Barack Obama's vision of a scientific America

In modern times, America has led the world in scientific discovery. But since 2000, the country has seen what might be termed a scientific recession.

For five consecutive years, federal investment in science has fallen, stalling endeavour and leading to despondency among America's scientists.

Within the administration of George W Bush, scientific advice has been sidelined and subjected to sustained political manipulation.

Expert advisers on vital issues such as global warming, stem-cell research and the teaching of evolution have been marginalised, ignored and even removed from office.

The Republican approach during the election campaign was no better.

Despite John McCain's acceptance of global warming, his running mate, Sarah Palin, was widely thought to be hostile to scientific opinion, given her promotion of creationism in schools, her ridiculing of scientific research (for example on polar bears' endangered status) and her claims both that climate change wasn't man-made, and that it "kinda didn't matter" what had caused it.

It is no wonder, then, that 76 American Nobel laureates publicly supported Barack Obama – nor that there has been a dramatic lightening in mood among my colleagues in New York over the past week.

Obama understands – at least, according to his campaign literature and rhetoric – that science has the power to improve lives profoundly.

He also realises that the nations that succeed in the highly competitive world economy are those that foster technological advances and nurture intellectual strength.

What are Obama's specific pledges? First, to increase federal funding for science and engineering, which has halved as a share of GDP since 1970. He has promised to double the research budgets of the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the other key agencies over the next decade, supporting high-risk, high-reward research in computing, biotech, nanotechnology and other fields.

Second, Obama has promised to invest in education, guaranteeing students access to a strong science curriculum and increasing the importance of maths and physics in schools.

Third, there is his plan for a green economy: a promised investment of $150 billion over 10 years to create five million new jobs.

There will be a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions and renewed engagement with international climate groups, including the UN's; investment in nuclear energy, clean coal technology and energy efficiency; and a requirement that
10 per cent of America's energy comes from renewable sources by 2012.

Fourth, there will be more investment in America's space programme, and in long-term research by the Pentagon's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency.

And finally, there will also be a new willingness to engage with genetic research: the head of Obama's "transition team" has already signified that they will look again at stem-cell research, which President Bush rejected.

So there is a feeling of hope that the new president will be much better for American science, and as a result for science across the globe.

There is no doubt that the President-elect sees an increased investment in science and technology as a way to introduce greener policies and help his country fight its way out of its economic turmoil.

But it is one thing to pledge an increase of funding during an election campaign, and another to double the budget during a global recession.

This will be one of Obama's foremost tests: can he deliver a sizable slice of a pie that every other sector and lobby group also wants?

The biggest challenge is to find a way to deliver the increase in funding for biomedical research, and the much-needed doubling of funding for research in the physical and engineering sciences, which was set out in the America Competes Act of 2007.

As the National Academy of Sciences warned in its report of the same year, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, America's advantages in the marketplace and in science and technology will be eroded without it.

Obama also needs to bring science back to the centre of government. In the UK, the science minister, Lord Drayson, attends Cabinet and has a PhD in robotics.

Gordon Brown has a track record of support for science, and there is cross-party agreement on its importance.

The Prime Minister recently supported and funded plans for a world-class research centre to tackle some of the biggest biomedical challenges of the 21st century: a public-private UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation that will bring together four of the world's leading biomedical research organisations – the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Wellcome Trust and University College London – in secure, high-quality laboratories in the heart of London.

So, without delay, President-elect Obama should appoint an influential, independent science adviser who can play an active role in establishing scientific priorities for the administration.

President Bush failed to confirm his chief science adviser, Dr John Marburger, until 10 months into his first term, killing any chance science had of having a true voice within his administration.

Obama must ensure that good, objective science is important at all levels of government, and that political prejudice is never allowed to cloud it.

He cannot behave like his predecessor, who removed Dr Elizabeth Blackburn from a scientific advisory position simply because she disagreed with his policies on stem-cell research.

Putting good science advisers in place – as he did with his campaign – could enable the new president to create sensible and sustainable policies, strengthening the world's ability to respond to the complex challenges posed by some of the biggest issues of our time: climate change, feeding humanity, improving global health, driving the economy forward.

He could ensure advances in knowledge by supporting research in areas ranging from stem cells to particle physics, and restore the faith of the scientific community by allowing good impartial science to be seen for what it is, without political manipulation.

This is an opportunity for a fresh start. America is a nation that has stagnated scientifically during the first years of the
21st century, but this can be reversed if actions follow the strong rhetoric we have seen during the campaign.

If Obama delivers, the whole world will benefit.