New Scientist - a (U.K. published) magazine I am subscribed to - had a pretty interesting article about the '08 Election and how it does effect the U.S.'s supposed stance as one of the world leaders in science and innovative technology. So I decided to type it up. Clearly this proves how wonderfully idiotic and idiotically wonderful I am, but it's here for anyone who wishes to read it!

Anne Solomon knows exactly what kind of reality she wants to wake up to 5 November, and it doesn’t matter who’s just been elected president of the United States. What counts, she says, is that he has a head for science.

Solomon works at the Centre for the Study of the Presidency, a non-partisan organisation based in Washington DC that examines the successes and failures of past administrations. Last week it issued a report co-authored by Solomon that lists several of the most pressing issues facing America’s next leader, including energy, health care, environment, national security, and economic competitiveness. At the heart of every one of them are science and technology.

In this area, past performance gives considerable cause for concern, Solomon says: “We do not have in the White House and throughout the executive branch the kind of analytical capabilities and broad expertise that’s needed to understand and develop sound policy across these and many other issues.”

In a nation of paradoxes, this is one of the strangest. America leads the world in science and technology, yet its political leadership often seems detached from its scientific expertise. Indeed, the Bush administration has acquired a reputation for treating science with disdain. Now, with the 2008 election underway and a new occupant heading for the Oval Office, Solomon is one of a group of influential thinkers who see closing the gap between science and the presidency as a vital goal of the next four years.

Even the most ardent science advocate must admit this an issue unlikely to swing many votes. Yet, in a media contest that has largely focused on character and which candidate best represents change, science is one area where the Republican nominee John McCain and his Democratic counterpart Barack Obama are seeking to distinguish themselves from the past and from each other.

Why this should matter to Americans and to the rest of the world is clear: the prosperity and security of the United States of America is closely tied to its role as a leader in science and technology. At the same time, decisions made by the federal government focus on such issues as climate change, public health and basic research clearly reverberate far beyond the nation’s borders.

Solomon and her colleagues want the 2008 election to produce an administration that is more aware of science, whichever way the vote swings. “We feel it’s enormously important to have a president who is scientifically savvy and who takes a leadership role in ensuring that our public policies are based on the best and most accurate scientific assessments,” she says.

Such an outcome would be a marked contrast to the way today’s presidency is often portrayed. The Bush administration has repeatedly drawn criticism not just for neglecting science, but for manipulating and suppressing science for political ends. Among the most notorious incidents was the attempted muzzling of NASA climate expert James Hansen. The Union of Concerned Scientists has documented dozens more cases where it says scientific integrity has been compromised, most often where science informs industrial regulation and scientific protection.

“There has been active sabotage,” says Rena Steinzor, president of the Centre for Progressive Reform, which last month issued a nine-point plan called Saving Science from Politics. Among the changes it calls for are increased protection for whistleblowing scientists within federal agencies and a curb on the power of political appointees to influence the conclusions of government studies.

According to Steinzor, a systematic devaluation of science and scientists within the federal government over the last eight years leaves the next president with an enormous repair job on his hands. “We think this is a major area where change is needed,” agrees Lesley Stone, executive director of Scientists and Engineers for America, which promotes science in government.

So which candidate is most likely to reverse the Bush legacy on science? Both McCain and Obama have referred in their campaign speeches to the importance of science and technology, and expressed support for scientific integrity in government. Both favour a proactive approach to climate change and expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research – two lightning rod issues that helped paint the Bush administration as anti-science.

Where the candidates do differ is in the areas they choose to emphasise in. McCain has come out more strongly in support for expanding nuclear power and drilling for offshore oil, for example, whereas Obama has spoken more about funding for renewable energy projects. On space exploration, McCain’s views seem more in keeping with NASA’s existing plan to return to the moon, while Obama has tended to speak more about deploying space technology to address problems on Earth. [Because I cannot go longer than a few minutes without interjecting my opinion, this is something I have to side with Obama about—what good is it to return to the moon, now? There’s nothing there. Sure, some astronauts could play a really kick-ass game of soccer, but that doesn’t seem worth millions of funding and research. Unless I could go play too.]

Yet, in many other areas, what the candidates have said is interchangeable, partly because they are speaking in broad generalities. “Frankly, it’s been a little disappointing,” says Claude Canizares, vice-president of research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “There have been a few nice words but not many.”

Canizare’s view is shared by Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Phoenix. Earlier this year, Krauss championed Sciencedebate 2008, an effort to get the presidential candidates to debate science issues. The candidates declined the challenge but both camps have pledged in writing to fourteen questions laid out by Sciencedebate 2008. Obama’s answers are now in, but McCain’s are still pending.

Beyond these statements, the most relevant clues concerning how either candidate will deal with science after the election may be found in the teams that are now advising them. Obama actively consults a cadre of heavyweights, including Nobel prizewinners and former advisors to presidents Carter and Clinton. McCain, in contrast, appears to be drawing advisers with expertise in economics and industry when speaking on science and tech policy. Given that neither candidate has a strong science background, Krauss and others are hoping that both campaigns are thinking hard about who might serve as the next presidential science advisor.

“Having the science advisor in place early is going to be critical,” says Joanne Carney of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “It means that an individual can play a role in placing other key scientists throughout the federal agencies.” This would represent a large contrast with what happened to the current presidential science adviser, John Marburger, who was not confirmed until 10 months into the first Bush administration – by the time the president had weighed in with his position on stem cells and climate change. Unlike his predecessors, Marburger has also remained outside the president’s inner circle.

One area where a strong science adviser could play a vital role early on is in setting science and technology priorities in the new administration’s first budget. High on the agenda will be how to fulfil the 2007 America Competes Act, which calls for a doubling in funding for basic research in the physical and engineering sciences. The increase was recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in its influential report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, published last year.

Without such investment, the NAS said, the US would struggle to maintain its economic strength and high standard of living. Yet despite bipartisan support, the increases have yet to materialise.

Analysis of research funding over the past 30 years sheds some light on why change is so slow in coming [there is a graph, but I’m not pulling out the Excel just to recreate it, sorry]. Regardless of the ups and downs in the size of the federal budget, science has consistently received between 10 and 12 percent of the budget’s discretionary non-military spending. So while funding levels may have changed in dollar terms from one administration to the next, they have, for the most part, been dictated by available resources. For example, the big increases for medical and life sciences that began a decade ago were possible thanks to the booming economy of the late 1990s and a surplus in government revenues.

Ten years on, things could not be more different. Government surpluses have turned into deficits, and figures from the national science foundation show that total federal funding for research and development shrank in 2007 once inflation factored in. “It’s not exactly a recipe for success,” says Canizares. Meanwhile, the rapid rise of China and India as global centres of science and technology have left many wondering how the US can maintain its position as the world’s leading innovator. [Am I wrong for thinking that the global centre now belongs to Switzerland? Hello, Large Haldron Collider? World go boom? Scary scary? Oh, that was a fun week... :D]

[I cut out a paragraph here because it wasn’t telling us anything we couldn’t ascertain on our own. Yes, there’s a war going on draining money. Thank you for the jarring news report.]

At least some political capital will come from the sheer contrast between the new administration and the old. A president who engages with science will do much to overturn the notion that for the past eight years science has been under assault in the US. The truth remains, however, that the economic realities look almost certain to limit just how much extra investment science will receive.