With about two months remaining until the US Presidential Elections, and much at stake for Americans and the rest of the world, the time has come to examine how the election of each candidate might affect science and scientific research.

Although relatively little has been said directly about science and science policy, both Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump have official websites with a list of their key policy issues, and how they will be addressed.

Hillary Clinton, who has made a number of statements broadly supportive of science and scientific research, has at least seven distinct issues on her website that directly relate to science and research. Clinton cites the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer’s and related diseases, and the allocation of 2 billion dollars annually towards research in the field.

She has a similar plan for the study of autism and HIV/Aids, with a commitment to eradicating Aids in the US and abroad. She specifically calls for an investment in brain behavioural research as part of broad-based support for research on brain development and human behaviour. She also supports research on addiction and substance abuse, as part of an overall plan to address these problems in American society.

In addition, there is an overall goal of enhancing technology and innovation, which goes hand-in-hand with science. Clinton has also outlined a plan to protect animals and wildlife, and ensure that national parks and protected wildlife areas are not privatised. Finally, she has cobbled together a substantial plan to deal with the threat of climate change and global warming. Her website also lists a variety of substantial issues tangential to science policy concerns, including healthcare, Medicare, paid family and medical leave, and so on.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has a very sparse and rather amateurishly composed list of policies on his website. None of them address science in any way.

The public is not completely in the dark with regard to Trump’s opinions on some matters of science, however, because he has made or tweeted key statements that illuminate his views on these important topics.

For example, Trump tweeted: “NBC News just called it the great freeze – coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?”



NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2014

Such a tweet, coupled with tweets claiming that global warming is a Chinese hoax to impede American manufacturing, appears to reflect a deep disdain for peer-reviewed science, and his contention that he knows more than the experts.

Trump further highlights his own dismissal of scientifically proven facts by maintaining, during a Republican primary debate, that vaccines cause autism: “We had so many instances, people that work for me, just the other day, 2 years old, a beautiful child, went to have the vaccine and came back and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.” He also tweeted, “Lots of autism and vaccine response. Stop these massive doses immediately. Go back to single, spread out shots! What do we have to lose?”



Lots of autism and vaccine response. Stop these massive doses immediately. Go back to single, spread out shots! What do we have to lose. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2012

I did not see a PhD in medicine, epidemiology, immunology nor brain science among Trump’s qualifications. His comments about spreading out vaccine doses come from the annals of superstition, rather than informed views. There is no scientific evidence in support of the notion that vaccine doses, or the times between vaccines, affect autism; indeed, years of trials, data, research, experience and statistics have brought us to the current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and American Association of Pediatrics recommendations for vaccines.

Trump’s approach is not science, it is bunk.



A lot has also been said about the health of each of the two candidates, with Clinton and Trump at 68 and 70 years of age, respectively. Indeed, Hillary Clinton’s recent pneumonia diagnosis and cancellation of her schedule for the next few days highlights the mortality of aging presidential candidates. So it would be worthy to look at statements made by the vice presidential candidates.

While Democrat Tim Kaine is largely in line with Clinton, Republican Mike Pence has made statements that may even outdo those of Trump. “Time for a quick reality check,” wrote Pence. “Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill. Two out of every three smokers doesn’t die from a smoking-related disease.”

So according to Pence, smoking doesn’t kill, but a third of the smoking population DOES die from smoking. Am I missing something? It sounds like it’s definitely time for Mr Pence to do a reality check.

This upcoming election is like no other election in US history. Far more important than mere policy is the foundation on which science is based: truth. Science is, for the most part, objective, built on facts and the most likely explanation that those facts can provide at any given time. As more facts arise, models can be modified or expanded. Or revised altogether. But any model/theory/hypothesis must always fit the facts. And while all politicians tend to embellish and bend facts to some degree, more than any candidate ever in US history, Trump has been ignoring facts and promoting falsehoods.

Paul Krugman of the New York Times wrote a recent opinion piece called Donald Trump’s ‘Big Liar’ Technique. In this article, Krugman outlines how Trump repeatedly lies about points that are demonstrably false, and when challenged, merely repeats them. As one of many examples, he notes how Trump insists that he was against the war in Iraq – and yet, the only on-record statement he made prior to the invasion was that he was for it. Or Trump’s assertion that he saw thousands of cheering Muslims in Jersey City after 9-11. It is Krugman’s hypothesis that the sheer volume of lies has saturated and overwhelmed the American public and journalists. It is almost to the point where journalists no longer challenge yesterday’s lies because they are so busy dealing with today’s new round of lies.

Trump, however, is not only adept about lying; he is a master of innuendo-based conspiracy theories. He will frequently use openings such as “People tell me that …” to spread false rumours and lies. He will talk about President Obama’s reaction to the murderous attack at the Orlando night-club and use phrases such as “There’s something going on,” as if suggesting that the president was part of a conspiracy involved in the mass shooting. And then drift away and watch his surrogates promote the conspiracy.

A candidate who has such a loose and irreverent relationship with the truth will not be good for science, whether or not he has a solid policy to support science – and Trump does not. But science serves as a microcosm for everything else.

If a candidate refuses to accept the advice of the vast majority of the most knowledgeable experts in a scientific field, such as those who have debunked any relationship between autism and vaccines, then why would this candidate pay any heed to foreign policy experts with regard to international affairs? Or experienced generals with regard to military issues? Indeed, Trump has already stated, “I know more than the generals about ISIS.”

Perhaps the most serious concern about the Trump candidacy is that it heralds a new era that some are calling “post-truth politics”. Once the truth has become irrelevant to the American electorate, scientists may as well pack up their microscopes and test tubes and look for other careers. However, with two months until the election, there is still time to campaign for facts, truth – and yes, science.