With All due Respect, Scientific American: You ask Stupid Questions, You Get Stupid Answers

Scientific American sent a survey of 14 policy questions to the Obama and Romney campaigns, and now, having received responses from both, it has published the responses side-by-side for comparison. Then SA's editors will decide the ones they like most and publish that analysis them next month.  It's a nice idea, to ask their opinions and compare them, but what they've gotten back isn't going to help anybody or convince anybody of anything.

The problem is that the questions SA asked are too vague and allow for vague answers. So, for instance, SA begins by asking:

Science and technology have been responsible for over half of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII, when the federal government first prioritized peacetime science mobilization. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation?

One is not going to get a useful answer to that from politicians. They do not want to offend potential voters, so they are going to answer vaguely and with jargon. No one will be convinced by one of those answers -- and the politician are not seeking to convince so much as to not offend. They use minimax. The result is that people remain entrenched in their views; those who like Obama will find a reason to like Obama and hate Romney, and those who like Romney will find a reason to like Romney and hate Obama. No useful information is generated.

The way to ask the question is as follows:

Do you support increased funding for the National Science Foundation?
          Yes ____   No____   Unsure____
          If so, by how much? $_______ million   
Do you support increased funding for the National Institutes of Health?
          Yes ____   No____   Unsure____
          If so, by how much? $_______ million    
Do you support increased funding for NASA?
          Yes ____   No____   Unsure____
          If so, by how much? $_______ million    
Do you support increased funding for the Department of Agriculture/FDA?
          Yes ____   No____   Unsure____
          If so, by how much? $_______ million    
Please explain your answer or offer other comment.

The object here is to break the question down into specific questions and call for an exacting answer. Of course, a candidate may refuse to answer such questions. The refusal, however, emphasizes their evasiveness, particularly when their opponent may be specific. A publication with the muscle of Scientific American can emphasize that. There's a sort of prisoner's dilemma here for the candidates; that's a position we want to put them in.