--- title: Democratic Debate: We Need More Scientists in Public Square description: What would they do to keep the U.S. at the forefront of science and innovation? canonical: https://time.com/4071250/democratic-debate-science/ author: TIME article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2015-10-13T13:18:23.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-08-04T07:38:19.701Z article:section: Ideas og:title: The One Question We Should Ask Presidential Candidates og:description: What would they do to keep the U.S. at the forefront of science and innovation? og:url: https://time.com/4071250/democratic-debate-science/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltac7f808f17351daa/69886808524fc02246df4fac/female-scientists-research-lab.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 5478 og:image:height: 3081 og:image:alt: female-scientists-research-lab og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: The One Question We Should Ask Presidential Candidates twitter:description: What would they do to keep the U.S. at the forefront of science and innovation? twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltac7f808f17351daa/69886808524fc02246df4fac/female-scientists-research-lab.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # The One Question We Should Ask Presidential Candidates > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Inside TIME: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition Inside TIME is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories. Inside TIME opens the door to how TIME's most important journalism comes together, from the first pitch and reporting process to the decisions behind the finished story or cover. Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs takes readers inside the newsroom, revealing the journalists, ideas and editorial choices behind the stories shaping the global conversation. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=ced5d609-cfc5-4878-b219-f6250835c2f0&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership Globally minded knowledge seekers. Readers who turn to journalism to understand the world, with meaningful concentrations among educators, students, media professionals, civic institutions and knowledge workers. ### TIME Inside TIME: key statements * Inside TIME is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * Inside TIME is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=ced5d609-cfc5-4878-b219-f6250835c2f0&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/subscribe?i=ced5d609-cfc5-4878-b219-f6250835c2f0&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is Inside TIME? Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. #### How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers? Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters. #### Who is the editor of TIME? Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions. #### Is Inside TIME free? Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=ced5d609-cfc5-4878-b219-f6250835c2f0&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1) ## Video: The Next Medical Revolution: Whole Exome Sequencing [Watch (HLS stream): The Next Medical Revolution: Whole Exome Sequencing](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/ChFRphdV.m3u8) (5:53)  _Published 2012-10-21. A family searching for the cuase of their daughter's disease may finally find answers in a revolutionary genetic test called Whole Exome Sequencing_ by [Janet Napolitano, University of California / The Conversation](https://time.com/author/janet-napolitano/) ## Janet Napolitano, University of California / The Conversation Oct 13, 2015 1:18 PM UTC  Two Female scientists working in modern laboratory Two Female scientists working in modern laboratory Getty Images by [Janet Napolitano, University of California / The Conversation](https://time.com/author/janet-napolitano/) ## Janet Napolitano, University of California / The Conversation Oct 13, 2015 1:18 PM UTC In this presidential election season, one thing is certain: Candidates will rarely – if ever – be asked what they would do to keep this nation at the forefront of science and innovation. That’s a shame. The public dialogue about science is perhaps the most vital and most fraught national conversation not taking place in our country, and the ramifications are profound. Ultimately, the way we address science and innovation will determine what our children learn in school, what college graduates bring to the larger world, how public lands and natural resources are cared for and whether people receive adequate health care. And the list goes on. As the president of one of our country’s leading research university systems, I believe it is now incumbent on the academic community to ensure that the work and voices of researchers are front and center in the public square. **Calling all scientists** When the voices of scientists are not heard in the dialogue, there is a price to pay. As Stanford University’s Charlotte DeCroes Jacobs made clear in her recent excellent biography, [_Jonas Salk, A Life_](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/jonas-salk-9780199334414?cc=us&lang=en&), the fanfare brought Salk the everlasting disdain of some of his scientific colleagues, but it proved to serve the greater public good. It is important that scientists be seen as regular people asking and answering important questions. Our country needs more scientists who are willing and able to step out in the public arena and to weigh in, clearly and strongly – such as atmospheric physicist [Veerabhadran Ramanathan](http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/about/) of UC San Diego, who discovered the greenhouse effect of halocarbons in 1975. Dr. Ramanathan is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that [influenced Pope Francis](http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jun/18/pope-francis-UCSD/) to speak out on global climate change. We need more scientists who can explain what they are doing in language that is compelling and understandable to the public – for example, astrophysicist and Hayden Planetarium Director [Neil deGrasse Tyson](http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/), whose use of television and social media earned him the [U.S. National Academy of Sciences Public Welfare medal](http://www.nasonline.org/programs/awards/?referrer=https://www.google.com/) this year for “exciting the public about the wonders of science.” > [](https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/650084616091504640) Those of us in the academic community who are not scientists should also be prepared to support public engagement by scientists, and to incorporate scientific knowledge into our public communications. I know from conversations I have had with other higher education leaders that I am not the only one who believes this is important. **Understanding mysteries of research** Too many people in this country – and that includes some among our elected leadership – still do not understand how science works or why robust, long-range investments in research vitally matter. The truth is in the numbers. In the 1960s, the United States devoted nearly 17% of discretionary spending to research and development, [reaping decades of economic growth](http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0803/start.htm?CFID=18451611&CFTOKEN=42234921&jsessionid=f030ea890c79923b21615c3b96b6155b134a) from this sustained investment. By 2008, the figure had fallen into the single digits. This occurs at a time when the private sector has cut back on its research investment and other nations [have made significant gains ](http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/SciProgResearchandDevelopment-101.pdf)in their own research capabilities. China, for example, is projected to outspend the United States in research within the next decade. East Asia as a whole already does. At the University of California, we pride ourselves not only on the quality of our research, but also on its contribution to improving aspects of the world we live in. It is [UC’s research](http://ucanr.edu/delivers/), for example, that has made California among the most robust agricultural regions of the world. To hasten the development of science from the lab bench to the market place, UC is investing our own money in our own good ideas. This past summer, we launched the first [primeUC](http://primeuc.org/) competition, which will award $300,000 to winning start-ups in the health sciences. And last year, our Board of Regents approved [the creation of a new $250 million fund](http://www.wsj.com/articles/university-of-california-approves-venture-capital-fund-to-back-its-own-startups-1411072435), designed to provide seed money for direct investment into student and faculty inventions. It also is possible to have some fun in demonstrating the broad, societal significance of research. **Introducing Grad Slam** Last May, I had the opportunity to emcee the first-ever University of California system-wide Grad Slam. The Grad Slam asked UC graduate students to take their years of academic toil and research, and present their work to an audience in just three minutes, free of jargon or technical lingo. Think of these presentations as TED talks on steroids or the ultimate in elevator speeches. Each of our 10 campuses held a local competition, and the finals took place at our system-wide headquarters in Oakland. Several of those finalists are featured on [The Conversation’s website](https://theconversation.com/us/topics/uc-grad-slam-2015). While it was a fun event, the purpose was very serious. Good, sound science depends on hypotheses, experiments and reasoned methodologies. It requires a willingness to ask new questions and try new approaches. It requires one to take risks and experience failures. But good, sound science also requires clear explanation, succinct presentation and contextual understanding. Telling the story is half the battle, and Grad Slam is perfect practice. **‘An eternal guide to truth’** On the flip side, our country needs more politicians who understand science and recognize it as more than window dressing for photo ops at school science fairs or opportunities to come before the cameras in white lab coats. Scientists, of course, should not lose their focus on conducting research in the lab or the field, sharing knowledge with their peers, and supervising the postdocs and graduate students who will serve as the scientists of tomorrow. In today’s world, however, society will benefit from scientists who also are able to raise the profile of science in the public dialogue. In the rim of the dome of the National Academy of Sciences, there is an inscription [that reads](http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/visiting-nas/nas-building/the-great-hall.html): --- > “” --- This is a fine, noble and trenchant statement of what science is all about. It is a statement that must be made to come alive in the nation’s public conscience, and in the public and political narrative. For more than 200 years, science and research have been the source of our country’s greatest strengths, and the promise of its bright future. Now more than ever, it is incumbent on scientists to put their knowledge on the table, and for others in the academic community to support them in that endeavor. _This_ [_article_](https://theconversation.com/why-more-scientists-are-needed-in-the-public-square-46451) _originally appeared on_ [_The Conversation_](http://theconversation.com) ## Transcript [ MUSIC ] [ NOISE ] Alright, should we ask Jules what she wants to do? Sure. Would you like to play, move your body. Juliette at 3 days. Home from the hospital, had her 1st metabolic crash. Jules pick puzzles. We'll get some puzzles and we'll play outside, okay. Over the next 6 months, she began to miss milestones, and we began the inquiry into why she might, not be meeting her milestones. At 10 months old, Mike and Jenna Spelch's daughter Juliet, was diagnosed with something called mitochondrial disease. I don't know, how many medicines would you say we have? 20 medicines? At least. It's degenerative and it's incurable and the causes remain a mystery. Over the last 7 years, she is probably the world's most tested child both through muscle, blood, skin, you name it. And they've still yet to be able to identify the cause of Juliet's disease. At the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, where Juliet has been a patient for the last 5 years. A breakthrough in genomics may finally bring answers to the belchers. Juliet has kidney problems, and GI problems, she has brain problems, she has, some heart rhythm problems. The research study that we were able to do, is to start to sequence all of her genes. Not one at a time, as the knowledge became available, what could cause such things, but really all of them. The new test is called Whole Exome Sequencing, and it promises a breakthrough in diagnostics for patients like Juliet. In the past, you know, diagnostic rates were, you know, below 20 %. The fact that by one single test, you could diagnose maybe 1 / 2 of people as complex as Juliet. Not all with the same disease, but with the cause of their problems, it's huge. In one fell swoop, the test can sequence all of Juliet's genes at the same time. This is Juliets DNA. This has never been possible before. This rich data is compared to the xsomes of Juliet's parents and other mitochondrial disease patients. Allowing doctors to 0 in on the likely mutation causing Juliet's disease. So you can really do personalized medicine, not what is it that's in the community causing mitochondrial disease, but what is it in her. To put this in perspective, the human genome was decoded in 2003 for just under $ 3 billion. The new test achieves the same thing and more, routinely for under $ 7500, and the prices are rapidly coming down. Where can I measure on your head? Can we do that to you, are you gonna be happy? This to me is sort of the discovery of antibiotics, you know, and how that affected human's health down the road. Here's our normal set. And no pits or tags. Doctor Ian Crantz is a pediactric geneticist at the hospital, and he's using the test for his patients with gene based hearing loss. What the research testing is going to do is, look at all of the genes. He says, it represents the starts of a paradigm shift in medicine. Being able to sequence your genes, either through a genome or XM sequencing Gives us the blue print or ground plan of who we are medically. And that means whole exam sequencing has diagnostic powers way beyond a specific disease tested. It's a great tool in terms of finding a diagnosis, but at the same time we will not only, find, hopefully the gene that causes the symptoms you're looking at, but you will find everything else. That everything else is called incidental information. And it can reveal a lot about your future health risks. To everything from cancer, to heart disease, and even someday to Alzheimer's. And this, Dr. Cram says, raises some thorny issues. Are families, who will agree to do this In the best interest of their child for example in pediatrics, be upset with the type of information they're getting back or will they be very happy with that information. We don't know, and one of the reasons for doing the study, is to see how it impacts both the clinicians and the families together. Recently the National Institute of Health awarded the hospital with a grant to study how patients and families cope with all this new information. [ INAUDIBLE ]. But for the Belchers, there's no such thing as too much knowledge. > We would definitely want to know more than maybe most people would want to know about our daughter because of her, her current illness. > We would wanna know more about ourselves as well as we prepare to care for her as an, hopefully, as an adult, uh, who is completely dependent on us for her care. So, if I have a proclivity towards something, you know, in the next 10 years I'd like to be able to prepare for that as well. Really how? The Belchers will soon have that knowledge because, Dr. Plough says, the test is revealing some surprising things about Juliet's disease. I think Juliet has a mutation in the gene. That has never been associated with a human disease, but, it does make very good sense, once you understand what that gene does, that it would cause her specific constellation of features. Hi. [ LAUGH ] are you riding your bike? So, I guess the power of [ INAUDIBLE ] sequencing is that it's making everybody revisit, our assumptions of what we know to be true about different categories of disease. And it's really expanding our understanding of our patients and of the disease. We're grateful, really grateful, for all of the doctors and nurses who have helped us over the years to find a, a way to care for her and manage her symptoms. And we always have hope, everyday, there's going to be another great thing that she does. [ SOUND ] ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/4071250/democratic-debate-science/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/4071250/democratic-debate-science/"},"headline":"The One Question We Should Ask Presidential Candidates","datePublished":"2015-10-13T13:18:23.000Z","dateModified":"2026-08-04T07:38:19.701Z","description":"What would they do to keep the U.S. at the forefront of science and innovation?","url":"https://time.com/4071250/democratic-debate-science/","keywords":["society","politics","Science topic"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltac7f808f17351daa/69886808524fc02246df4fac/female-scientists-research-lab.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Janet Napolitano, University of California / The Conversation"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltac7f808f17351daa/69886808524fc02246df4fac/female-scientists-research-lab.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"female-scientists-research-lab","caption":"female-scientists-research-lab","creditText":"Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/society/","name":"society"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/4071250/democratic-debate-science/","name":"The One Question We Should Ask Presidential Candidates"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"The Next Medical Revolution: Whole Exome Sequencing","description":"A family searching for the cuase of their daughter's disease may finally find answers in a revolutionary genetic test called Whole Exome Sequencing","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/ChFRphdV/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2012-10-21T00:25:42.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/ChFRphdV.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/4071250/democratic-debate-science/","duration":"PT5M53S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/4071250/democratic-debate-science/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```