Obama, Clinton or Edwards? McCain, Huckabee or Romney?

What are they saying on the stump, and how would they govern? This special report tries to answer those questions by examining the leading contenders among the Democrats and the Republicans, in alphabetical order, based on recent polls identifying those with a plausible shot at their respective nominations. (We’ve also provided basic information on the rest of the field.) Although none of the campaigns afforded us direct access to the candidates themselves—a telling indicator of the importance of science in the campaign, perhaps—we’ve talked to some of their advisers, as well as to colleagues, friends and foes alike, who are familiar with their careers.

This series, put together by the AAAS journal Science, is worth a serious read.

Among the leading democrats a few things are held in common: increased funding for research in general, with a focus on environmental technologies and less interference of scientists by political appointees. Any would be vastly better than Bush and preferable to anyone in the Republican field as far as science policy.

For Hillary:

However, supporting good research isn’t just about money, says physicist David Moncton, director of the Nuclear Reactor Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former administrator at two national laboratories. Just as important as any budget, says Moncton, who is not advising the campaign, are “competent individuals managing [science policy].” And Moncton thinks “that might be more likely to happen with a Hillary Clinton [presidency].

Against Edwards:

In a 1985 case, for example, Edwards addressed the jury in the voice of a brain-damaged child, describing from within the womb how she waited for a doctor to perform a cesarean section as a fetal heart monitor signaled her distress. The doctor was accused of waiting too long; the jury awarded $6.5 million. Many such suits were “fueled by bad science,” says neurologist Karin Nelson of NIH, who concedes she has not reviewed the specific cases that Edwards handled. She says that the same type of cerebral palsy litigation has now spread to Europe—to the detriment of children’s health, she believes. Nelson sat on a panel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that in 2003 found that most cases of cerebral palsy are not caused at birth.

And now Obama, who has an intriguing mixture.
The bad:

Last year, for example, Obama introduced a bill to subsidize the conversion of coal to liquid fuel, arguing that it would make the United States less dependent on foreign oil. But environmentalists saw it as a sop to the multi-billion-dollar coal industry in his home state. Obama then backtracked, saying he would support liquefying coal only if the net carbon dioxide emissions from producing and burning the fuel were 20% lower than levels generated by petroleum-based fuels.

Observers say the awkward shuffle reflects Obama’s relative inexperience in national politics. “It was naïve of him to think that he could side with the coal industry to please voters in his home state and not land in a frying pan on the national stage,” says Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit. Nonetheless, O’Donnell says, the senator’s green credentials are still pretty solid.

and the good:

Eric Whitaker, a research administrator at the University of Chicago and former director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, points to a 2004 proposal before the state legislature to offer free flu shots to everyone without health insurance during a shortage of the vaccine. Obama, then chair of the Health and Human Services Committee in the state senate, pressed Whitaker and others on their advice that the shots be limited to high-risk groups. “He pushes you to defend your data,” says Whitaker. In the end, Obama was convinced by their argument that vaccinating everybody would be economically unwise and bucked the majority in voting against the proposal.

Now for my opinion. If we consider science as not just a series of findings but rather as a process, Obama was the most scientific of the three. He demonstrated a willingness in two cases to go against the obvious and intuitive choice, to listen to the evidence, to challenge findings, to come to a different conclusion and to take an empirically supported but politically difficult position.

After eight years of Bush, more than anything I want a president who is willing to consider the evidence—all of the evidence—in an honest manner, who will take politically sticky positions based upon the evidence and who remains willing to change his or her mind as the evidence changes. Senator Clinton will likely be such a president. Obama has been such a Senator.

(The Republican candidates after the jump…)

Far more diversity exists among the Republican candidates. (Having a president who disbelieves evolution is a bit like having an airline pilot who disbelieves the world is round.)

McCain, expectedly, remains the sanest of the choices in a pretty scary field.

John McCain doesn't have any scientific training or expertise. But he trusts the experts. They've told him that global warming is the most urgent issue facing the world, and that makes climate change one of the three issues--along with immigration and the Iraq war--that he's emphasizing in his presidential campaign...

And McCain has waffled on the teaching of evolution. In 2005, he told the Arizona Daily Star that "there's nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought [on] … how the world was created." But the next year, he opined that creationism should "probably not" be taught in science classes.

Romney is, expectedly, a muddled mess. According to some, he remains the best choice from a scientific point-of-view among the republicans:

Last month, as Mitt Romney campaigned in Iowa, he laced his stump speeches with references to his opposition to embryonic stem (ES) cell research and abortion and his doubts about the role of humans in global warming. All those positions, plus a declaration that his Mormon faith would not dictate any decisions he might make as president, were aimed at wooing conservative Christian voters in the state.

That focus is a far cry from 5 years ago, when the 60-year-old businessman campaigned successfully to become governor of the high-tech state of Massachusetts...

Even so, one of the strongest advocates for science in Congress, Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), calls Romney "the best choice for any scientist or engineer." The former physicist and longtime member of the House Science Committee praises the candidate as bright and unburdened by ideology, noting that "he appreciates the benefits of science." Ehlers, who knew Romney's late father, a former governor of Michigan, says that he is heading up a science advisory committee for the candidate.

Huckabee, in many ways, is an intriguing mixture:

The first time Mike Huckabee was asked in a national candidates' debate if he believed in evolution, he raised his hand to say that he didn't accept the theory. The second time, Huckabee initially ducked the question and instead replied, "I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an 8th grade science book."

Scientists in Arkansas who know Huckabee from his decade as governor say the response is consistent with his approach to many social issues: Take a strong stance but don't impose your views on others. The former president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention holds many staunchly conservative positions, including support for displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools and opposition to the use of embryonic stem cells for research. But when it comes time to act, Huckabee has often veered toward the center of the political road....

"He would certainly be a friend" of the National Institutes of Health as president, says G. Richard Smith, who helped with the referendum and now directs the psychiatric research institute at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. On the campaign trail, Huckabee has talked about funding disease-prevention efforts along the lines of the indoor smoking ban he signed into law while governor.

Please let a Democrat win.