Today we’re talking politics. I know what you’re thinking: a touchy subject at best, and a flaming meteorite about to destroy the Earth at worst. But on Tuesday, November 8th, those eligible will be called to perform their civic responsibility in the United States and cast their vote to elect the future leaders of this country. I believe that you and I, as highly educated individuals of science, have a duty to vote for those who will lead our country with the pursuit of knowledge as well as educate those around us so that they may make the wisest d
ecision for our future. As astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson once pointed out, a majority of those who represent us (congressmen and senators) hold degrees in law. How can these people effectively represent the scientific community? Outside of going into science policy as a career or actually running for office yourself, our best option to make our voices heard as scientists is to vote and be politically active, constantly communicating to the public and our policymakers of how science shapes our future and makes our society better.
A major decision we will have to make on November 8th is who to elect for the President of the United States. In this country we have a two-party system of Democrat versus Republican candidates. There are third-party candidates who are garnering interest here and there, but the majority of the electorate will vote for one of two candidates. Keep in mind that the President can do very little in the United States without the support of our local representatives, so be sure to research into who is on your local ballot as well! I’m not here to tell you who to vote for, but I will attempt to inform you of what we know about each candidate’s stance on issues of scientific interest based on their own words. Three main issues in the public eye during this election which fall in the realm of science seem to be climate change, research funding, and vaccines.
The Democratic nominee this election cycle is former New York senator, former First Lady of the United States, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She obtained her Doctor of Law degree from Yale Law School in 1973 and has been in public service ever since. Firstly, Hillary Clinton believes climate change is real, contributed to by humans, and has proposed several ways she would like to increase green energy usage and decrease our reliance on less eco-friendly sources of energy. Many, many scientists and organizations agree that there’s more than a 90% probability that humans have contributed to the warming of our planet. Clinton’s plans would see a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 by “up to 30 percent”. In addition to her support of science on climate change, she also wants to fund both NASA and the NIH. This point in particular is of interest to us as scientists. Not only does the NIH participate directly in research, they of course fund extramural academic researchers who make our education possible. Additionally, these academic researchers often take their research successes and create their own businesses for their newly developed technologies which, in turn, boosts our job prospects and helps the economy! According to her website, Hillary wants to, “Make sure that funding is reliable and consistent so researchers can work steadily toward effective treatment [of Alzheimer’s],” and in the past has backed federally funded stem cell research. Hillary also advocates for the efficacy of vaccines and that they should be given to our children to keep them safe and diseases at bay. These promises sound very positive for the future of clean energy, research funding, and vaccines, but once a president is in office there is no way to know which issues they will need to tackle first. At the very least, it seems that this candidate is thinking about the issues, is willing to listen to scientific advisors, and considers research an important part of advancing our economy and society.
The Republican nominee for the United States presidential election this cycle is businessman Donald Trump, who received a bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. Unfortunately, the nature of Trump’s campaign isn’t such that it doles out its plans regarding science issues in a black-and-white way on his website. Let’s start with climate change. Despite his denial in the first Presidential debate, Trump has repeatedly stated that human-caused climate change is a hoax, possibly started by the Chinese as a money-making plot. Agree or not, he clearly has a stance on this issue. He does, however, believe we should reduce pollution and decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, not because of global climate change, but because we deserve to breathe clean air. Next up is research funding. Trump has not issued a formal stance on this issue on his website but he has said, "...we must make the commitment to invest in science, engineering, healthcare and other areas that will make the lives of Americans better, safer and more prosperous," and that he would support a strong space program. He has not mentioned continued funding for the NIH or NSF in particular, but believes, “Our efforts to support research and public health initiatives will have to be balanced with other demands for scarce resources.” He has also said, “I hear so much about the NIH and it’s terrible.” Perhaps this means he is willing to restructure the NIH or other research organizations and cut some funding in order to spend on other programs he deems a higher priority, but there is no way to tell on this issue what a Trump presidency will bring for the NIH and NSF. Vaccines are, again, not a cut-and-dry topic for Trump. His stance seems to indicate that he does suspect that vaccines, while effective at their intended purpose, could cause autism because of the time-scale on which they are administered. Science disagrees with Trump on this one, as vaccines undergo rigorous testing for safety and efficacy, and studies that previously hinted at links between vaccines and autism have been thoroughly debunked and retracted.
Historically we, the ‘millennials’, are the least likely age group to get out and vote, but this country is quickly coming into the care of our young hands; we need to take responsibility for the future of biomedical science research and science literacy in the United States. I am not the most overtly patriotic individual, but I do feel lucky that I was born and raised in a place where we have a choice of who governs us. Although I am aware that our system of government has its flaws (hey, no one is perfect!), so far it has allowed us as a society to advance quite well for just a 200-year-young country. So, here I am, asking you, my fellow graduate students and postdocs of iJOBS, to go vote on November 8th. It is time we make knowledge and years of education the foundation of our votes and our government. We’re scientists; we vote with our intellect, our curiosity, and our thirst for knowledge for the betterment of the United States!
This is just a quick snapshot of these two candidates. You can read up on the candidates’ stances (including third party candidates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson) on other issues of scientific importance here. To get a head start on your big decision, ISideWith.com has an easy quiz on whose policies you agree the most with.