U.S. Presidential Candidates Answer ScienceDebate 2016 Questions

Posted 13 September 2016 by Matt Young

Science Debate questions and answers here. I have not read the responses yet. From a press release we received this morning from Science Debate:

U.S. Presidential Candidates Answer ScienceDebate 2016 Questions WASHINGTON, D.C., September 13, 2016 --Three of the four major candidates for United States president have responded to America's Top 20 Presidential Science, Engineering, Technology, Health and Environmental Questions. The nonprofit advocacy group ScienceDebate.org has posted their responses online at http://sciencedebate.org/20answers. Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Jill Stein had all responded as of press time [6:30 a.m., EDT], and the group was awaiting responses from Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. (Individual answers can be jumped to by appending "#1" through "#20" to the link.) On August 10, a blue-ribbon coalition of fifty-six leading U.S. nonpartisan organizations, representing more than 10 million scientists and engineers, called on U.S. Presidential candidates to address the questions, and encouraged journalists and voters to press the candidates on them during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election season. "Taken collectively, these twenty issues have at least as profound an impact on voters' lives as those more frequently covered by journalists, including candidates' views on economic policy, foreign policy, and faith and values," said ScienceDebate.org chair Shawn Otto, organizer of the effort and author of The War on Science. A 2015 national poll commissioned by ScienceDebate.org and Research!America revealed that a large majority of Americans (87%) say it is important that candidates for President and Congress have a basic understanding of the science informing public policy issues. "Science is central to policies that protect public health, safety and the environment, from climate change to diet related diseases," said Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a consortium member. "Reporters as well as voters should use these statements on science to push the candidates for more details on how they intend on addressing these many societal challenges." The consortium crowd-sourced and refined hundreds of suggestions, then submitted "the 20 most important, most immediate questions" to the Presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein, "along with an invitation to the candidates to answer them in writing and to discuss them on television," said Otto. The questions and answers will be widely distributed to the science community, journalists, and the general public to help voters make well-informed decisions at the ballot box this November. In both 2008 and 2012, Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Republican candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney participated. This is important, says Otto, because "science is accelerating, and we are searching for a more robust way of incorporating it into our policy dialogue." "Ideally, the people seeking to govern a first-world country would have a basic understanding of everything from sustainable energy to environmental threats to evidence-based medicine," observed the Des Moines Register in a recent editorial. "They would talk about these things... Imagine if the public -- and debate moderators -- pressured presidential candidates to talk about the country's electrical grid or emerging disease threats instead of abortion and transgender bathrooms. Political discourse would be smarter. And the individuals who seek the highest office in the land might learn a few things, too."

32 Comments

DavidK · 13 September 2016

Trump on Regulations and Scientific Integrity:

"This is about balance. ... Science will inform our decisions on what regulations to keep, rescind or add. A vibrant, robust free market system will regulate the private sector."

"Science is science and facts are facts. My administration will ensure that there will be total transparency and accountability without political bias. The American people deserve this and I will make sure this is the culture of my administration."

This is an absolute joke. Republicans as a group reject science and facts, especially when they impact education, businesses, healthcare, energy, etc. and the negative GOP ideology. If regulations and facts lead to a degraded or hostile environment, so be it. Ideology "trumps" facts he declares.

Michael Fugate · 13 September 2016

Trump better put aside a bunch of money for the EPA Superfund, if he believes a "free" market will regulate the private sector. Why not a "free" market for human behavior? If corporations are individuals and they don't need regulations, then why do non-corporate individuals need laws? Shouldn't the "free" market of human relations lead to a "perfect" society?

eric · 13 September 2016

I have not read the responses yet.

Hilary's camp spends most of its time bloviating but eventually answers most questions. The responses are fairly typically democrat; everything will get money. Trump's camp thinks deregulation and the magic of the free market will solve everything...except when it comes to immigration. Evidently, the magic of the free market doesn't extend to 'freer' labor pools. He gets at least one of the questions laughably wrong - misinterpreting a question about internet freedom and access as a question about terrorists attacking the internet. Johnson's camp didn't respond. Stein's camp is refreshingly clear and direct (Dems, please take note for next time; many words /= good answer). And here, at least, she supported the validity of vaccination. *** Overall, I'm really glad Science Debate does this every year. Though I wish they'd include a few 'forced choice' questions (i.e. rank order your priorities), because their more standard open-ended questions just garner exactly what you'd expect - long drawn out versions of "science good! Everyone will get money for research and STEM. Pollution and disease baaaad, I will fight them."

DS · 13 September 2016

Trump's response to climate change is very telling. He didn't go so far as to say it is a hoax as he previously has, but he did say that we must fight diseases and increase food production, without any commitment whatsoever to addressing the causes of climate change. His response quite frankly ignores all of the scientific evidence, and this in a forum designed to test his knowledge of scientific issues. Epic fail Mr. Trump.

Henry J · 13 September 2016

Maybe somebody should fire the guy?

Duncan Cairncross · 14 September 2016

To my surprise the Donald's reply's were not too bad
I suspect that he had somebody reply for him - they were far too sensible to be genuine Donald

That is not to say that they were good - just not nearly as bad as I was expecting

eric · 14 September 2016

Duncan Cairncross said: To my surprise the Donald's reply's were not too bad I suspect that he had somebody reply for him

Oh of course. I doubt either Trump or Clinton answered directly. They probably personally agreed to the request then delegated answering the questions to someone on their staff. But that's not really important, because (a) their staff has a good understanding of the policy that candidate wants to promote and the messaging they want to give, and (b) the same thing will happen in the White House. Thus, I think the answers given are a somewhat reasonable prediction of how their administrations will prioritize different science subjects in office.

DS · 14 September 2016

There were twenty different questions for each candidate and not one question on evolution. I wonder why. Which candidate would be most likely to deny all of science and denounce evolution? Are they all on record on this topic already, or have they been wishy washy and mealy mouthed about it?? Which candidate would be most likely to promote evolution in public education? WHich candidate would be most likely to allow evolution to be left out of charter school curricula? Considering the strong correlation between climate denial and evolution denial, the answer seems pretty obvious.

DavidK · 14 September 2016

DS said: There were twenty different questions for each candidate and not one question on evolution. I wonder why. Which candidate would be most likely to deny all of science and denounce evolution? Are they all on record on this topic already, or have they been wishy washy and mealy mouthed about it?? Which candidate would be most likely to promote evolution in public education? WHich candidate would be most likely to allow evolution to be left out of charter school curricula? Considering the strong correlation between climate denial and evolution denial, the answer seems pretty obvious.

Well, I think we know where Trump likely stands given his efforts to enlist evangelicals. But as far as his running mate goes, Pence is way out in left field: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/08/mike-pence-wants-creationism-taught-in-public-schools/

DS · 14 September 2016

From the above link:

In 2002, Pence delivered a passionate speech on the floor of the House of Representatives arguing that evolution is âonly a theoryâ and that public schools should teach the theory of intelligent design as well as the theory of evolution. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/08/mike-pence-wants-creationism-taught-in-public-schools/#sthash.A1WLPNS9.dpuf

So evolution is "only a theory" and that's why we shouldn't teach it. But intelligent design is a theory and that's why we should teach it! Yea, right. News flash for you Elmo, intelligent design is no theory. And even if it were, according to you, that wouldn't be any reason to teach it. Nice running mate you got there Donald. You can't trump reality.

eric · 14 September 2016

DS said: There were twenty different questions for each candidate and not one question on evolution. I wonder why.

Well I think science education in general was only one question out of twenty. So my guess is they didn't ask about evolution because they had other policy questions they thought were more important. No devious pandering here, just the fact that 'science policy space' is big and 'creationism being taught in high school biology classes' is a tiny slice of it.

ashleyhr · 14 September 2016

http://sciencedebate.org/20answers
Trump on Biodiversity (or on his soapbox changing the subject):
"For too long, Presidents and the executive branch of our federal government have continued to expand their reach and impact. Today, we have agencies filled with unelected officials who have been writing rules and regulations that cater to special interests and that undermine the foundational notion of our government that should be responsive to the people. Our elected representatives have done little to uphold their oaths of office and have abrogated their responsibilities. When these circumstances occur, there is an imbalance that rewards special interests and punishes the people who should benefit the most from the protection of species and habitat in the United States...".

Some of his kids kill charismatic and sometimes endangered African wildlife for 'sport'. Presumably he does not disapprove of the slaughter:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trumps-sons-bloodlust-row-8475849

richard09 · 14 September 2016

Trump on biodiversity and endangered species manages to not mention that he plans to get rid of the EPA. That casts a different light on his bullshit answer.

Cogito Sum · 14 September 2016

ashleyhr said: http://sciencedebate.org/20answers Trump on Biodiversity (or on his soapbox changing the subject): "For too long, Presidents and the executive branch of our federal government have continued to expand their reach and impact. Today, we have agencies filled with unelected officials who have been writing rules and regulations that cater to special interests and that undermine the foundational notion of our government that should be responsive to the people. Our elected representatives have done little to uphold their oaths of office and have abrogated their responsibilities. When these circumstances occur, there is an imbalance that rewards special interests and punishes the people who should benefit the most from the protection of species and habitat in the United States...". Some of his kids kill charismatic and sometimes endangered African wildlife for 'sport'. Presumably he does not disapprove of the slaughter: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trumps-sons-bloodlust-row-8475849

Projection much by conservatives with respect to âexpand(ing) their reach and impactâ - it would seem Mr. Trump, and his response writer, have neglected to remember their own affiliation (via their party) with such historic skullduggery: see ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)... ALEC Exposed (http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed)

SLC · 15 September 2016

Don't be fooled by her response. Based on her history on the topic of vaccines, this is just pandering to the science supporters who come to this site, just as she panders to the science deniers who frequent certain left wing vaccine skeptic sites. On the subject of vaccines, it is fair to say, as David Gorski concludes in the attached link, that she is a panderer. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/08/01/jill-stein-and-left-wing-antivaccine-dog-whistles/

eric said:
I have not read the responses yet.
Hilary's camp spends most of its time bloviating but eventually answers most questions. The responses are fairly typically democrat; everything will get money. Trump's camp thinks deregulation and the magic of the free market will solve everything...except when it comes to immigration. Evidently, the magic of the free market doesn't extend to 'freer' labor pools. He gets at least one of the questions laughably wrong - misinterpreting a question about internet freedom and access as a question about terrorists attacking the internet. Johnson's camp didn't respond. Stein's camp is refreshingly clear and direct (Dems, please take note for next time; many words /= good answer). And here, at least, she supported the validity of vaccination. *** Overall, I'm really glad Science Debate does this every year. Though I wish they'd include a few 'forced choice' questions (i.e. rank order your priorities), because their more standard open-ended questions just garner exactly what you'd expect - long drawn out versions of "science good! Everyone will get money for research and STEM. Pollution and disease baaaad, I will fight them."

eric · 15 September 2016

ashleyhr said: Trump on Biodiversity (or on his soapbox changing the subject): "...Today, we have agencies filled with unelected officials who have been writing rules and regulations that cater to special interests and that undermine the foundational notion of our government that should be responsive to the people. I propose to eliminate the middleman and let the special interests decide what to do with the land directly, with no oversight."

There, fixed it for him

Ravi · 15 September 2016

I am very hopeful that Donald Trump will agree to a nationwide moratorium on the teaching of evolution. Studentss across the United States need to be given access to all of the information available, including that which detracts from Neo-Darwinism.

DS · 15 September 2016

I am very hopeful that Donald Trump will agree to a nationwide moratorium on the teaching of astronomy. Studentss across the United States need to be given access to all of the information available, including that which detracts from the sun centered solar system. And as a bonus, you could throw in some flat earth crap aw well.

phhht · 15 September 2016

Ravi said: I am very hopeful that Donald Trump will agree to a nationwide moratorium on the teaching of evolution. Studentss across the United States need to be given access to all of the information available, including that which detracts from Neo-Darwinism.

I am very hopeful that there will be a nationwide moratorium on the teaching of christianity. Studentss across the United States need to be given access to all the information available, including that which contradicts religious mythology.

Michael Fugate · 15 September 2016

Ravi, so you want epigenetic information to be discussed?

Matt Young · 15 September 2016

Please do not feed the Ravi troll.

Dave Luckett · 15 September 2016

Especially since Ravi is, I believe, Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr's hand up yet another sockpuppet.

Ravi · 16 September 2016

DS said: I am very hopeful that Donald Trump will agree to a nationwide moratorium on the teaching of astronomy. Studentss across the United States need to be given access to all of the information available, including that which detracts from the sun centered solar system. And as a bonus, you could throw in some flat earth crap aw well.

I have no problem with presenting students with information that claims to detract from the idea of a big bang singularity.

Ravi · 16 September 2016

Michael Fugate said: Ravi, so you want epigenetic information to be discussed?

I want students to be allowed to read "Evolution, still a theory in crisis" by Mike Denton.

Henry J · 16 September 2016

Has this person never heard of public libraries?

Or, come to think of it, the internet?

Cogito Sum · 16 September 2016

Any of the offerings of the vanity press of the creationist Discovery Institute perhaps best belongs on the Bathroom Wall where a more robust discussion of their "worth" may take place as a separate topic...

Certainly public schools' science classes are an inappropriate forum for such religious sponsored/oriented material.

Matt Young · 20 September 2016

The Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, has just posted his answers.

DS · 20 September 2016

Johnson response to climate change:

Unfortunately for policymakers - the very activities that appear to contribute to climate change also contribute to mankindâs health and prosperity, so we view with a skeptical eye any attempts to curtail economic activity. We believe that a motivated and informed market will demand efficiency and reduced greenhouse gases, mitigating at least some of mankindâs effects.

Sorry, wrong. All of human history shows that you cannot expect companies invested in short term profits to have any concern for long term consequences. If that was going to work, we would have stopped burning fossil fuels long ago. And activities that reduce greenhouse gases could contribute to our health and prosperity, if the government and corporations were willing to promote and invest in them. Oh well, at least he thinks climate change is real. That's a big step up from the hoaxer nut jobs.

eric · 20 September 2016

DS said: Johnson response to climate change: We believe that a motivated and informed market will demand efficiency and reduced greenhouse gases, mitigating at least some of mankindâs effects.

IOW: tragedy of the commons...what tragedy of the commons? Such a thing cannot happen...

DS · 20 September 2016

eric said:
DS said: Johnson response to climate change: We believe that a motivated and informed market will demand efficiency and reduced greenhouse gases, mitigating at least some of mankindâs effects.
IOW: tragedy of the commons...what tragedy of the commons? Such a thing cannot happen...

Just to be clear, Johnson said that, not me. I pointed out that history has proven him wrong, time and time again.

DavidK · 26 September 2016

Scientific American has put a grade on the responses from each of the candidates if you're interested:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/

DavidK · 26 September 2016

Scientific American has put a grade on the responses from each of the candidates:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/