Science Under Obama
Next Administration Would Chart a Dramatic New Course
SOURCE: AP/Jeff Chiu
There's much for scientists to like about Barack Obama's plans for science policy—but will he make it a priority, and what about the money? Above: Obama talks about science and technology policy at Google headquarters in Mountain View, California last year.
Print
Science, Cultured
Science Progress contributing editor Chris Mooney surveys the interactions between science, politics, and culture from Los Angeles, California. He is author author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.” (Photo: flickr.com/sarahfelicity)
It wasn’t noticed by everyone, or loudly trumpeted by his campaign. But as the presidential election heated up, now-president-elect Barack Obama also began ramping up his science policy capacity. After answering fourteen questions posed by ScienceDebate2008 in a manner that received applause from the scientific community, Obama went further by releasing, to Wired Science, his list of advisors who had drafted the responses. It was an impressive group whose membership—including former Clinton administration National Institutes of Health director and Nobel laureate Harold Varmus; former American Association for the Advancement of Science president Gilbert Ommen; and recent Nobel Laureate Peter Agre—strongly suggests that Obama’s administration will take scientific advice very seriously. In an early October letter to the National Academy of Sciences, Obama further assured the scientific community that he will quickly appoint a presidential science adviser to take with him to Washington.
But let’s look in a little more detail about what American science can expect from president Obama. First, Obama’s answers to ScienceDebate2008 show that he will not allow the “war on science” perpetrated under George W. Bush to continue. Scientists—especially those in the government’s employ—can look forward to an administration that will not be beset by recurrent scandals over political meddling with research. In fact, Obama has specifically pledged to protect scientist whistleblowers and make sure his administration avoids political interference with scientific reports released to the public. These are the right sounds to be making, although thus far, they haven’t been made very loudly. With all of the crises president Obama will inherit, the real question will be whether such matters remain on the radar or receive much priority.
On the two highest-profile science policy issues during the Bush administration, embryonic stem cell research and global warming, president Obama will chart a very different course. The two issues are perhaps most dramatically differentiated by how simple it will be to resolve the one, and how staggeringly difficult it will be to even begin to address the other. On stem cells, Obama can simply reverse President Bush’s August 2001 executive order limiting research to pre-existing cell lines; Congress already wanted this before Democrats controlled both houses, as they do now. In a short time, then, we can assume that the most politicized phase of the embryonic stem cell debate will be over.
Despite many challenges ahead, it’s clearly a new day for science in Washington
On climate change, in contrast, this administration needs a massive and sustained effort to: 1) pass a cap-and-trade bill to cut emissions; 2) invest dramatically in renewable energy research and development; 3) prepare to negotiate an international greenhouse gas treaty, the successor to the Kyoto Protocol; and 4) begin a climate change adaptation and readiness agenda for the nation. On the first two points, Obama has outlined ambitious plans—most notably, to set the U.S. on course to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and to invest $150 billion in renewable energy over the next decade. The real question, however, will be whether Obama and progressive members of Congress stick to their guns on a strong cap-and-trade bill despite the dismal economic situation—one in which any legislation will be mercilessly attacked for an alleged capacity to damage the economy and raise energy prices. Stand by.
For the same reason that a greenhouse gas bill will be a tough slog—the terrible economy—securing adequate funding for scientific research, including fulfilling funding obligations for the languishing America COMPETES Act, will also pose major challenges to the Obama administration. Here again, Obama says all the right things—perhaps most notably, he wants to see basic research budgets double over the next decade. But staring down a federal budget deficit that could hit one trillion dollars, Obama will be very hard pressed to start out ambitiously toward this end. Let us hope that the people surrounding him make the strong argument that even though research funding will not provide an immediate solution to the economic problems that George W. Bush has left behind, in the long term it’s the single best way to fire the economy—in the energy sphere above all, but across the board.
Despite many challenges ahead, it’s clearly a new day for science in Washington, and there are strong grounds for feeling optimistic. For scientists who so struggled under George W. Bush, there’s a very real sense that the clouds are parting. Now, we await a still-clearer signal of how president Obama will govern science—his pick of a presidential science adviser, which should come soon, and will tell us a great deal. In the meantime, however, we can note that in his victory speech last night, Obama did not leave out science; rather, he gave it a central role in defining the course the nation has taken over the past half century: “A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.”
Let the tradition finally resume.
Chris Mooney is contributing editor to Science Progress and author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”
Comments on this article
Nice article. While specific to addressing some interesting issues (Stem Cell and global warming), there are other overarching issues that are fascinating to me. One of those is how rather technical groups like the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine learns to work with other, more-or-less community-based groups who at the very least use core science when they try to work with the environmental realities of physical conditions that have biological connections. I wrote a grant proposal a year or so ago for a Latino drug and alcohol agency trying to get a foot in the door as they work with the generational (genetic and environmental) impacts of drug and alcohol use and abuse. The NIH through the application out because of disputes over the use of a computer username but we believe because they didn’t want their showcase projects getting into the spotlight more than necessary. Anyway, I’m working on an update of this project for consideration as a NIV Pioneer Award and would love to know if you have any advice … assuming my logic and such makes any sense.
Thanks.
Allan Shore
November 5th, 2008 at 4:22 pmVery good article.. here at The Global Medical Research Fund we were hoping for such a “CHANGE” as he recieved last night with this election. Now that we have a President who is devoted to scientific research and evaluation, we can move this country forward instead of backwards. Embryonic stem cell research should be made a national priority, and a Manhatten Project type program should be initiated immediately.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:39 pmThe agricultural industry continues to lobby very hard for ethanol. While, this is understandable, the (Union of Concerned Scientists)stated that “when issues such as fertilizer use, energy for processing, and land use are taken into account, gallon for gallon, current production methods for corn ethanol could actually create more global warming pollution than today’s gasoline.” In addition it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than is obtained from it’s use.
Hopefully, more efficient and actually green forms of fuel will be pursued by President Obama. There are operational compressed air cars (Spain) as well as water powered vehicles (Japan) that would assist in decreasing dependency on oil, but the American public has no such technology available to them. Why?
November 9th, 2008 at 11:00 amNow this. This is why I voted. This is awesome news indeed. My best wishes and all the luck imaginable to the Scientific Community! Science has been established as a core member of the “We” in “Yes We Can,” and there are billions out there who eagerly await what benefits it can provide.
Now, to quote a great scholar, Billy Madison: “On with the chlorophyl!”
November 13th, 2008 at 5:05 amAll this is great news, I only hope he re-considers his stance against nuclear energy. I guess if he listens to his science advisors it should all come out in the wash
November 13th, 2008 at 8:22 amI am happy that you are happy.
I am a techie. The truth is I deal in ones and zeroes…logic statements. To infer all the things that were inferred above and attribute them to “Change” is rather startling to me. The first statement put forward about Mr. Obama is that he was asked 14 questions and his campaign got 14 responses written for him by other people. He then handed it off and went to kiss more babies. If the idea you are putting forward is “YES, but he is willing to reach out to advisors…” OK. But that was for answers to questions during a campaign. There is really no indication from these statements that anything will be done.
Also, embryonic stem cell research has been restrained when using tax money, not in general. Haven’t there been so much other research done with stem cells from other viable means that have actually yeilded higher results for success? In the 1970s the KGB had a propaganda war with us that really struck a blow in all of Europe. The story was how Americans were breeding babies just to harvest organs, biological resources, and expirementation. The picture had a large American nurse holding several children. No matter how many times this was proven to be a fraudulent story, it was never put to rest. This “fact” was decried in all of the Soviet Block and Europe as pure evil. It is funny how much changes in 30 years. Choose a more accessible means for stem cells. Wouldn’t it actually empower a mother to be able to SELL her umbilical cord? They could use the money that is for certain.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:01 amI think this is great! More money taken from the tax payers and put into the pockets of scientists and engineers like me. It’s about time I started getting more $$ from the government. Screw the rest of you!
November 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pmAnyone who believe there will be no more politicization of science is incredibly naive. There will be two differences between Obama and Bush on the control of science:
November 13th, 2008 at 5:35 pm1. Obama’s administration will push science to prove left wing issues, while Bush’s administration pushed science to prove right wing issues;
2. It’s possible that Obama’s administration will be smoother and more public-relations savvy in their control over science.
every president does what he thinks is best and not what actually is best or should be done. But I guess he actually can do that not like the rest of us.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:55 pmsure. He’ll take the “science” he likes seriously-like the falsified data from NASA’s Hansen without which the idiotic “global warming” hysteria would collapse on itself.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:02 pmIn an effort to combat climate change and to lower greenhouse gasses, President elect Obama should make the Trans-Global Highway a major policy directive in his administration., The project was proposed by Frank X. Didik, who also happens to be the found of the Electric Car Society, a number of years ago. The Trans-Global Highway would physically link the continents of the world together utilizing existing roads, rail lines and through a series of under water tunnels. The Trans-Global Highway would clearly lower transportation costs as well as reduce the huge amount of energy needed to transport products globally . I also see the Trans Global highway as a method to increase international cooperation and better allocation of global resources, with minimal invasiveness of the environment, It may well be the key infrastructure project that Mr. Obama has been seeking. The full proposal can be read at www.TransGlobalHighway.com
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:07 pm