Fruit fly researchers hold on tight to your charges: Sarah Palin has it out for your favorite organism.

In a recent policy speech on special needs children the vice-presidential candidate disparaged a congressional earmark for “Fruit fly research in Paris, France,” adding incredulously, “I kid you not!”

It seems she was talking about a US government facility in France that studies fruit flies pestering the California olive crop—a decidedly more refined diet than the pungent goo consumed by Drosophila melanogaster, the famous lab workhorse.

I guess no one bothered to tell her that fruit fly research has led to numerous basic science discoveries, such as—oh yeah, the basis for heredity. Not to mention a potential treatment for fragile X syndrome, a major cause of autism, and insight into the brains of people with Down’s syndrome.

It may be easy for Palin to dismiss the insect—after all, it’s not too esthetically appealing. (Unless of course, you happen to work on it.)

At least one renowned fruit fly researcher isn’t impressed. Eric Wieschaus, a winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize in medicine, endorsed Obama in an open letter signed by other Nobel prize winners. Maybe he wasn’t too keen on McCain’s similarly off-target remarks disparaging Grizzly Bear DNA research.

Some of you may have already seen it, but I would encourage to have a look at the excellent special news section on the 2008 US election that my colleagues Roxanne Khamsi, Coco Ballantyne and Charlotte Schubert put together for our October issue. It’s great stuff and a perfect complement to the related special that Nature published several weeks ago.

Also, thanks to those of you who have made positive remarks on the cover of the issue. For our readers beyond the US who may not care about US politics, the elephant and the donkey are the symbols of the Republican and the Democratic parties, respectively.

The cover was created by David Parkins, an excellent cartoonist who impressed me not only because of the quality of his work, but also because of his creativity and speed. To give you an idea, below are a couple of additional ideas we entertained for the cover. He mocked up this drafts incredibly quickly and, for those ideas we put forward to him, he was able to understand them immediately and put it down on paper. Enjoy!

Republicans and Democrats running away from an angry mob of scientists.

Republicans and Democrats searching the right formula to support science.

Republicans and Democrats sleeping, oblivious to the scientists’ demands.

As Sarah Palin and Joe Biden face off tonight in the vice presidential debates many voters will be assessing whether they can trust either one to step into the oval office should the president become incapacitated or die.

So, it’s no surprise that some people have been asking for John McCain to release his complete medical records, especially given his history of melanoma. One activist group has been pushing this agenda in television ads and in a video on YouTube.

The group’s popular YouTube video says that people with stage II melanoma, a type of tumor McCain had removed in 2000, have an approximately 60 percent chance of living for ten years after treatment. That statement is accurate. But the video ignores some subtleties. The New York Times reports that, since he’s already survived more than seven years cancer-free, he has a lower risk (I conferred with an oncologist who also said that for stage II melanoma, most instances of recurrence occur within the first few years). But McCain probably shouldn’t give up his skin checkups just yet, since older people have higher risk.

It’s disconcerting that the McCain campaign chose to release the candidate’s more than 1000 pages of records for only 3 hours to a group of reporters it selected—without allowing them access to recording devices, email or outside consultation. How many blebs, polyps, skin dots and detailed pathological reports did they miss? Either his records contain grist for an outside expert to cast doubt on his fitness, or they would put even the most politically partisan MD to sleep. We may never really know.

What about Obama? It seems his campaign also did not fully release his records either, instead providing a summary from his primary physician saying he was in excellent health.

Is the public entitled to know more? I’m sure most people would not welcome the public airing of their medical history, but it seems that a more open standard should apply to presidential candidates. Have the candidates done enough, or should they both release their complete records?

When I turn on the TV to election events, I’m sensitized to the term ‘Science’. Bill Clinton said ‘Science’ in his speech at the Democratic national convention, referring to an ‘assault on science’ by the Bush administration (hey! Cool! He said ‘Science’!). Obama said it, once, in his acceptance speech.

So when I watched the recent presidential debates, I noticed it again: Obama said it: “Science”. Three times! The context, however, was not quite so thrilling. The candidates were asked how the current financial crisis would affect their campaign proposals—some of them rather ambitious, such as Obama’s to reform health care and double spending on basic research. Both candidates evaded the question, but Obama did seem to be laying out some of his priorities. Although just about everything seemed to remain a priority, at least ‘Science’ was up there.

Not to get too concerned about the numbers, but McCain is laggin’ [Palin speak] in the ‘Science’ word watch, not mentioning it in either the debate or his acceptance speech. (In his acceptance speech McCain did say ‘autism’ , which seems to get more attention from the candidates than other medical conditions, for reasons I have yet to understand).

McCain, however, is leading in another word watch catagory. His acceptance speech contained the word ‘God’ seven times, while Obama’s contained ‘God’ twice.

God bless science.

It’s been online a week—and many of you may have already seen it—but here’s a shout-out to check out Nature’s Election Special. The reporters here in the Washington, DC Nature offices dug deep to bring you the candidates’ views on science, ferreting out the advisors to each campaign and examining how our favorite agencies—such as the NIH—might fare under each candidate.

It’s clear there are some welcome similarities between the candidates—both, for instance, take climate change seriously. But there are also some prominent differences.

Although both candidates say they support increases in funding for research, Obama specifically pledges a doubling of support for basic research. And while Obama is unequivocal about his support for embryonic stem cell research, some researchers are legitimately concerned that McCain is backing off of his previous support ( I will blog about that later this week).

Obama seems to have a deeper network of science advisors. And, unlike McCain, Obama has chosen actual scientists for his science advisors. That might have something to do with the fact that Obama’s campaign bothered to answer a series of questions posed by Nature, although McCain did respond, along with Obama, to a series of science questions posed by ScienceDebate2008, the group that pushed for a science debate among the candidates last April.

To learn more, check out the special!