Prior to the 2008 presidential election, a group of people thought it would be a good idea to hear the candidates' views on a series of science issues. So, they formed Science debate, an organization dedicated to bringing that about. It failed then, and has failed this year as well. But, as with the previous election, both candidates have provided written answers to a series of questions on science policy.

This year's answers have now been posted, and they highlight some of the limitations of this format. Both candidates spend some quality time with generic platitudes that don't really answer the question. And there's a shocking difference in tone: Obama focuses on past accomplishments and future goals, and never mentions Romney. His opponent's responses often read like an attack ad. Still, it's possible to piece together at least some of the candidates' positions on science and the appropriate response to it.

Both of them want to see the R&D tax credit made permanent. Beyond that, there isn't a whole lot in common.

The science

Most of the questions focused on policy, but two in particular brought up scientific issues. One was the use of vaccines, which all studies indicate are largely safe and effective. Although resistance to vaccine programs crosses political boundaries, it hasn't become a political issue in the Democratic party. Obama answers his question with the assumption that vaccines are a public good. So does Romney, but this was less of a certain thing. A couple of Republican figures—Michele Bachmann and Donald Trump—have repeated the thoroughly debunked notion that vaccines are associated with autism, and Rick Perry drew fire for requiring vaccinations against HPV.

The answer on climate change, however, shows a clear difference between the candidates when it comes to basic matters of science. Obama doesn't even bother to address the scientific foundations for limiting carbon emissions, and simply discusses the policies (some already in place, many unspecified) that will do so.

Romney, however, is simply wrong. "There remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue—on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk." Although something like severity of risk is tough to define scientifically (there are lots of individual risks associated with something like climate change), there is a broad scientific consensus regarding the former two points. That statement, however, is within the mainstream of Republican thinking.

Another question, one about a response to pandemics, could have led to a science-focused answer, but largely elicited generic non-answers, with Romney adding an incongruous attack on Obama for stifling medical innovation: "He has imposed new taxes on innovative companies. He has empowered bureaucrats to manage the marketplace."

Science-based policy

Even if we could all agree on the state of scientific evidence, it would still be possible to disagree on what to do about it. In his responses, Obama focuses on things he considers policy successes: the rapid growth of renewable energy, reform at the FDA, the expansion of commercial space ventures under NASA's guidance, etc. He also specifically cites the importance of using science to set policy when he notes plans to have "all new, and even older pesticides, comply with strict science-based health standards."

In some of these cases, Romney simply disagrees with him. For example, he argues that there is no clear space policy that will focus the commercial ventures. He also argues for a vastly expanded extraction of fossil fuels.

But most of the answers indicate that Romney is aggressively anti-regulation. A question on the role of the Internet evoked an angry response that focused on net neutrality: "Specifically, the FCC’s 'Net Neutrality' regulation represents an Obama campaign promise fulfilled on behalf of certain special interests, but ultimately a 'solution' in search of a problem."

This animosity also includes regulations that limit the extraction of fossil fuels, as well as the consequences of burning them. Romney slams Obama for emissions standards on mercury from power plants, writing, "the EPA estimates that the rule will cost $10 billion to reduce mercury pollution by only $6 million." But it all seems a bit poorly thought out. Leaving aside the fact that mercury emissions can't be measured in dollars, the figure only focuses on the fact that regulations cost money to those being regulated. This leaves out the fact that the EPA also estimated that the rule would save far more than it costs, as it will eliminate many of the externalities that mercury pollution causes.

But there is some evidence that Romney does consider a modicum of regulation necessary. When asked about ocean fisheries, Romney responded, "Maintenance of those fisheries also represents a significant regulatory challenge, and is indeed often used as an archetypical illustration of a situation in which a market will not succeed without some form of governance. The question, though, is what form of governance should be employed." He also noted the need for regulation in food safety and clean water.

All of this suggests that some of the more heated anti-regulation talk is simply campaign rhetoric, while leaving open the questions of how much, and to what degree.

Supporting science

The US government is the largest source of scientific funding, but its budget deficits are putting future spending on science at risk. Both Romney and Obama make a lot of promises regarding how they'll foster science and innovation, but there's little appetite in either of them to explain how they'll actually pay for any of it.

Obama, for example, praises the stimulus spending on energy and mentions plans to train a large number of science and engineering teachers. (Romney, as if he anticipated Obama's answers, spent time slamming teachers' unions and calling the stimulus a "failed attempt"). But something like the stimulus will not happen again anytime soon, and it's not clear that the money for teacher training will fit within the planned austerity measures.

For his part, Romney includes an odd diversion into tax policy, in which he calls for lowering both personal and corporate tax rates—which will certainly require cutting government spending, including that in support of science.

Overall, the written answers raise questions about whether a science debate would have been a productive effort. The answers didn't provide much insight that couldn't have been assumed based on previous public statements or, in Obama's case, his actual policies. And, in many cases, the candidates turned the questions in a way that allowed them to rehash their standard talking points. (Even when said diversions were largely inappropriate, as in the case with Romney's rehash of his tax policy). The answers were often long and not very compelling, and I don't feel more informed for having read them.