Though the president will not become a lame duck until tomorrow, hunting season has already begun. The recent economic disaster has made it easier than ever to take potshots at Bush. While many of the critiques are exaggerated and unfair, one in particular hits the mark: Though certainly not the worst president in history, Bush is undoubtedly the most anti-science President in recent memory.

Famously, Bush vetoed an attempt to lift the federal stem cell funding ban in 2005, and he withdrew from the Kyoto accords. Less well-known are his politically motivated appointments to scientific committees regulating the energy industry or his attempts to prohibit governmental officials—including NASA’s top climatologist—from speaking if their findings contradicted the administration’s policies.

Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona told the press that Bush administration officials tried to suppress public health reports, including one on the dangers of secondhand smoke, for political reasons. Carmona was also required to mention Bush’s name three times in each page of his speeches, and was even told he couldn’t attend the Special Olympics because the organization was supported by the Kennedys. Needless to say, Carmona was not asked to serve a second term.

Carmona’s fate seems tame compared to some of Galileo’s colleagues who were burnt at the stake for believing in heliocentrism, but we don’t live in a late-medieval theocracy. America is the daughter of the Enlightenment, the most technologically advanced country in the world, and a superpower that owes its modern strength to science more than anything else. In order to protect the security and strength of the United States and ensure that we leave our children a planet we would want to live in, it is vital that the next president take a principled stand in support of science.

In light of Bush’s abysmal performance, a collection of 180 groups in science, business, and academia came together last Friday to implore the next president to select a cabinet-level science advisor by inauguration day. Such a move would be a promising start and presage an administration that viewed science as a tool, not something to be feared.

It is vital that the next administration put science at the fore, because today’s biggest challenges require scientific solutions. For instance, global warming may be the biggest international threat of our generation. Both major candidates have outlined a form of a cap-and-trade system to fight it, but they could both use more guidance. The negative side effects and enforcement problems plaguing Europe’s cap-and-trade system over the past few years should be a clear warning to both candidates that the policy is much better in theory than in practice. In addition, research indicates we need to stabilize emissions over the next half-century. We can’t wait for carbon prices to rise high enough to fund the research for cost-effective alternatives—we need to fund those alternatives today, and we need to fund a lot of them so that the market can decide which new technologies work best for consumers.

The counterpart to reducing pollution is increasing conservation, and on this issue Obama’s plan to increase energy efficiency is spot on. There are simply not enough oil or coal reserves in the world to sustain our current lifestyle, especially if the vast economies of China and India aspire to join us in our profligacy. But the President should go even further than even Obama has proposed, and mandate efficient city planning that minimizes transportation costs, specifically for automobiles.

Other issues require attention too. In outer space, we must continue to fund cost-effective robot missions but also plan manned flights to the moon and Mars that will inspire the world. We need to solve water management issues in the rapidly drying American Southwest and pass those good strategies on to the billion people worldwide without safe drinking water. And we need to create a healthcare system that not only increases coverage but also promotes cost-efficient treatment and preventative medicine. Finally, we need to fund science research that can put our science PhDs to work, and to change our visa laws to keep more foreign-born PhDs in the country.

Obama is clearly the superior candidate on science issues, from disclosing his science advisers to announcing a plan to double research funding over the next decade to establishing clear guidelines for the review of government publications so partisan tampering cannot occur. Yet both candidates have shown far greater affinity to science than the sitting President and a willingness to follow scientific advice. Whichever party wins the White House tomorrow, the next President owes the American people an immediate and lasting commitment to science and a promise never to favor partisan interests above scientific fact. Otherwise, it may soon be hunting season again—with America in the crosshairs.

Adam R. Gold ’11, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Adams House. His column appears on alternate Mondays.