How Bush & Kerry Stand On Science Issues...In Their Own Words

[NATO AIR]

this is interesting, especially for those interested in science (they each answered 15 in-depth questions). In particular, it would be intriguing for me to see if either of them really puts a true emphasis on science & R&D in this country.

http://www.nature.com/news/specials/uselection/index.html

 

[NATO AIR]

though i have to add it appears there is a bent towards kerry on the line of questioning.. it is still worth seeing bush's responses as well as kerry's.

 

[onedomino]

this is interesting, especially for those interested in science (they each answered 15 in-depth questions). In particular, it would be intriguing for me to see if either of them really puts a true emphasis on science & R&D in this country.

http://www.nature.com/news/specials/uselection/index.html

NATO, thank you for the link. It was quite interesting. Of course "Nature" is a British magazine and likely to prefer Kerry.

This is who I think had the best answer on each question:

Controls on entry of foreign scientists into the US: not much difference in the answers.

Obtaining unbiased scientific analysis and advice: Bush.

Dissemination of WMD knowledge: Bush.

New nuclear weapons research: Bush.

Development of missile defense systems: Bush.

ITER international fusion energy facility: not much difference; Kerry had slightly better answer.

Space exploration: Bush.

Funding for Biomedical research, physical and life sciences: Kerry's answer was quite a bit better.

Environmental problems due to high US consumption: slight edge to Bush's answer.

Endangered species: Bush.

Genetically modified plants and animals: not much difference in the answers.

Global warming: Bush.

FDA new drug introduction speed v. safety: Bush.

Combating mad cow disease: similar answers; Kerry's slightly better.

Stem cell research: Kerry.

I think Bush answered 9 questions best, Kerry 4, with 2 no difference. Due to the question format, most answers were general and needed more substance. All of the above requires tons of money and no hard answers were given about funding. For example, Bush had the best vision for space exploration; especially for an American return to the moon and human exploration of Mars. But Kerry's point that Bush has not proposed a realistic strategy for obtaining the required funds is accurate. Going to Mars will be worth it for many reasons, but Bush needs to be specific about where the hundreds of billions in necessary funding will come from.

Kerry’s answer on missile defense will help to make North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs more threatening. I am sure both countries were pleased with Kerry’s answer on this question.

 

[NATO AIR]

on the majority of the issues, i know rhetoric and a bit of the facts, but not enough to have a complex understanding... so i learned a good bit from reading their Q&A's and researching a few of the issues further. i think that sadly, science and innovation are no longer on the forefront of American policy (haven't been since the kennedy/eisenhower years)

 

[dilloduck]

I think the private sector has done well in this area in spite of governmental policy and much has been done in secret in conjunction with Israel.

 

[Zhukov]

1.) This is a silly question. The internet provides more freedom of exchange of information than ever before. Even if we closed our physical borders to everyone for ever, this would still be the case.

2.) Bush, cha-ching.

3.) Bush, more realistic and substanitive response

4.) Bush, Kerry got the 'WRONG' buzzer third word in

5.) Bush

6.) Bush, but I'd like to see Bush's response to Kerry's response

7.) Bush, he might be all talk but Kerry didn't even answer the question

8.) Kerry

9.) Another silly question, can everyone live like Americans or should Americans consume less? Can everyone have pizza for dinner or should I have a hamburger? Incidentally, need Kerry start every answer, "John Edwards and I"? Are they going to share the office?

10.) Bush, Kerry: Extends the benefits to PRIVATE lands? WRONG.

11.) I didn't like either response, but I liked Kerry's least.

12.) Again, I didn't like either response, but Kerry's least.

13.) Bush, Kerry didn't really answer the question, though he certainly implied a lot.

14.) Bush, Kerry: Bush's mishandling of BSE? Yeah one case, how horrible.

15.) Bush



I really expected Kerry to do better.

Nice link NATO.

 

[Zhukov]

Going to Mars will be worth it for many reasons, but Bush needs to be specific about where the hundreds of billions in necessary funding will come from.

I would prefer more funding for a NASA mission to Mars but the President's plan provides for an increase in NASA spending over time, and most importantly provides the one thing NASA has been lacking for over thirty years: a goal.

Once all the funds that NASA already receives are focused on a single aim, coupled with the additional funding proposed by the President over the next several years, there should be enough money to land a man on Mars.

Key Points on the President's FY 2005 Budget

The funding added for exploration will total $12 billion over the next five years. Most of this added funding for new exploration will come from reallocation of $11 billion that is currently within the five-year total NASA budget of $86 billion.

In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget, the President will request an additional $1 billion to NASA's existing five-year plan, or an average of $200 million per year.

From 1992 to 2000, NASA's budget decreased by a total of 5 percent. Since the year 2000, NASA's budget has increased by approximately 3 percent per year.

From the current 2004 level of $15.4 billion, the President's proposal will increase NASA's budget by an average of 5 percent per year over the next three years, and at approximately 1 percent or less per year for the two years after those.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-1.html

 

[NATO AIR]

I would prefer more funding for a NASA mission to Mars but the President's plan provides for an increase in NASA spending over time, and most importantly provides the one thing NASA has been lacking for over thirty years: a goal. QUOTE]

that is a damn good point. that should bring about a progression in NASA.