Recent commentary from scientific thought leaders suggests that in many STEM fields we are producing far too many PhD-trained professionals for the available jobs with a publicly-funded graduate education system that has not shifted focus from training researchers for the professoriate since its establishment in the 1950s. How do you propose to modernize the American system of graduate science education to meet the demand for STEM expertise in today's society and maintain US competitiveness?

According to leading experts, because of the increase in demand by developing nations (China, India, etc), and our own large consumption, world oil production will reach a plateau around 2030. What do you propose to solve this problem before it becomes catastrophic?

Grant system is currently competitive and how the vast majority of academic research is financed. The loan program to private companies has recently come under fire in recent instances of company bankruptcy and political cronyism. The prize system, while relatively new, has show some success when properly implemented. All three methods have pros/cons. Any other ideas? Do the candidates even think it is appropriate to spend federal money on science and technology?

For example, oil companies are more than 100 years old, and very profitable. They don't need subsidies and tax breaks any longer, and this corporate welfare keeps the price of gas artificially low. Will you give subsidies and tax breaks to green energy companies instead, and stop them for oil companies?

Neil deGrasse Tyson, a renowned physicist for NASA, recently said that the fact America no longer prioritizes space exploration is a "tragic misstep," and the shuttle program, "boldly went where hundreds had gone before." With the recent budget cuts to NASA and the decline of American supremacy in space, what would you do to restart our space exploration programs to the Moon and Mars?

What are your plans for the ascendance of nanotechnology in the United States? Do you have a comprehensive plan similar to the concentration of American education vis-à-vis the post-“Sputnik moment” of the 1960s – 70s?

Healthy lifestyles are the key to lower healthcare costs.

Many emerging and future technologies posses the potential to do great harm to humanity if not used properly. For example, the coming decade will see increased use of UAVs by commercial organizations, and possibly private citizens. These drones will be incredibly useful to our society, but would also be powerful weapons in the hands of terrorists. How do we maintain control of the things we create?

It's difficult to rally support for protecting migratory species, reducing the giant Pacific Ocean waste bin, etc. when no one country owns the problem. What do we do to protect international waters and resources?

There are a growing number of voices (the most vocal of whom is perhaps Gary Taubes) who argue that the high-carb, low-fat diet promoted by the USDA has helped bring about the obesity and diabetes epidemic in the US. The White House should at least entertain the possibility that current nuritional dogma is not only flawed (if not altogether wrong), but based on poor science.

Controversy seems relegated to two classes of theories: 1. Those considered incompatible with one's faith, and 2. Those which, if accepted, lead to considerable financial costs and potentially undercut one's political ideology. Ironically, arguments for (1) inevitably seek to control liberties - in direct contradition to arguments for (2). And yet the same groups frequently fall into both categories.

http://criticalthinking.org

contains intellectual standards that act as a checklist for decision making.

How can one party expound the virtues of market competition without accepting biological evolution? Conversely, are there reasons to intercede in markets to ensure survival of some industries vital to national interest? To ensure meaningful employment and adequate safety net for citizens?

"Illegal drugs should be decriminalized and a policy similar to the one in Portugal should be enacted.

In other words, there is a balance between cooperation and competition among professional scientists. On the one hand, competition drives innovation and continual improvement. On the other, too much competition means reluctance to share data or methods necessary to reproduce results, or even outright fraud. How do you aim to encourage a healthy balance between competition and collaboration?