CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Feb. 17, 2008 – 6:40 p.m.
Clinton, Obama Surrogates Debate Science Policy
By Peggy Girshman, CQ Staff
Boston, Mass Feb. 16 – It wasn’t in primetime. In fact, it wasn’t broadcast at all. The audience wasn’t hand-picked to equally represent the candidates. But a weekend debate at the American Association for the Advancement of Science between science advisors to the Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns was strikingly similar to forums between the candidates.
A spokesperson for the AAAS said that the organization had put together the session “at the last minute” and that John McCain ’s science advisor had declined due to scheduling problems and that they had not received any reply to the invitation from the Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul campaigns
On lapels throughout the convention corridors were buttons emblazoned with “Science Debate 2008” . They’re the product of a campaign to urge a public debate “in which [all] the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of the Environment, Medicine and Health and Science and Technology Policy.”
Representing Clinton, in suit and tie, was Tom Kalil, a Washington veteran who was Deputy Assistant to former President Bill Clinton for Technology and Economic Policy. He came with a power-point presentation highlighting the challenges in science and technology policy and proposing specific future Clinton administration plans.
Kalil blasted the Bush administration’s policies, saying that the president has listened to his political advisors while distancing himself from his own science advisors. “The OSTP [Office of Science and Technology Policy] has been banished to bureaucratic Siberia,” he said.
Obama’s adviser, Alec Ross, in shirt sleeves, didn’t look much older than the graduate students in the audience. He’s also the executive vice-president of One Economy, a nonprofit corporation that seeks to expand broadband technology into poor areas.
Echoing a central Obama theme, he began with a sweeping indictment of how science policy is influenced by lobbyists in Washington, saying that Obama would act to limit that influence.
“We must use all technologies to open up the federal government, making it transparent” to all, he said. He was shorter on specifics than Kalil, often referring audience members to the Obama campaign Web site for detail.
Both men promised hefty increases in spending on basic research, with Kalil saying Clinton would double the budget, within ten years, of the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the basic and applied research at the Department of Defense and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Ross said Obama would double federal spending for basic research over five years.
Much of Obama’s plans rely on technological solutions to problems, including investing $10 billion a year to computerize medical records and spending $150 billion over 10 years to develop more biofuels, hybrid vehicles and transitioning to an electricity grid that is run with digital controls rather than the relatively slow electromechanical switches and relays used today..
To encourage more American students to study science and technology, Kalil promised Clinton would triple the number of graduate student fellowships – a popular notion with the Ph.D.-laden crowd. In a not-so-subtle jab at Obama, he noted several times that Clinton was “the only candidate” who has given a speech about science policy, on the 50th anniversary of Sputnik Oct 4th to the Carnegie Institution of Science.
Either Clinton or Obama would reverse the Bush administration ban on federal funding of certain embryonic stem cell research and both have multiple plans to ameliorate climate change through technological advances, carbon trading and more engagement with other nations.
Both representatives promised more scientific freedom, ending what they characterized as extensive political interference in science and technology policy decisions. Ross said “instead of having politicians make those decisions, let’s have scientists make those decisions,” and Kalil adding Clinton “is committed to signing executive orders to prevent political appointees from muzzling scientists.“
Just as in other Obama-Clinton debates, the campaigns seemed to agree on most everything except whether Washington knowledge and experience is a hindrance to or a facilitator of change.
The campaigns appeared to disagree on what to do about the abundance of foreign students (68 percent) in U.S. science graduate schools. Clinton advisor Kalil, who is also the special assistant to Chancellor at University of California at Berkeley for Science and Technology, worried that not enough American students are embarking on science careers, saying “U.S. science and technology leadership is at risk.”
Ross said Obama wanted to increase the number of foreign students in U.S. graduate school and would “give them a path to citizenship.” In addition, Kalil said the Clinton had the plans in place to pay for increased scientific funding and Ross said Obama would pay for his program by cutting defense and Iraq War spending.
The “Science Debate 2008” effort is cosponsored by the AAAS, the Council on Competitiveness and the National Academies of Sciences – the most prominent U.S. scientific organizations. The Web site features support for the debate from hundreds of individuals and organizations, including 25 Nobel Laureates, university presidents, national scientific-technological organizations and corporate leaders, among them Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin and currently on President Bush’s science advisory panel. The steering committee is co-chaired by Reps. Vernon J. Ehlers , R-Mich., and Rush D. Holt , D-N.J.
So far, no candidate has accepted the debate offer and Ross and Kalil were noncommittal about the prospect of the Philadelphia debate, scheduled for April 18, just four days before the Pennsylvania primary.
Comments
No kidding. Mike Huckabee, who says the laws of physics prove a bee can't fly, has dodged a debate on science.
"To encourage more American students to study science and technology, Kalil promised Clinton would triple the number of graduate student fellowships – a popular notion with the Ph.D.-laden crowd." Why do people think we need more graduate students or more PhDs? There are so many people with science PhDs out there who can't get good jobs. What we really need is a sane policy for science education and employment which focuses on our own citizens. Importing foreigners to do the bulk of all science and engineering work in this country lowers wages and does NOT make science an attractive career for American students. Right now, I wouldn't recommend a career in science to anyone who cares about their personal economic future. Currently more than 300 million people live in the United States. We do not have a shortage of people. We do not even have a shortage of scientists and engineers. According to Lowell and Salzman in their report "Into the Eye of the Storm", there are about 3 times as many Americans holding degrees in science and engineering as there are American jobs in these fields. Candidates: please stop with the scientist shortage BS. Thanks.
Admittedly, I can agree that there aren't enough jobs for scientists, and there are still tons of post-docs migrating about the field looking for a little job security. But economic growth requires technological advancement, and we're not going to get that with a big pile of unmotivated students. We've got a planet that is well on its way to becoming unfot for human civilization, and it won't be fixed without decent education. I was at the debate the other day. It would definately be great to hear science policy platforms from the candidates themselves, rather than respresentatives that had about 24 hours to prepare. Fingers crossed for the Science Debate 2008.
All. Somehow this must get into YOUR heads, and the candidates heads, as well. We have to remove the excess CO2 from the Commons of the Atmosphere. We all use it. We all dump waste into it. Some dump a lot more than others. At December's AGU meeting, James Hansen (The man Bush Admin tried to muzzle, at NASA, GISS --see Congressional Testimony in 2007.), called on the meeting participants in San Francisco to begin to think about 350 ppmv CO2 as the maximum. All of his 350 ppmv idea is a consequence of "where" we are in the solar system; that is our distance from the Sun, and what happens at the current and comming irradiance level (solar constant) if we do not attempt to reach 350 ppmv. And of course, you have all seen heard or read about Six Degrees. (Folks, James Hansen is quietly telling you, we are is serious trouble, and we are.) Paragraph: Seriously--- Hansen knows we charged right on through 350 ppmv in 1989, and the Mauna Loa Keeling curve value will pass 385 ppmv this year (2008) as you are thinking about it. The IPCC ideas of "doubling CO2" (770 ppmv) or even lowering it to a "business friendly" 450 ppmv are more than ludicrous. PARAGRAPH: Hansen knows, and you all should too, that the Ocean-Land Biosphere connection can only remove 7.5 to 8 ppmv (@ about 2.13Gt C/ppmv that is 16-17 billion tons C) per year seasonally -- when plants grow. But as soon as the tree leaves and grasses expire and their stems, leaves and cellulose bodies decay, the life-and CO2 balance returns what it borrowed for life functions to the air, where it came from. Paragraph: What this means is really clear: Unless we figure out how to enhance biological plant growth on areas as vast as our oceans, and sequester the C, we have reached the limit of the amount of CO2 Nature can pull out of the air without some other gigantic bio-operations. I encourage heavily funded dedicated research and invention to remove the CO2. PARAGRAPH: I do not favor this, but a few scientists are legitimately suggesting expanded research into the Sulfate Aerosol Shield. And I support the research, because we made need it soon. -- But, I favor removal of every molecule of CO2 above 300 ppmv -- (call that excess 85 ppmv for 2008) but that requires sucking into some vast mechanism, at least 1/4 the air and removing and sequestering the C in it. That is: inhale and treat a mass of roughly 1300 trillion tons of air to remove 180 billion tons of C from 664 billion tons of CO2. Then you get to sequester it. I favor the first plank in Climate Control, not weather control, but Climate Control. And I think to save the planet, this has to be started NOW. If you leave it as CO2, where do you want to put it? Where it will stay. PARAGRAPH: If we do not build and use a machine or biologically enhanced "machine" that is the first mechanical effort at climat control -- we may have no choice but to enter another "undiscovered country" with a sulfate aerosol shield. With a sufate shield and is maintenance our planet's Face will be more like Venus' -- with her sulfuric acid clouds --but Earth's face would be a paler veiled image. Paragraph: This is a website link that you may want to visit, let it scare and trouble you a little, and then move on. The future predictions this gentleman makes with figures that come from a Sun a long time back (he uses an unreasonable Solar Constant of 1353 -- when it should be at least 1363 to 1367 are minor issues) lead to values that predict our climate disaster to occur much sooner than the best minds on the planet have concluded. (He does not like my criticism but I told him he needed to throw the ocean into his computations -- because, just like everyone else at the time -- I thought this can't happen because of the ocean's moderation.) Paragraph: But now I am simply recomputing his ideas and learning all I can of the physics that is recorded and scattered about the Internet that will punch valid holes in his summation of out future. It is taking more time than I thought. His model is too simple, too direct, he must be missing some logical step -- 390 ppm yields an average 25 degree F temperature elevation globally -- 83 degrees, average. That means rain forest temperatures of 160 -170, and the end of plants of the jungle -- in 143 years... http://mb-soft.com/public3/global.html Nah. I hope. I'm still working on a refutation.
There aren't enough jobs for scientists. I agree with Christina that this in itself is a problem if we want to see Americans be economically successful. Students from other countries are being given opportunities to do science because they are educated and prepared to do science. To see more American students be given these opportunities, we must invest in their complete education on every level. Having more people who are educated in science and engineering than there are jobs in those fields is not a bad thing. It most fields, scientists and engineers are quality, sought-after candidates for employees because they're trained to think, reason, and solve complex problems. These are among the most important skills in the current and future global economy and for the future of mankind in general.
If a candidate wants to double federal spending for basic science research in 5 or 10 years, then they need to start (yesterday), working with the science community to build a consensus science roadmap. They need a broad base of credible science advisors who can advance a plan through the convoluted budget process of the usa.gov. Otherwise good intentions will fall by the wayside. So who are the advisors to these campaigns and do they have a clue???
Yeah thats whats needed another "path to citizenship". Seriously, everyone knows that scientists are in fact the WORST at being able to make decisions in a group.
Huckabee is safe with his bee's can't fly -because they are dead.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: