NOT that the presidential candidates are totally ignoring science. Earlier
this month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science hosted a
presidential campaign forum in Washington on science and technology policy, to
which the Democratic and Republican parties sent representatives.
The Gore folks sent David Beier, the Vice President鈥檚 chief domestic policy
adviser. Beier has strong credentials for providing science advice. Before
joining the VP鈥檚 staff, he was chief lobbyist for Genentech. The Bush crowd sent
Bob Walker. Now chief executive of the Wexler Group, a Washington lobbying firm,
Walker previously spent 20 years in Congress, including two years as president
of the House Committee on Science.
The trouble was, Beier was speaking for the campaign, while Walker stated at
the outset that he was merely a campaign volunteer. So when questions came up
about the candidates鈥� positions on stem cell research and teaching creationism
as science, Beier was able to state confidently that Gore supported stem cell
research and thought teaching creationism was only appropriate in religion
classes. Walker was forced to say that he didn鈥檛 know whether Bush had an
opinion on either topic. Of course, Walker鈥檚 admission did help draw a
distinction between Bush and Gore, a fact not missed by the forum鈥檚
audience.
Advertisement
SCIENCE, however, has not come up a lot in the presidential campaign. It was
expected by some policy pundits that Gore might venture an opinion or two about
global warming or biotechnology. As a congressman he spent a good bit of time on
these issues, as well as writing a book about the environment. He has been
roundly caricatured for apparently claiming that he invented the Internet (he
actually claimed only to have spearheaded the government鈥檚 enthusiastic support
of its establishment).
Now it鈥檚 Bush who is making dubious statements about the Net. He suggested
that the explosion of network servers, routers and computers that make up the
Internet may soon create an electricity shortage. Bush is thought to be quoting
a newsletter publisher and a Net analyst who has been arguing that energy
planners goofed by not predicting how much more energy we would be using in a
wired world.
The claim has sparked a lively debate, with many energy experts making the
counter-argument that modern appliances are more energy-efficient, so there is
no net increase in demand. Bush probably won鈥檛 win over any undecided voters
with that claim. But apparently some stock traders are cashing in on it: they鈥檙e
citing the supposed energy shortfall to sell shares in power companies.
THE National Institutes of Health is a federal agency beloved by all,
especially politicians. Both Gore and Bush say they will double the NIH budget,
each claiming to be the institutes鈥� best friend.
While more money is always welcome, sometimes that money comes with awkward
strings attached. To prove they are really serious about, say, minority health,
candidates insist that the Office of Minority Health be elevated from a lowly
鈥渙ffice鈥� to a prestigious 鈥渃enter鈥�, or an even more prestigious 鈥渋nstitute鈥�.
The problem here is that the more institutes and centers the NIH has, the
larger the bureaucracy has to grow to accommodate their essential
infrastructure. Top management at the NIH have traditionally sought to reduce
the number of institutes to ease the crowd, but that does not seem to be
stopping the drumbeat for more elevations. Will it ever end? Don鈥檛 count on
it.
