NOW that the two finalists for the presidential race have been sifted from
the chaff, it is time to take stock of the scientific credentials of the
candidates. Governor George W. Bush of Texas can’t be said to have much of a
record. The closest he gets is with his environmental portfolio for Texas, which
is widely seen as business-friendly, especially to big oil companies. The only
other vaguely scientific comment from Bush was his accusation that his
Republican rival Senator John McCain voted against more money for breast cancer
research.
Bush’s Democratic opponent, Vice-President Al Gore Jr, has quite a long
history of involvement in matters scientific, having served in Congress during
the 1980s on a science and technology subcommittee. That’s when, according to
one famous Gore statement, he helped to invent the Internet, a claim for which
he’s taken much ribbing. But the issue likely to generate ink is Gore’s greenish
politics.The question is, will they help or hurt him?
Nearly a decade ago, Gore wrote a book about the environment called Earth
in the Balance. Certain passages that predict dire effects of global
warming have been quoted by business interests who see the whole warming crowd
as anti-growth. And while Gore’s record in Congress and as Clinton’s
Vice-President is eco-friendly (he went to the Kyoto climate summit in 1997 to
urge reluctant parties to agree on greenhouse gas limits) he’s been notably
silent about environmental issues during the campaign.
Advertisement
The environment has classically been a “second-tier” issue in presidential
elections. Many hope Gore will push it into the first tier by taking a clear
pro-environmental stance against Bush. Others fear, however, that in attempting
to woo moderate voters who could vote either way, Gore will tone down his
eco-rhetoric. All this will come to a head next November: the date not only of
the election, but also of the next big global warming meeting of the Kyoto
signatories.
PICKING a new director for the National Institutes of Health should be
straightforward: form a search committee, interview interested candidates,
forward a shortlist to the White House, get the President to nominate your top
candidate and hope that the Senate will confirm that person. What’s the big
deal?
In Washington, things are never that simple. A search committee was formed,
nominees were selected, but none of the committee’s top candidates wanted to
serve. There were several explanations. Some candidates were already running NIH
institutes, and preferred the autonomy afforded by their smaller fiefs to
shuttling back and forth between Capitol Hill and the White House pleading for
funds and for policy support. Then, too, there was the question of the job’s
uncertain tenure. The NIH director is a political appointee. A new
administration, especially a Republican one, might want its own man (excuse me,
“person”) for the job. And finally, Harold Varmus’s departure left some mighty
big shoes to fill. Many scientists might well wonder if their feet are big
enough for the job.
One name has, evidently, made it all the way to the White House: Gerald
Fischbach, currently director of the neurology institute. Fischbach, a
neuroscientist who came to the NIH by way of Harvard, is reportedly quite
interested in the job. But so far, the White House has not made a nomination.
Maybe President Clinton is hoping he can leave the post open so Al Gore can pick
his own nominee—assuming it’s Gore’s choice and not George Bush’s.
