Both President Bush and John Kerry have made support of scientists part of their campaign platforms. Credit: Copyright Getty images

When Americans go to the polls this November, the economy, terrorism, and Iraq are likely to be what's on their minds, not the latest scientific discovery.

And yet, science has made a prominent appearance this year in both candidates' election platforms. President Bush has been talking up his initiative to create hydrogen-driven cars at campaign stops in key swing states, and in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination in Boston on 29 July, Kerry promised to be “a president who believes in science”. At that same convention, Ron Reagan, son of two-term Republican president Ronald Reagan, delivered an impassioned speech in support of stem-cell research.

Why has research become an election-year issue? The answer lies in Americans' endless infatuation with new technology. Despite the fact that only half of the voting-age population knows that electrons are smaller than atoms, nearly 90% of Americans believe that science and technology are making their lives healthier, easier and more comfortable, according to a recent National Science Foundation poll. In other words, Americans aren't quite sure how science works, but they have reached an overwhelming consensus that it's a good thing. That makes it easy pickings for politicians eager to appeal to the undecided voters who make up a tiny sliver of the otherwise deeply divided electorate.

A second reason the generic term 'science' has found its way into election-year rhetoric is that scientists have become unusually involved in politics. On 18 February, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a left-leaning science and environmental group, released a report that accused the Bush administration of packing scientific panels with industry advocates, suppressing research, and altering government reports. In June, 47 Nobel Laureates threw their support behind the Kerry campaign. The Bush campaign has fired back with a fact sheet claiming that Kerry has distorted his scientific record, but has had little luck mustering support within the scientific community, which votes overwhelmingly Democratic.

On the face of it, all this attention is of real benefit to the scientific community. Certain scientific issues such as climate change and stem cells have received an unusual amount of attention in the press as a result of the election. And even the esoteric but important issue of what role scientific advisors should play in setting policy has been discussed in national newspapers and radio programs as a result of the Union of Concerned Scientists' influential statement. Both candidates are also eager to prove that they are pro-science, and they both are promising support of scientists if they are elected.

Researchers in the physical sciences should feel happy about such promises, but not too hopeful. In a special Q&A in Nature in September (see Nature 431, 238–243; 2004), both Bush and Kerry have both promised more support for the physical sciences, but there are precious few details on where that support will come from. With the ongoing war in Iraq and a rapidly swelling federal budget deficit, there is precious little money leftover for domestic programmes such as research. If scientists believe that more money will find its way to their labs if one candidate is elected, they're likely to be sorely disappointed.

But money is not everything, and as scientists go to the polls this autumn they can rejoice in the fact that scientific issues have, however briefly, become part of the national debate.

RELATED WEBSITES:

KERRY ON SCIENCE http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/technology/

BUSH ON SCIENCE http://georgewbush.com/Environment/Read.aspx?ID=2811