Obama and McCain on science (Part I)

Science Debate 2008 has posed 14 questions about science policy to the Obama and McCain’s campaigns. Over the next few days I’ll be attempting to parse the boilerplate in their responses and see how the candidates line up.

The first question is about promoting scientific innovation:

Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?

Being the broadest-spectrum question, this one was probably destined to elicit the most pablum. At least one of them didn’t disappoint that expectation.

OBAMA: His response to the question begins by citing a few statistics about the decline in the numbers of science and engineering students in the U.S. with respect to the rest of the developed world. His answer to that problem is to dramatically (i.e. “at a rate that would double basic research budgets”) increase federal funding of basic science research over the next decade, as well as funding for “high-risk, high-payoff” fields of study. He also proposes various funding increases to draw more students into these fields and into primary school education in math and science. He ends with a brief note about creating incentives for businesses to innovate and says he supports making the R&D tax credit permanent.

Nothing exciting here really, but all solid stuff, especially the bit about focusing funding on basic science research—exactly the kind of thing government should be spending our money on, if they insist on spending it in the first place.

McCAIN: “I have a broad and cohesive vision . . . “, begins John McCain’s response to the question. You know you’re in trouble when a politician starts his answer with a reference to his own attributes. (John Kerry tried it in 2004, reminding us ad nauseam about how “strong” he was; we all know how that turned out.) And it turns out there’s an astounding amount of pablum in his response; for example, he says that he’s “uniquely qualified” to lead us through the current technological revolution because, among other things, “While in the Navy, I depended upon the technologies and information provided by our nation’s scientists and engineers with during each mission.” Seriously? I hate to echo partisan talking points, but isn’t that kinda like saying you have foreign policy experience because you can see Russia from your backyard? A bit further down he says he’s going to find funding for more research by cutting back on earmarks, of all things. I’m all for cutting pork-barrel spending, John, but we were talking about science and innovation, remember? (This brings up another complaint journalists and others have had about the McCain-Palin campaign: its principals’ maddening tendency to shift the question they’re answering in mid-stride.) It goes on like this for quite awhile. In fact, whereas McCain’s response is twice as long as Obama’s, it probably has half as much in the way of real, honest-to-god content.

What content there is mostly reflects the basic philosophical differences between conservatives/libertarians and liberals on government spending. Whereas Obama focuses more on increasing funding (i.e. throwing more money at the issue), McCain focuses more on using tax incentives, coupled with inspirational gestures like an expanded manned space exploration program, to “nurture the conditions under which entrepreneurs can continue to prosper.”

McCain deserves some props for the emphasis on creating incentives for innovation rather than just writing a big, fat government check to address the issue. But in the end his response was so chock-full of wasted verbiage that I have to give the prize to Obama on this question. Tomorrow we’ll see if he can keep it up for the next question on climate change.