A top science question the candidates for president should answer is:

Will you insure there is an increase in scientific funding durning your term as President and not pass the buck to future generations?

Science is an investment in the future, our future. The idea that we can't afford to double funding at NASA and the NSF is ridiculous. We must insure that we maintain our competitiveness on a scientific level, because if we don't we'll eventually be left behind. Let us not forget that our modern world is built upon such scientific understandings. Our technological world for example is entirely a result of our past understanding of quantum physics. The space program has also had many benefits to our economy and culturally.

Foremost, its one thing to say you're for science and keeping America competitive, its another to put your money where your mouth is. If elected, these candidate must do more than pass the buck to the next President/Congress. We saw this with the Constellation program, Bush pushed Constellation but left the funding up to a Future Congress/President. Obama has done the same with the current plan at NASA.

We wont have another US manned spacecraft at least until 2017 says the current NASA chief, and we're not going anywhere beyond low earth orbit until 2020. Long after the issue of funding need have any consequence on Obama's political career as President.

385 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Benjamin BrownBenjamin Brown shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    3 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • Benjamin BrownBenjamin Brown commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Anonymous commented · March 18, 2012 · Flag as inappropriate

        Did you happen to notice that the U.S. is running nearly a $1.4 billion dollar annual budget deficit? How do you propose doubling the budget of anything in this situation?

        Doubling or slashing science funding will not make a difference on the US deficit. Its in terms of government spending an insignificant amount of money. Yes we should tackle out deficit problem, but not at the expense of staying competitive when it comes to science and technology.

        NASA's funding for example is only 0.47 percent of the total budget at the moment. If you want to go after any program for being unsustainable and being the cause of such a big deficit, you should go after social spending. I'm 27, have payed into social security all my working life yet doubt I'll ever get any worth from putting that money forward. Medicare/Medicaid in their current form will bankrupt this country at the current unsustainable increases from year to year.

        Science meanwhile has huge returns economically, for such a small investment and we'd be stupid to give up our lead in science and exploration. The costs aren't the issue, we can afford even as we tackle our deficit. What we can't afford to do is lose out to the future because the Europeans, China, and Japanese aren't going to stop just because we do.

      • Paul TennysonPaul Tennyson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This is stated in a format that a candidate can answer yes or no. I would change it to "How will.." not "Will.." Also, spell the word properly - "during" not "durning"

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Did you happen to notice that the U.S. is running nearly a $1.4 billion dollar annual budget deficit? How do you propose doubling the budget of anything in this situation?

      Feedback and Knowledge Base