Last Thursday, the Chinese spacecraft Shenzhou VII rocketed into orbit carrying three taikonauts bound for China's first spacewalk, which was completed successfully on Saturday. What are the chances that the Chinese will beat the American expedition to the moon set for 2020? Rather likely, according to the Administrator of NASA, Michael D. Griffin.
Several weeks prior, the 27 kilometer, $8 billion Large Hadron Collider (LHC) came online on the French-Swiss border. When the LHC becomes fully operational next spring, it will be capable of accelerating particles to energies unseen in 14 billion years, unraveling mysteries from the early days of the universe.
The United States' contribution to this project? Five percent of the budget. The current popularity of physics among students? According to one study, it is the lowest it has been since the 1957 launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union. In a country where a majority of the population rejects the basic premises of evolutionary theory, where the purchasing power of the National Institutes of Health has declined by 13 percent since 2003 and where students fare only slightly better than the average on international math and science test scores, the above may not be so shocking.
America remains the world's technological and scientific leader, producing about 40 percent of research and development expenditures, 70 percent of all Nobel Prize winners and containing 75 percent of the top research universities. But how long can the United States maintain its competitive advantage?
As the 2008 election draws near, it is time for us to carefully consider what the next four years will look like for the United States in a science-dominated world. The last eight have seen a presidential administration that has, among other things, misrepresented and altered scientific reports for its own ends, slashed research funding, dismissed climate change, advocated for the teaching of creationism in schools and ignored the scientific community. The results of these policies have been, to put it lightly, highly unfavorable. Researchers have fled to friendlier environments, the threat of climate change remains unmitigated, science education in public schools is dismal and the list goes on. In the meantime, countries as diverse as Ireland and China have invested in developing technologically sophisticated workforces, have funded new and exciting ventures and have attracted many of the same leading researchers and students that once came to the United States. As we enter what some have called a golden age for science, the United States remains grossly unprepared.
When the electorate cannot understand the fundamentals of climate change, the differences between scientific fact and theory or the issues behind the autism-vaccine debate, we as a nation face grave problems. But why should these subjects matter to the average voter? Ignoring the possible catastrophic ramifications of global climate change, the remaining topics offer a fundamental insight into how science affects our daily lives. Take evolutionary theory, for example. When the SARS virus outbreak spread through China, scientists rapidly employed DNA microarrays and compared the composition of the SARS virus with that of known viruses. Within one day researchers had assigned the virus to a particular evolutionary family of viruses and characterized its common traits. A blood test to screen for the virus was then developed and work began in search of a vaccine.
Take the second example of the autism-vaccine debate. After the publication of the controversial Wakefield paper (1998), many wondered whether a link existed between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) and autism. Hundreds of families with autistic children rallied behind the idea that vaccines caused autism and hundreds more refused vaccines for their children. The Wakefield research, however, was largely discredited and serious ethical breaches were observed in the study. Wakefield may now be barred from practicing medicine in the United Kingdom if convicted of the charges brought against him. Unfortunately, the resulting frenzy ensured that many children were not vaccinated and measles outbreaks have now occurred in countries ranging from Britain to Israel. Despite 11 studies showing that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, many continue to ignore the dangers of stopping vaccinations.
We can clearly see that in one case, evolutionary theory helped to identify a potentially devastating disease, while in another, scientific misunderstanding endangered the lives of thousands of children. So, why isn't science viewed as a more important priority?
Efforts to inject science into the presidential debates have proven largely unsuccessful, despite attempts by the organization Science Debate 2008. The group has garnered the signatures of leading American scientific organizations and over 175 universities (including the support of Tufts University and President Bacow). Though neither Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) nor Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) accepted the offer to participate in a live debate, both presidential candidates submitted responses to 14 questions posed by the group.
The candidates' answers reflect a commitment to preserving the integrity of science during their respective administrations, increasing funding and addressing issues ranging from climate change to restoring America's technological superiority. Nevertheless, real differences exist between the two candidates. While Obama draws upon advisers in the academic arena for his science policy (e.g., President Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Harold Varmus), McCain's experts come from more business and technology-oriented fields (e.g., former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina). Obama supports embryonic stem cell research, while McCain's views are unclear. McCain argues for the prioritization of the space program, while Obama is more interested in addressing terrestrial concerns. The candidates offer both broad and specific proposals in their platforms that reflect their own unique perspectives on the issues. For those interested in finding out more about the candidates' views on a plethora of scientific topics, the Sept. 25 issue of Nature magazine and the Science Debate 2008 Web site both offer an in-depth overview of the candidates' platforms and views.
But no matter who is elected president on Nov. 4, I urge every single voter to carefully consider the ramifications of his/her presidential choice on the future of science in this country. Though financial affairs and international concerns will continue to dominate the news in the coming weeks, remember that while banks and administrations may rise and fall, the issues of climate change, energy independence, ethical concerns with biotechnology, the exploration of space, the strength of our workforce in the global technologically oriented economy and hundreds of other big and small issues will not go away. In fact, each day will bring new discoveries and challenges for the next president. The 21st century is upon us. The age of science is here.
Michael Shusterman is a junior majoring in biology.
