiation from degradation products of nuclear fission are carcinogenic to all organisms.... Why is it that people have ignored this aspect when they are extraction energy and releasing the waste into the world oceans?... Is it that people don't know about this or is it that they are willing to sacrifice a certain portion of life for the sake of energy?