“SCIENCE IN THE WHITE HOUSE”
Interview with Nobel Prize Winner David Baltimore

America’s researchers hope for the time after Bush who slashed their funds and undermined their research freedom

[This interview published in: DIE ZEIT 2008 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web, images.zeit.de/text/online/2008/10/us-forschung-interview. David Baltimore, biologist, Nobel Prize winner and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) until February 2008, is one of the sharpest research critics of the US president.]

ZEIT online:
Mr. Baltimore, what makes you so furious?

David Baltimore:
The White House and the US Congress have shown little respect for science in the last years. The government obviously does not understand the importance of indepe4ndence for science. Un-free scientific thinking simply does not work. I think I speak here for most American scientists.

ZEIT online:
Is the freedom of science in danger?

David Baltimore:
Politics has far too much influence. That irritates us. For example, climate researcher Jim Hansen was hindered from publically giving his opinion on human causation in climate change. Hansen’s views did not fit the government agenda.

ZEIT online:
What would be a healthy relation of science and politics? What would you desire from the president?

David Baltimore:
Oh, many things. Above all I would plead: Bring science back into the White House. Hire your own scientific advisor. Bill Clinton had one but not George Bush. Politics should encourage scientists in their work, allow them the necessary independence and give them funds for their activity. Young scientists must be encouraged to find their own research projects and probe things that may not ultimately lead to a result. Scientific success is based on the creativity of people who do research. Politics must make this possible.

ZEIT online:
Does research have enough money to develop?

Baltimore:
Under Bush, the distribution of research funds was very unbalanced. Many areas suffered drastic cuts. The money pump was completely turned off for some research branches, for example health research and basic physics. The president, it seems to me, has no respect for the uses of research.

ZEIT online:
What caused this imbalance?

Baltimore:
The war consumes the budget. While hundreds of thousands are injected in military research, hardly anything is left for other research.

ZEIT online:
Researchers even had to be fired, in particle physics for example.

Baltimore:
It is hard, especially for pure research jobs. Most smaller laboratories are guided by scientists who also teach. These positions are also threatened.

ZEIT online:
The visa hurdles for visiting scientists and students is another problem. Visa applicants must submit to the so-called “visa mantis” that guards against spying or illegally passing on knowledge about security relevant technologies.

Baltimore:
Happily the waiting times in the procedure are not as terrible any more. Sometimes scientists are harassed with repeated visa interrogations and even arrested.

ZEIT online:
What does all this mean for the quality of American science?

Baltimore:
The research community is very worried, especially for the long-term. I do not believe we have lost our leading international position in science. Other countries still see us as leaders. However a reputation can be quickly lost.

ZEIT online:
Is the economic power of the US affected along with the quality of research?

Baltimore:
China, Europe and India are scientifically on the rise. Sometimes it seems they have better approaches for future-oriented science. This makes them strong rivals. We must stay competitive and not fall asleep regarding research and development. Hurdles will arise for America’s innovation potential if science’s situation is not improved. Some see a gloomy future coming. If everything continues as now in the US, good science will be nearly impossible.

ZEIT online:
In America, the election campaign rages. But nothing is heard of the problems of science in the public debates. Why?

Baltimore:
Science does not interest the average voter. Science affects our whole life but many do not know this or reflect about it. Therefore these themes hardly occur in the debates.

ZEIT online:
Researchers now want to force politicians to focus on their themes. They invite all the candidates to an April 18 television debate about science. What will that accomplish?

Baltimore:
We want to open the eyes of the voters and politics. Finding new energy resources to counteract climate change and developing new stem cell therapies are vital. Both of these challenges are important though socially inconvenient. From the beginning, we have urged the “science debate” because we want results. At the 2008 annual conference of the AAAS, for example, we organized a mini-debate. But there were only exponents of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.

ZEIT online:
Will the candidates dare to face science on April 18?

Baltimore:
I don’t really know. After the elections in Ohio and Texas, we could have only two candidates, one for the republicans and one for the democrats. Neither has a political agenda for science. Both need to reflect on many things to prepare for the discussion and make a convincing presentation. If they did that, that would be fabulous. I have my doubts.