As the dust settles on bitterly contested US elections, can the nation's political leaders now move past the gridlock that has plagued the government since the Congressional elections of 2010?
If not, a train wreck looms for science and the wider economy, in the form of the "fiscal cliff" ? savage cuts in federal budgets that will kick in automatically if the outgoing Congress can't reach a deal by the end of the year to reduce the deficit through a combination of tax rises and spending controls.
If the fiscal cliff can be avoided, there are some small positive signs that scientific issues may get a better hearing in the new Congress. Several candidates known for taking positions that fly in the face of scientific evidence did poorly at the polls ? and there are even initial stirrings of bipartisan agreement that investing in science education is a priority.
Reaching a deal will require someone to blink: until now, leaders of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives have demanded that tax cuts introduced under president George W. Bush must stay, while president Obama has said he will veto any deal that doesn't include a tax hike for the richest Americans.
Matters of the heart
Economists warn that driving over the fiscal cliff could send the US economy back into recession. With social security and government health programmes shielded from the axe, science budgets would be among those bearing the brunt: cuts of up to 10 per cent could see many important projects delayed or cancelled. "It's imperative to avoid the fiscal cliff, which would be devastating," says Mary Woolley, president of Research!America, which lobbies for medical research.
Uncertainty about the looming threat is already delaying important projects. At the University of California, San Francisco, for instance, Adams Dudley is planning to give 500 cardiac patients in three US cities carefully constructed questionnaires to help them weigh the pros and cons of having stents installed to widen their coronary arteries, or instead be treated with drugs.
The project has been given a high rating by reviewers from the National Institutes of Health ? and in a normal year would be sure to go ahead. But Dudley is unable to begin planning meetings and other preparatory work, because he's worried that the money won't come.
Anti-science loses out
Still, if the fiscal cliff can be averted, advocates for science see some positive signs in yesterday's votes. For several years, concern has been growing that increasing ideological zeal on the right wing of the Republican Party is driving its candidates to embrace "anti-science" positions.
These positions seemed to be a liability in some of yesterday's votes. Todd Akin, who drew ire for his unfounded assertion that women's reproductive systems can prevent pregnancy after rape, was soundly beaten in his attempt to unseat Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill.
What's more, at least three of the "flat earth five" members of the House of Representatives targeted by the League of Conservation Voters for their denial of the existence of climate change have been voted out of office.
"Republicans have been looking over their right shoulder in primary challenges," says Alden Myer, who heads the Washington DC office of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Now they have to acknowledge that there could be a threat in the general election if they go over too far to the anti-science side of the street."
A teachable moment
Meanwhile in California, voters supported Proposition 30, put forward by Democratic governor Jerry Brown, which will temporarily increase taxes to prevent cuts to education.
Romney also picked up on the education theme in a concession speech that called on Americans of all political persuasions to unite around common values: "We look to our teachers and professors; we count on you not just to teach, but to inspire our children with a passion for learning and discovery."
With science education emerging as one of the few topics on which there isn't a big partisan divide, there's an opportunity to be seized, Woolley suggests: "One of the things we need right now is healing. We can talk about things we agree about."
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
Subscribe now to comment.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.