NATURE bush e kerry rispondono su scienza investimenti e security

["Ernesto Burgio" <erburg at libero.it>]

/Nature/ *431*, 238 - 243 (16 September 2004); doi:10.1038/431238a

* Head to head*

*The party conventions are over, and the candidates have been anointed.
Now it's a straight race to the tape between President George W. Bush
and his challenger John Kerry.
/Nature/ asked them where they stand on science.*

In their frantic search for votes, George W. Bush and John Kerry are
leaving no stone unturned. They've even been sparring over science, with
Kerry raising the issue of embryonic stem-cell research at the
Democrats' convention in July, and Bush accusing Kerry of flip-flopping
on the site of a nuclear waste dump in Nevada soon after.

Sections of the scientific community have pitched in, with Kerry's
campaign attracting vigorous support from a group backed by 48 Nobel
laureates. The fact that most of this activity is on the Kerry side says
a lot about recent political trends in the United States. This is a
deeply divided country, and scientists and the university campuses that
many of them inhabit have become distinctly unfriendly territory for the
Republicans.

But scientists pride themselves on objectively assessing evidence. So,
for the first time in /Nature/'s history, we have given the candidates
the chance to address researchers directly. From about 50 questions
posed by our editorial staff, we selected 15 and asked the campaigns to
respond in 1,500 words, distributed as they saw fit. Bush's answers were
some 30% over length, and have been edited; Kerry kept to the limit and
his responses are presented in full.
We hope that the result will give an inkling of what the candidates
stand for. In some areas, such as the broad balance of science funding,
there is not much to choose between them; in others, such as global
warming, their respective stances could hardly be further apart.
These stances reach beyond domestic US issues. As the Hungarian-born
financier George Soros observed two years ago: "In modern global
capitalism, only Americans vote, Brazilians do not." What he meant was
that when it comes to economic, military and other decisions, the US
administration's actions are likely to have as much impact on your
country as those of your own government.
That's why, this November, from the remotest province of China to the
bustling capitals of Europe, so many eyes will be on America's votes.
Let's hope they count them up right.

*1* Is there a danger that increased controls on travel by scientists
into the United States, introduced in response to homeland security
concerns, will isolate US science and endanger US scientific leadership?
If so, what can be done to keep US science open to the world?

*BUSH:* My administration values the contributions that foreign
scientists and students make to our nation's scientific enterprise,
while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will
continue to welcome international students and scientists while
implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system.
We have already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays
now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security
while speeding up the clearance process - about 1,000 backlogged
applications have already been cleared out.

*KERRY:* We can balance science and security. In the wake of 9/11,
America took important steps to improve security for visa applicants to
the United States. However, we can improve our visa system to process
visa applications for legitimate scientists and students more quickly
while still screening individuals who pose a genuine security risk. With
more resources and better procedures, we do not need to face a trade-off
between scientific exchange and national security.

*2* Recent months have seen various charges of political bias against
scientific panels that advise the US government at different levels.
What would you do to ensure that your administration receives genuinely
impartial scientific advice?

*BUSH:* My administration has a strong commitment to the highest
scientific standards in decision-making. On issues ranging from climate
change to nanotechnology, I have sought out the best scientific minds -
inside and outside the government - for policy input and advice,
especially the independent National Academies. My commitment to sound,
independent scientific advice is unwavering. And my senior science
adviser in the White House, John Marburger, happens to be a Democrat.

*KERRY:* My administration would never utilize biased advice as a
foundation for public policy. As president, I will serve on behalf of
the public interest. In order to best serve the public, effective
decisions must be made with the input of genuine impartial expert counsel.

*3* What is the long-term solution to the gradual dissemination of
knowledge about weapons of mass destruction - especially bioweapons?

*BUSH:* Stopping the gradual dissemination of knowledge is impractical
if not impossible. The key to stopping the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction is preventing those seeking these weapons from gaining
access to their most significant and technically challenging components.
The redirection of former weapons scientists to productive civilian
employment is a key priority.
My administration has launched the G8 Global Partnership - a $20-billion
initiative to support nonproliferation, disarmament, counterterrorism
and nuclear safety projects in the former Soviet Union. For nuclear
weapons, the first step is to prevent access to fissile materials. We
are making good progress in this area through efforts such as the Global
Threat Reduction Initiative and our material security efforts in Russia.


*KERRY:* It is not a problem we will be able to solve alone. It is going
to require American leadership that forges an international consensus on
how to deal with these weapons and the often dual-use technology that
underpins them. I will work closely with the scientific community to
develop responsible oversight for biomedical research to make sure that
deadly pathogens are only in the hands of those with legitimate research
needs. Together we will find ways to reduce the possibility that
scientific knowledge and capabilities will be misapplied to do harm.

*4* Do you support research into new nuclear-weapon designs in the
United States? If not, how do you see the future role of the three
nuclear-weapons labs?

*BUSH:* Our national laboratories are doing great work to deal with the
threats of the twenty-first century. These laboratories are also a
tremendous asset in our efforts to improve homeland security, are the
source of unparalleled technological progress, and are helping America
win the War on Terror.
The Nuclear Posture Review released by my administration in January 2002
noted that the nation's nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the
end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires
a flexible and responsive weapons-complex infrastructure. To that end,
my fiscal-year 2005 budget reflects an increase over 2004 in weapons
activities.

*KERRY:* I would end the pursuit of a new generation of nuclear weapons.
Our national laboratories play a critical role in maintaining our
existing stockpiles and assuring that our existing nuclear weapons are
safe, secure and reliable. They also play and should continue to have an
important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction
and in advancing science for our nation's security.

*5* Some physicists have questioned the capability of missile defence
systems being deployed in the United States. Would you increase or
decrease spending on missile defence, and would you subject claims made
on its behalf to independent scientific review?

*BUSH:* Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the
full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile
defences that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and
our friends and allies. Our policy is to develop and deploy, at the
earliest possible date, ballistic missile defences drawing on the best
technologies available.
Later this year, the first components of America's missile defence
system will become operational. This will fulfil a pledge I made to the
American people more than four years ago. We will develop and deploy the
technologies necessary to protect our people.

*KERRY:* I am not for rapid deployment of missile defence. We should not
waste money on deployment at this point. I favour additional research,
development and testing. As to the issue of independent scientific
review, we have to be careful because of the classified nature of much
of the work in question. At the very minimum, we must work hard to
restore the credibility of the internal review process. The truth is the
Bush administration has shredded its own credibility on this,
particularly in its rush to deploy missile defence. We need to restore
the credibility of our own review process and we need to subject systems
to realistic, operational testing to make sure that they really work.

*6* Should the United States participate fully in the construction of
ITER, the proposed fusion research facility, and what steps would you
take to help such international scientific projects to succeed?

*BUSH:* I committed the United States to join ITER early in 2003. ITER
is a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear
fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen. Along with several other
nations, the United States is playing a critical role in launching ITER.
In fact, ITER is the Department of Energy's top facilities priority.

*KERRY:* My energy plan will tap America's initiative and ingenuity to
strengthen our national security, grow our economy and protect our
environment. With regard to ITER, John Edwards and I support a
strategically balanced United States fusion programme that includes
participation in ITER to supplement a strong domestic fusion science and
technology portfolio. As president, my first priority internationally on
this and other energy issues will be to engage other nations to find
areas of cooperation and common ground.

*7* Do you think the United States should send astronauts to the Moon or
Mars in the next 10 to 15 years? If so, why send humans instead of
robots? If not, what is the purpose of the space shuttle and space station?

*BUSH:* In January, I announced my vision for the future of America's
space exploration programme. As we complete our work on the
International Space Station, we are developing a new manned exploration
vehicle to explore beyond our orbit. This vehicle will be tested by 2008
and will conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014.
America will return to the Moon as early as 2015 and no later than 2020,
and use it as a foundation for human missions beyond the Moon. We will
begin with robotic missions, and manned missions will follow. An
extended human presence on the Moon could reduce the costs of further
exploration.

*KERRY:* Today, thanks to decades of public investment in space
exploration activities, a rotating international team of astronauts is
living and working in space on the International Space Station, a dozen
Americans have walked on the Moon, we have rovers exploring the surface
of Mars and an armada of spacecraft continues to explore our Solar
System. NASA is an invaluable asset to the American people and must
receive adequate resources to continue its important mission of exploration.
However, there is little to be gained from a space initiative that
throws out lofty goals, but fails to support those goals with realistic
funding. John Edwards and I are committed to increasing funding for NASA
and space exploration because it not only makes critical contributions
to our economy, it also expands our understanding of the world we live in.

*8* Some researchers have expressed concern over what they see as a
growing disparity between funding for biomedical research and other
fields, including the physical and environmental sciences. Do you agree
that this a problem and, if so, what would you do about it?

*BUSH:* My administration is committed to funding basic research and has
listened to concerns from the scientific community and lawmakers to
ensure that there is a federal priority on funding for physical sciences
as well as life sciences. My budgets have sent a strong signal that we
are addressing the concerns.

*KERRY:* John Edwards and I would increase federal funding at both the
National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
To ensure we remain strong in the sciences and engineering, I would
specifically increase NSF funding for the physical and environmental
sciences, and double the NSF graduate scholarships for mathematics and
science.
We must not short-change our national investment in future medical and
technological breakthroughs. It will be scientific discoveries that will
drive our future economy - just as the discoveries of electricity, the
combustion engine and the Internet drove our economy in the past.

*9* Many environmental problems can be attributed to high levels of
consumption in developed nations such as the United States. Can science
and technology allow everyone on the planet to reach these levels of
consumption? Or do Americans need to change their lifestyles and consume
less?

*BUSH:* America in a very real sense has changed, not by consuming less,
but by consuming and producing smarter. We have proven that economic
growth makes possible the environmental progress our country has
achieved and will continue to achieve in the future.
Under my leadership, America has entered productive international
partnerships to assist developing countries in building more modern
energy systems. Given the enormous gains of the past century, I do not
and would not underestimate the enormous potential of science and
technology to continue to make possible improved living standards for
people all over the world.

*KERRY:* John Edwards and I believe that we can protect our environment
while strengthening our economy. Time and time again, America has met
environmental challenges through ingenuity and technological innovation.
But it takes strong leadership to put the interests of protecting public
health and the environment ahead of the interests of polluters, and as
president I will reverse the four years of environmental neglect by the
Bush administration. I have been a leader in the fight to strengthen our
economy and protect our environment, fighting to clean up toxic waste
sites and to keep our air and water clean.

*10* Does the Endangered Species Act need to be amended in order to
operate more effectively? If so, how would you amend it?

*BUSH:* We need to modernize the act so that it provides the greatest
benefits to those species most in need. For example, productive reforms
could include habitat conservation plans, conservation banking,
voluntary agreements with landowners, and partnerships with states,
tribes and nongovernmental organizations. These programmes could provide
far greater conservation benefits while avoiding unnecessary regulatory,
economic and social burdens.

*KERRY:* John Edwards and I support protecting wildlife and the
important goals of the Endangered Species Act. We will implement the act
in a cooperative manner that extends the benefits of wildlife and
habitat protection to public and private lands. With adequate funding
and a cooperative approach that works for both wildlife and property
owners, we will continue America's strong legacy of protecting wildlife.

*11* Most Americans accept transgenic crops as safe to eat (??), transgenic
salmon are being developed for sale as food, and genetically modified
fish that glow in the dark are being sold in pet shops. At what point
does genetic modification of plants and animals become problematic to you?

*BUSH:* Biotechnology plays an extremely important role in reducing
environmental impacts of farming and meeting the world's increasing
demand for food. But I believe it is important that our regulatory
framework keeps pace with science. The agriculture department's Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service has begun developing a wide-ranging
environmental impact statement to assess the effectiveness of
biotechnology regulations. This will help the federal government better
understand risks and benefits.

*KERRY:* John Edwards and I will work towards the goal of reducing the
ecological footprint of agriculture and ensuring adequate and safe food
and sustainability. We will redouble government efforts to make sure
biotechnology is safe for human consumption and safe for the
environment. We will give government agencies the power they need to
effectively regulate genetically modified food products, both before and
after market. And we will work with the international community to
effectively address its concerns and improve trade relations.

*12* Are greenhouse gases generated by the burning of fossil fuels the
main cause of global climate change? Is this an important problem for
the United States and, if so, what would your administration do to limit
emissions of greenhouse gases at home and abroad?

*BUSH:* Global climate change is a serious long-term issue. In 2001, I
asked the National Academy of Sciences to provide the most up-to-date
information about the science of climate change. It found that
considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural
fluctuations on climate and the future impacts climate change will have
on our natural environment.
My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive
climate-change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of
transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and
mitigate the growth of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States and
in partnership with other nations.
I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus
the federal government's climate research programmes. The National
Academy endorsed the CCSP, noting that it "articulates a guiding vision,
is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope". I also committed the
nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse-gas intensity by 18%
over the next ten years.

*KERRY:* The scientific evidence is clear that global warming is already
happening and rising levels of global warming pollution are making the
problem worse. For years in the Senate, I have worked with our allies to
fight for a balanced global warming treaty. President Bush rejected the
Kyoto Protocol, stubbornly walking away from the negotiating table
altogether. John Edwards and I will take the United States back to the
international negotiating table while working at home to take concrete
steps to reduce pollution, setting concrete limits to halt and reverse
the growth in global warming pollution and tapping the ingenuity of
American industry.

*13* The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) constantly has to balance
the desire for rapid approval of new drugs against the need to ensure
their safety. Is the current system getting this balance right? If not,
how does it need to change?

*BUSH:* Today, the FDA sets the world's gold standard for speeding new
therapies to patients and ensuring the safety of the drug supply. In
2003, the FDA approved 466 new and generic drugs and biological
products, while decreasing the time it took to review and approve most
applications. In addition to evaluating new drugs for safety and
efficacy, the FDA is now directing monitoring efforts to the 10,000
drugs that are already on the market.

*KERRY:* As president, I will ensure that the FDA has the resources it
needs to approve drugs in a safe and timely manner. In the US Senate, I
sponsored and supported legislation that requires drug manufacturers to
pay fees to the FDA and allows the agency to hire more reviewers and
significantly accelerate drug reviews and approvals. Under the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act, new drugs are being approved rapidly by
the FDA - and I believe that more should be done to assure the safety of
those drugs once they are marketed.
The biggest threat to our success in expanding patient access to medical
breakthroughs is the Bush administration's ideological approach to
scientific decision-making. When it comes to the safety of our medicines
and food supply, the public health is taking second place to special
interests and ideological agendas.
John Edwards and I support a return to sound science at the FDA and
throughout the federal government.

*14* Is mad cow disease, and its possible transmission to people, a
significant potential public health threat in the United States? If so,
what steps would you take to ensure its containment?

*BUSH:* My administration is taking aggressive actions to protect
American consumers against so-called 'mad cow' disease (BSE). Last
December, after the discovery of BSE in one cow in Washington state, the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) took steps to further assure the safety
of our beef, including banning from the human food chain so-called
'downer cattle' and prohibiting specified risk material from animals
over 30 months in age. I also called on an international review team to
assess the BSE situation and at its recommendation USDA launched an
expanded surveillance programme of high-risk cattle populations.

*KERRY:* Reports of the Bush USDA's mishandling of mad cow disease have
underscored the need to protect American consumers. John Edwards and I
will improve our food safety and inspection process, including not only
the meat-packing side but also more coverage to ensure that the 1997
feed ban on ground bone-meal is not being violated. We will increase the
testing and inspections overall and enhance the BSE surveillance
programme so that all suspect animals are analysed. And we will
implement an aggressive timeline for establishing a national tracking
system that would make diseased livestock and meat easier to track and
contain.

*15* Members of the House and the Senate have each asked the president
to revisit the policy on embryonic stem-cell research that was announced
on 9 August 2001. If elected, would you change this policy and, if so, how?

*BUSH:* I am committed to pursuing stem-cell research without crossing a
fundamental moral line, and I am the first president to provide federal
funding for human embryonic stem-cell research. However, stem-cell
research is in a very early stage and while it may hold great promise we
should not overstate the state of the science, or politicize these
issues, because it gives false hope to individuals and families
suffering through terrible illnesses.
Last year, the federal government invested $25 million in embryonic
stem-cell research and nearly $191 million in adult stem-cell research.
And these effort are matched with millions more dollars spent in the
private sector. My administration is also creating a national embryonic
stem-cell bank. These efforts are providing a boost to research in a very
promising new  field, while not providing taxpayer funding that would sanction
or encourage further destruction of human embryos. My policy makes it
possible for federally funded researchers to explore the potential of
embryonic stem cells, while respecting the ethical and moral
implications associated with this research.

*KERRY:* Today, millions of children and adults suffer from incurable
diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease,
cancer and spinal-cord injuries. John Edwards and I believe that we must
lift the barriers that stand in the way of science and push the
boundaries of medical exploration so researchers can find the cures that
may exist. I will lift the ideologically driven restrictions on
stem-cell research created by the Bush administration by overturning the
ban on federal funding of research on new stem-cell lines, all while
ensuring rigorous ethical oversight.

*COLIN MACILWAIN*
/news editor/