Over the next year, presidential candidates will be crisscrossing the states trying to gain public support. The 2008 presidential election presents an important opportunity to ask the candidates questions about defending science from political interference. 

There are many ways to express your views. You can attend candidate events, submit questions on the candidates' websites, or write letters to the editor of your local newspaper.  We encourage you to engage the candidates, demand answers, and let us know how they are responding. To help you get started, here are sample questions for the candidates, grouped according to scientific integrity issue areas:  

Protecting Scientists and Science from Political Interference
Repairing the Damage to Federal Science
Protecting Your Right to Know about Federal Science

Protecting Scientists and Science from Political Interference
Would you sign legislation that would extend whistleblower protection to federal employees who report the willful manipulation, suppression, or distortion of scientific research or analysis?

Currently, many federal scientists fear retaliation for speaking about their research with the media and the public. As president, how would you protect the First Amendment rights of federal scientists and ensure public and congressional access to taxpayer-funded science?

How would you ensure that federal government scientists are allowed and encouraged to fully participate in the scientific community and to keep abreast of advances in their profession?

In the interest of protecting public health and safety, would you support eliminating financial conflicts of interest at regulatory agencies?

What actions would you take if you learned a political appointee was intentionally manipulating, suppressing, or distorting science? 

Back to Top

Repairing the Damage to Federal Science

Do you believe that your administration should gather information from the nation’s top scientific experts, even if they may express views with which you do not agree?

Would you restore the presidential science advisor to a cabinet-level position and make the position one of your first appointments?

Will you require that agency heads have no financial stake in and no prior ties to the industries they are charged with regulating?

If Congress passes a law you disagree with, will you enforce the law as written? Or will you continue the practice of using signing statements to selectively enforce the law?

How will you evaluate candidates to lead scientific agencies and departments?

The federal government has stated that 40 percent of the federal workforce will become eligible for retirement within the next ten years. What plans do you have to recruit and retain the best and brightest American scientists to serve the country through federal science agencies?

Recent presidential Executive Order 13422 gives political appointees so-called Regulatory Policy Officers power over federal agency regulations, pushing aside the authority of Senate-confirmed agency heads. Would you rescind this executive order?

Recent budget changes threaten the integrity of long-term data collection. Would you broadly review where science funding may have declined due to political pressure—such as funding for satellites to monitor climate change—and restore such funding?

Back to Top

Protecting Your Right to Know about Federal Science

Under your administration, will tax-payer funded scientific information be presumed publicly available until a compelling reason is given to withhold it, or will information be presumed secret unless there is a compelling reason to release it?

Would you allow federal research or analysis that contradicts your policy agenda to be publicly released?

What reforms are needed to ensure that scientific results that document potential harmful effects of products we consume are kept independent of political interference?

Would you permit science agency heads to testify before Congress without allowing the White house to censor or edit the testimony for political reasons? 

Recently, many agencies have emphasized a variety of cost-benefit analyses to justify predetermined regulatory decisions. Would your administration commit to making available for public scrutiny the analyses on which such decisions are made?

Back to Top