(via Chris Mooney at The Intersection)

On the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, Senator Hilary Clinton attacked the science policies of the Bush Administration, and has laid out a plan for science in her administration, should she be elected. Clinton is the first presidential candidate (to my knowledge) to address science directly like this, and

50 years after the launch of Sputnik 1 is a very good day to do it. Sputnik was a scientific and technological wake up call right to the United States’ bedroom telephone. An elegant satellite was launched into orbit and transmitted a radio frequency beep that was heard around the world. It had a scientific payload, too, as the beeps themselves contained information about the electron density of the ionosphere, and whether or not the spacecraft was punctured by meteors.

Politically, it’s a smart move. By being the first candidate (and thus the first Democrat as well) to speak up for science in this manner, her fellow Dems will probably come out with similar statements and science plans - but theirs will not be noticed as much. Unless of course, they can find something wrong with her outline, and suggest something better. The likelihood of that happening is, well, let’s let the AAAS’s director of policy explain:

“I was impressed. She seemed to know the concerns of the science community, and she pushed all the right buttons,” said Al Teich, the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s director of policy, who heard Clinton speak Thursday morning.

“The positions that she pressed will be very well-received by the science community,” he added.

The AAAS has disagreed with Bush administration policies in several areas of science, most notably in the area of funding, Teich said.

Teich was particularly struck by an anecdote that Clinton shared with her audience about how Bush’s stem-cell policy had made research in this area particularly difficult. Clinton recalled a story she’d been told about a stem-cell researcher’s experiment that had been ruined when the lab suffered a power failure. Because the rules ban researchers from using federally funded facilities for privately funded stem-cell research, the scientist was unable transfer the laboratory samples to a working refrigerator paid for by the federal government. The experiment was ruined.

“The point was about how difficult it is to do that kind of research now because of the need to create these separations,” said Teich. “She understood this issue, and this is of considerable concern to many scientists.”

(source: Wired)

On the other side of the political spectrum, you already have three ‘out’ creationists, and a few people obfuscating on science issues. They are probably looking to contrast with the Democrats, (otherwise why would people want to vote for them - if they agree people will still favor the other side in the current political climate) which is unfortunate for them because that will just make things worse for them. They could make similar statements to hers, but again, the problem is Clinton said it first and best:

“For six-and-a-half years under this president, it’s been open season on open inquiry,” Clinton said in a statement. “By ignoring or manipulating science, the Bush administration is letting our economic competitors get an edge in the global economy.”

Sputnik gets to be a wake-up call again. Twelve years and a whole lot of funding later, we landed on the moon. How’s that for a response? Wake up, USA, we have a bunch of problems that need fixing. We have a nation of inefficient cars running on a finite resource that is peaking in global production while also adding to our climate change woes that have been covered up and politically attacked in the meantime. And that’s to mention just two issues. If we collectively wake up, maybe twelve years later we’ll have the grand opening of cellulosic ethanol (or something way better) producing plants that could end our addiction.

As president, Clinton said she would:

_ Expand human and robotic space exploration and speed development of vehicles to would replace the space shuttle.

_ Launch a space-based climate change initiative to combat global warming.

_ Create a $50-billion strategic energy fund to research ways to boost energy efficiency and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

_ Comply with a legal requirement that the executive branch issue a national assessment on climate change every four years. She would also expand the assessment to reflect how U.S. regions and economic sectors are responding to the challenges posed by climate change.

_ Name an assistant to the president for science and technology, a position that was eliminated in the Bush White House.

_ Re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment.

(source: AP)

She also said that she would lift Bush’s ban on Embryonic Stem Cell research.

It will be interesting to see how the other candidates react to this.

I feel it is important to make science a political issue in some senses. When people support it, and are willing to vote to improve it, politicians will follow suit. Mostly. There is a risk, however, that when scientific issues become too heavily framed, people can lose sight of the science and argue over endless non-science arguments. There’s a risk that science can become too politicized. But there’s a huge potential benefit - science can get the attention it deserves. We also need scientists to speak out and let people know how they feel. We need more than lip-service and Orwellian language from our politicians, we need a plan for change when it comes to science policy in this country, and Hillary Clinton is so far, the only one that gets it.

Batfish at DailyKos also has a post up about it.

Spread this Inoculation: