SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Obama, Romney answer science questions
While they declined a televised science debate, the candidates did provide written answers to 14 questions from the country's top scientists.
Thu, Sep 06 2012 at 10:05 AM
Related Topics:
Photos: Jewel Samad, Emmanuel Dunand/AFP
It took more than a month, but President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney have both answered a list of the "top American science questions" posed by thousands of U.S. scientists in July. The 14 questions illuminate some of the candidates' views on issues like climate change, education and public health, which receive little attention on the campaign trail despite mounting urgency.
Many of the answers are predictable, but there are some highlights. Romney pivots from his recent coyness about climate change, for instance, back to the firmer stance he took in 2011. He has said lately that "we don't know what's causing climate change" — and mocked Obama last week for wanting to "slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet" — but he now writes that "my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences."
Obama also calls global warming "one of the biggest issues of this generation," and points to his administration's success in establishing new vehicle-emissions standards, making "unprecedented investments in clean energy" and reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil. He also mentions a proposal to limit carbon emissions from power plants, but doesn't repeat his 2008 call for a national cap-and-trade law — probably because the concept already brought him a legislative defeat in the Senate.
According to Shawn Otto of ScienceDebate.org, the group that compiled the questions, neither candidate's answers include enough specific ideas. Romney says he supports "robust government funding for research" and "a new wave of investment in nuclear power," but mainly focuses on criticizing Obama's efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Obama says the U.S. is "showing international leadership on climate change," but offers only a generic acknowledgement that global climate talks are stalled, adding that "there is still more to be done." This leads Otto to bemoan both candidates' refusal to participate in a televised science debate.
"While the candidates' answers provide important insights on a variety of key topics, they also illustrate just why a debate on these critical policy issues is so important," Otto says in a press release. "Some of the questions aren't fully answered when they become politically difficult and others could really benefit from followup discussion, for example to hear what ideas the candidates have for solving problems, like climate change, that cross national boundaries."
Romney begins his answer about climate change by stating "I am not a scientist myself," but Otto sees that as disingenuous. "Candidates readily debate jobs and the economy even though they are not economists," Otto says. "They debate foreign policy and military intervention even though they are not diplomats or generals; they debate faith and values even though they are not priests or pastors. They should also be comfortable debating the top American science questions that affect all voters' lives."
That apparently won't happen, though, so we're left to parse the candidates' written responses. This echoes the results of a similar effort in 2008, when Obama and John McCain both submitted answers to ScienceDebate.org but declined a live debate. Nonetheless, as scientific issues grow increasingly important to U.S. voters, Otto says his organization is making progress in forcing presidential candidates to keep up. "They're stuck in 20th-century thinking," he says. "It's taking them time to realize we're in a new century — the century of science — and that 85 percent of likely voters want them to be debating these topics. Every cycle we're making progress."
Related politics stories on MNN:
MNN tease photos of Obama (left) by Alex Wong/Getty Images and Romney by David Greedy/Getty Images
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- Man tattoos puppy, faces backlash
- Olive oil and nuts make you smarter, study finds
- The squirrel that wears many hats
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- Tornado survivor finds dog during live TV interview
- The mystery of Devil's Kettle Falls
- 'Gay' dog rescued from Tenn. animal shelter
- What causes tornadoes?
- 15 houseplants for improving indoor air quality - A breath of fresh air
- How to get rid of stink bugs
NEWSLETTER
ABOUT Russell McLendon
Russell blogs about the day's top science and eco-news.
Advertisement
Although we have not proved that fossil fuels are causing climate change, we have many excellent reasons to reduce our insane consumption of them. Even so, I wonder if the nuclear industry is behind this carbon cap thing. They are not folks who are concerned with the environment. The answer may be less cars and more public transportation.
Not to worry. There is no way the nuclear energy proponents can compete with the propaganda power of big oil.
How are either of these guys going to attract science teachers if teachers are getting pay cuts!!! I have lost $6000 per a year over the last 4 years. I and other science teachers are looking for an exit. I am tired of getting pay cuts, furloughs. If you want to attract and retain the best science teachers, you have to give us some money!! I am too smart to be broke.
Sorry to hear of your pay cut. You should come to the NY City suburbs, where teacher salaries are excellent. MEDIAN salary for the 2009-2010 school year was $90,914. For one average district, Lindenhurst, the lowest 5% are paid $59,000 and top 5% $107,999. Need to check it out yourself? Just google this: "New York" "Salary Percentiles for Full-Time Classroom Teachers." Oh --- would-be teachers are lined up dozens deep for every opening.
I think science is overlooked too much in national politics. We talk a lot about U.S. students and their lag in science education and knowledge--but then we really don't show any reverence for it on a national political level. Would that change if we did?
It certainly doesn't help that our national stage and elected officials are dominated by law, politics or business backgrounds.