U.S. Elects to Spend on Science by Sanyin Siang
Posted October 27, 2000 · Issue 89

Abstract

Recent polls show that American voters are more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who places a high priority on strengthening science and technology. The author examines the support of Al Gore and George W. Bush for science and technology.

Listening to this year's U.S. presidential campaign speeches, you soon hear references to medical research funding, the Human Genome Project, and other biotechnological issues. Science and technology have gained an unprecedented prominence in this year's electoral politics as they become increasingly intertwined with U.S. economic welfare. Al Gore and George W. Bush, as well as other presidential candidates, have expressed strong views on science and technological progress, and their words are not falling on deaf ears. A September-released Gallup poll showed that Americans weigh in on science and technology issues when it comes to voting for presidential and gubernatorial candidates.

Gallup Survey Results

The Bayer Facts of Science Education VI: Americans' Views on Science, Technology, Education and the Future was a poll conducted for the Bayer Corporation in collaboration with the National Science Foundation. The results showed a national pride in U.S. science and technology and indicate concern over the public educational system's adequacy in preparing students for the challenges that accompany the new technology.

In general, 70% of voters are more likely to vote for a candidate who places a high priority on strengthening science and technology. More than two-thirds support recent budget proposals to increase significantly federal spending for scientific research and development; three-quarters are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports federal funding of scientific research to stimulate the country's technological competitiveness.

Almost all Americans think this year's presidential candidates should be concerned about the issues of science, science literacy, and students' performance in science; and 90% feel that it is important for the candidates to address federal, state, and local efforts to improve science and math education for U.S. students.

"It is clear that Americans see a strong connection between good science, engineering, and math education and U.S. economic success," commented Rita Colwell, director of the NSF, in a press release. "And they support educational practices that foster the kind of critical thinking, problem-solving and, team-working skills that will serve today's students well in a future that will demand lifelong learning."

Furthermore, when asked to pinpoint the one problem that they hope science will solve in the next 25 years, more than 60% of the survey participants named health-related issues. Developing a cancer cure heads the list; it was mentioned by 30% of the participants. Disease prevention and cures are at 9%, AIDS and HIV at 6%, medical breakthroughs at 5%, and the Human Genome Project and DNA received mentions with 1%.

Hence, it is not surprising to find the candidates bolstering strong federal support for basic research, business innovation, and science education. Furthermore, in the biomedical arena, the candidates seem to compete over who is more dedicated to promoting biomedical research. The budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a focal point.

The NIH Budget and a Cure for Cancer

The NIH, with a current budget of $17.8 billion, is the largest single federal source of money for university-based research. In August, Al Gore pledged to double the medical research budget to $29.2 billion in the next three years. Most of the increased funding will go to the NIH's extramural community of researchers, which represents 81% of the NIH budget. Gore plans to double investment in cancer research to nearly $9 billion over the next five years.

A month later, George W. Bush launched an initiative to "lead a medical moon shot to reach far beyond what seems possible today and discover new cures for age-old afflictions." The plan earmarks a total of $67 billion in new NIH funds for the next decade. Under the plan, the NIH budget would hit $27.3 billion in 2003 and continue to grow until 2010.

The Gore campaign has viewed the Bush proposal as an attempt to mimic Gore's August lead and claims that the math in Bush's overall tax and budget proposal does not add up. "Governor Bush needs to answer serious questions about the trillion-dollar hole in his budget before he makes any more spending promises," commented the Gore/Lieberman national spokesman, Douglas Hattaway, after the announcement. Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has pointed to the Clinton administration's budget proposals from fiscal year 1993, saying they do not show a large commitment to NIH and that proposed budget increases for 1999 and 2000 were less than those advocated by the Republican-controlled Congress. Similar to Gore, Bush also called for a renewal of the war on cancer and earmarked a budget increase to $5.1 billion by fiscal year 2003 for the National Cancer Institute at NIH.

Research and Development Tax Credit

To continue the progress made by the pharmaceutical industries, Bush proposes to spend $24 billion over the next decade to permanently extend the research and development (R and D) tax credit. The credit aims to increase industry investment in science and technology and foster an environment in which entrepreneurs can flourish. According to Bush aides, of the 152 major global drugs developed between 1975 and 1994, 45% originated from the United States.

Likewise, Gore promises to make the R and D tax credit permanent. So small businesses can take better advantage of the credit, Gore plans to expand it so that it is partially refundable.

Social and Ethical Implications of the Human Genome Project

The completion of the blueprint of life, the Human Genome Project, has given genetics a high profile in campaign politics. In particular, candidates address the social and ethical implications associated with the use of the newly found knowledge. Gore endorses unencumbered access to gene sequence data. He believes that intellectual property protection for gene-based inventions plays a critical role in stimulating the development of important new health care products, but that gene patent standards should be toughened. Both Gore and Bush made statements advocating privacy protection of an individual's genetic information against potential discrimination in employment and in health insurance coverage.

Agriculture and Biotechnology

In the past year, the issue of genetically modified crops has been publicly highlighted. In 1999, 50% of the soybeans, 40% of the cotton, and about 33% of the corn produced in the United States had been genetically modified. Also in the past year, strong sentiment in Europe against genetically modified crops has led to bans on imports of U.S. meat from cattle fed growth hormones, and of new biotech crops. Both Gore and Bush recognize the potential benefits of genetically modified crops, as well as the need to balance these with careful assessment of any risks associated with genetic engineering. Bush believes in supporting projects that will generate new exportable goods. Through continued funding for agriculture research and education, coupled with the proposed permanent tax extension of the R and D tax credit, Bush hopes to "help speed development of the technologically advanced farm products."

Additionally, Bush has committed to forwarding free trade and tearing down barriers to U.S. agricultural products, especially agricultural export subsidies and tariffs. "I will fight to ensure that U.S. products are allowed entry into the European Union and that accepted scientific principles are applied in enacting regulations. American farmers are without rival in their ability to produce and compete, and the future prosperity of the U.S. farm sector depends in a large part on the expansion of global markets for U.S. products," stated Bush in a presidential forum in the October 13, 2000 issue of Science.

Consistent with his environmental and farmer-friendly platform, Gore sees the benefits of biotech products in improving crop yields, helping to avoid some diseases, and reducing the need for pesticides and fertilizers. Other noteworthy paybacks he sees are reducing world hunger and ensuring food security. Gore notes biotechnological developments in agriculture as potentially leading to better farm income, jobs, and economic growth in rural America.

Like Bush, Gore supports a strong science-based system of regulatory review of biotechnology-derived products to ensure that they do not threaten human health or the environment.

"Genetically modified crops can create new markets for our nation's farmers in areas like pharmaceuticals, energy, and raw materials for industrial chemicals," stated Gore in the same Science interview. "We need to maintain our science-based regulatory approach to capture the benefits and minimize the risks."

Strong support from both candidates ensures a place for science and technology in American politics. What remains to be seen is how that support plays out in the next four years.

Sanyin Siang works on a variety of issues at the intersection of science, ethics, and law at the Directorate for Science Policy Programs of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Tell us what you think.

Related HMS Beagle Articles:

• The Politics of Pure Science - a review of the book by Daniel S. Greenberg.
• Science for Diplomacy - Robert A. Frosch argues for the integration of scientific, technical, and health issues into U.S. foreign policy.

Archives