Obama or Romney: who's the science guy?

Obama or Romney: who's the science guy?

My mother died of breast cancer when I was six. In the fifty years since her death, the federal government, working in partnership with organizations like the Lasker Foundation, has supported research that helped countless women recover fully. 

When I was six, I knew the only solar system revolved around our own sun.  Now astronomers discover new planets around distant suns almost daily, thanks to the Kepler mission funded by the federal government. According to Michael Turner, a distinguished cosmologist, these kinds of discoveries will likely lead to evidence for the existence of civilizations on other stars within fifty years. 

I have spent my career as a psychologist of innovation studying the thinking and collaborations that have lead to the transformative advances in science and technology. Small grants from the National Science Foundation allowed me to work with distinguished colleagues from multiple disciplines here at the University of Virginia and across our country to study the invention and development of new technologies and develop case studies to inspire our students. I am particularly proud of the students who come back to tell me about the businesses they have created.

I gave back to the National Science Foundation by working for two years as a Program Director.  My fellow Program Directors worked long hours to make sure taxpayers got a good long-term return on their investments in the future of science and technology.

One of my favorite responsibilities was working with colleagues from multiple agencies, Universities and non-profit groups on the National Nanotechnology Initiative, where federal investment has focused not only on discoveries and innovations but also increasing public awareness of and engagement with science so that as new materials, circuits and drug delivery systems are developed, and the public will be involved in deciding what products and systems should emerge. 

In this election year, the importance of federal funding for science may not be at the top of the list of reasons why who wins matters, but it should be. At a forum called Science Debate, both candidates were invited to respond to a set of questions about their science and innovation investment priorities.  In his response, President Obama said he wants to double funding to key science agencies to support scientists and entrepreneurs and train 100,000 new science and math teachers. The President briefly noted the importance of science and technology investments in the third debate. Sixty-eight AmericanNobel Laureates said "If you believe, as we do, that America's future is bound in essential ways to science and innovation, we urge you to join us in working to ensure the reelection of President Obama"

Governor Romney said he would “focus government resources on research programs that advance the development of knowledge, and on technologies with widespread application and potential to serve as the foundation for private sector innovation and commercialization. ”  He also indicated support for research and development funding in the third debate. However, Governor Romney did not provide any indication of the size of the investment he will make. It is reasonable to assume he would follow at least the outlines of the budget authored by his running mate, Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin), who authored a a budget resolution in the House of Representatives that includes  cuts of 20 percent or more in discretionary domestic programs, including higher education, and scientific research. According to the sixty-eight Nobel Laureates, Governor Romney " supports a budget that, if implemented, would devastate a long tradition of support for public research and investment in science at a time when this country's future depends, as never before, on innovation.”

My colleague Roop Mahajan, Director of the  Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science at Virginia Tech, says creativity blooms at the intersections between disciplines, as is happening under this nanotechnology initiative. Under President Obama, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation are all engaged with the National Nanotechnology Initiative, creating new programs where teams from different disciplines can work together and across the public-private sector divide to solve challenges to our national security, public health and energy independence.

From cancer cures to catalyzing the Internet, public investment in science promises not only a better understanding of the origins of our universe and ourselves but also economic, health, and environmental benefits. Innovative partnerships that help bring together stakeholders across disciplines and in the public, private, and academic sectors can help turn scientific breakthroughs into economic realities. 

It matters whether we elect leaders who will continue investing in science and technology. I hope voters will keep this critical issue in mind when heading to the ballot box and press the candidates to articulate their science and engineering policies.

Michael Gorman was a Program Director at the National Science Foundation, and is a Social Psychologist of Science at the University of Virginia. This essay reflects only the views of the author and not of the University of Virginia or the National Science Foundation.