Quantumaniac

2012 Election: Which Candidate Would be the Best for Science? 

While I do not wholeheartedly endorse one particular party, the fact remains - the only people who have any in hell of winning the 2012 Presidential election are those receiving the nominations of the two major parties. With yesterday’s news that Herman Cain has officially ‘suspended’ his campaign, only a few major contenders for the Republican nomination remain. However, despite issues such as the economy and foreign policy, let’s talk about what really matters - science.

Throughout extensive interviews and debates, nearly all of the major candidates have stated their opinions on modern science, so it’s fairly easy to assume to what extent they would support the scientific world if elected. To keep it simple, I’ll break it down by candidate: 

Democratic Party 

Barack Obama: 

Despite what you think of his economic policies, his ‘Obamacare,’ his foreign policy, etc. - you cannot deny that Barack Obama has been an avid and successful supporter of science. For example, under the Bush Administration, states such as California argued that the automobile emissions and fuel efficiency limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency were too lenient - and asked to set their own in order to be more strict. The Bush Administration shot down this consideration, but Obama sent the offer to the EPA days after entering office. In order to keep American globally competitive, President Obama has frequently and consistently urged Congress to raise funding for scientific education and research. Under his administration, the James Webb Space Telescope received its full necessary funding, and it still on schedule for a 2018 launch. (It’s awesome.) 

Republican Party

Mitt Romney

Let’s be realistic here guys - although the popularity surges of many of the major Republican candidates are exciting for a week or two, the only consistently popular candidate on their side is Mitt Romney, and if the party wants any chance of defeating President Obama, then Romney will be their man. While personally, I still don’t believe that the party has any real chance (at the moment) of unseating President Obama, Romney is clearly their best shot. 

In the past, Mitt Romney was clearly in support of science. As the Governor of Massachusetts, he endorsed that climate change is a major concern. However, now that he has a shot at the Republican nomination he has pulled back a bit. A few months ago, Romney said that although he thinks the world is getting hotter, but “I don’t know that” and “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.” 

Rick Perry

Being the Governor of Texas, Perry is (almost) doomed to be anti-science. With the glaring exception of Dr. Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory, Texas is not famed for its strong support of science. Nothing against the state or its wonderful people, it’s just the way it is. A few months ago, Perry made headlines when he claimed that evolution was “just a theory” that has “got some gaps in it.” Really? That comes as news to me Mr. Perry, along with the world’s top evolutionary scientists. Additionally, during a talk about global warming, Perry was quoted as saying “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

Not only is this statement offensive to scientists across the globe, but it is also complete false - according to the National Academy of Science, somewhere between 97-98% of environmental scientists are at a consensus about the dangers of Global Warming. 

Michelle Bachmann

Although she has absolutely no chance of winning, it’s fun to pick on Michelle Bachmann to remind one’s self of how delightfully insane she is. She clearly has an extensive view of scientific fact: “Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”  It’s safe to say that we can move on. 

Jon Huntsman 

Unfortunately, Jon Huntsman will not be receiving the Republican Party’s nomination, despite the fact that he is arguably the most sensible candidate for the party. He simply lacks enough support. However, he is the only major Republican candidate to openly endorse scientific fact and achievement - “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” He also received quite a bit of notoriety when he said that the Republicans were turning into “the anti-science party.” With this courage not often seen from Republican candidates, Jon Huntsman would be the best Republican candidate for the scientific community. Better luck in 2016 buddy. 

*Do not think that these views below are my only beliefs about the candidates, and shedding them in a negative light on this topic in any way downplays their candidacy as a whole - it’s only a post about their opinions and likeliness to support science.