BioWorld Today Columnist

Fight illiteracy! Sounds like a good rallying cry for a political season, eh? Except the illiteracy I'm talking about is scientific illiteracy, and the candidates lining up to lead us through the next four years all may be guilty of it. Moreover, they are following in what unfortunately seems to be a growing tradition.

Presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain started the latest round in the vaccine wars back in February when he declared that there is "strong evidence" linking thimerosal to an increased incidence of autism (actually, just an increase in the number of diagnoses, which is not necessarily the same thing, although that distinction was not made). While acknowledging that there are "many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying that's not the cause of it," he appeared to come down on the side of a causal link.

Then, on the other side of the aisle, there's Barack Obama, who finds common ground with McCain on the vaccine/autism debate. At an April 21 political rally, he had this declaration to make: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." (The Washington Post suggested that Obama's "this person" remark was referring to the person who asked the question, not himself, but his remark is at least supportive of a causal link between vaccines and autism.)

For what it's worth, Hillary Clinton, though unlikely to be a candidate for much longer, also is on the same bandwagon. In filling out a questionnaire put forward by the group A-CHAMP (Advocates for Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning), she wrote that she was "committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines."

"We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism," she continued. "But we should find out." (Perhaps notably, only McCain actually narrowed his suspicion to thimerosal, rather than vaccines in general. None mentioned that thimerosal is not used in childhood vaccines any longer.)

I'd undoubtedly be preaching to the choir about the lack of credibility to the purported link between autism and vaccines, but that's not my point. Rather, the statements of the candidates on that issue - admittedly, not a central concern for most voters in a general election - point to a larger problem. We, as a society, seem to have increasing difficulty in grappling with scientific issues, and our leaders, far from blazing a rational path, are often part of the problem.

It's difficult to decide whether it's worse if the candidates actually believe what they're saying or if they're just pandering for votes. McCain, for instance, has been accused of flip-flopping on evolution - evolution! He has said in the past that he personally believes in evolution, but has given ambiguous or contradictory comments on whether, and in what context, intelligent design should be taught in schools.

If you doubt that a failure to successfully engage the public on issues of science can have a real impact on the biotech industry, look no further than what has happened with genetically modified crops in Europe over the past decade. Activists with an agenda took advantage of widespread ignorance and used it to create a hysterical opposition that lasts to this day.

There is irony here: Those who have studied the issue have found that the reason an anti-GMO frenzy never took root here is that we Americans generally trust our regulatory institutions. And it's certainly not because U.S. consumers have a better understanding of the intricacies of genetic modification or how it fits into the context of conventional plant breeding.

In other words, important scientific advances have found a commercial foothold in this country because people, by and large, trust the government. So when government fails to show scientific leadership, it's an ominous sign.

Obviously, Americans aren't alone in scientific illiteracy. But ours tends to be of a different sort, more often fueled by religious views. That explains why genetically modified foods, which raise no religious concerns for most people, get a pass here, while issues like stem cells, evolution and even condom use get called into question. (McCain refused to say whether he believed use of condoms could help prevent the spread of AIDS during a press conference on his "Straight Talk Express" bus last March.)

In fact, a 2003 survey conducted by Jon Miller, director of the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University Medical School, found that only 14 percent of Americans believe in evolution, with 33 percent believing it to be "definitely false" and the rest expressing uncertainty. Likewise, a 2005 survey about belief in evolution among 34 countries ranked the U.S. 33, just ahead of Turkey.

How long can an industry struggling to protect people against evolving viruses hope to thrive when only a minority of people actually accept the principle behind what it's doing? How long can it hope to find qualified employees to conduct new research?

Prescriptions for the problem vary, from improving science education to the greater involvement of scientists and scientific organizations in the political process - which are definitely worthy efforts. But we also need politicians who don't pander to ignorance. Perhaps they lack the language with which to do this because they see science and religion as opposing forces, and feel they must either avoid the inevitable clash or try to walk some sort of impossible middle ground.

It's true that some scientists see it that way, too. But it needn't be so in every instance, and certainly as long as many Americans of religious faith feel they have to choose one course or another, our political dialogue is going to be strained by this sort of torturous, nonsensical nondebate.

Despite some of his other remarks, McCain actually has demonstrated a bit of willingness to move in this direction. Here's what he communicated to Christian Broadcast Network correspondent David Brody about his views on evolution last May: "The only undeniable challenge the theory of evolution poses to Christian beliefs is its obvious contradiction of the idea that God created the world as it is in less than a week. But our faith is certainly not so weak that it can be shaken to learn that a biblical metaphor is not literal history. Nature doesn't threaten our faith." (partial excerpt)

That's not a perfect answer, nor one that's likely to satisfy everyone, but it at least engages the issue directly. It certainly beats hemming and hawing over how politicians should spin their views on gravity to please voters.