• Health reform
• EMRs
• Medicare
• Liability
• AMA House
• » More

• Contract Language
• Ethics Forum
• In the Courts
• Practice Management
• Technically Speaking
• » More

• Issue dates
• Regions
• Health plans
• Sections
• News briefs
• Columns
• Editorials
• Letters
• Series
• Writers
• Other years

• Search tips
• Email alert
• RSS
• Mobile
• Subscribe
• Institutions
• Staff directory
• Advertising
• Permissions
• Reprints
• News media
• Site guide
• Useful links
• About
• Premium
• Contact

• AMA Wire
• CPT
• DMPHP
• JAMA
• JAMA Network
• news@JAMA
• Virtual Mentor
• Physician jobs

Final answer: Candidates should show what they know

Commentary. By Harry Levy, MD, amednews contributor. Feb. 21, 2000.

• PRINT|
• E-MAIL|
• RESPOND|
• REPRINTS|
• SHARE
•  

Republican presidential hopeful Gov. George W. Bush of Texas is on record as saying the teaching of creationism should be left up to local educators.

The Democrat's top candidate, Vice President Al Gore, agrees. So, too, did many of the "lesser" candidates. One thing I know, when so many politicians agree, we're all definitely at risk.

Because we live in an age of wondrous and rapid scientific change, the risk from such attitudes is especially high. What if a prospective president refuses to accept the fruits of scientific research? Where would we be, for example, if President Jefferson had still believed that the earth was flat? He might have passed on the Louisiana Purchase.

Before someone becomes president, we have to be sure that person is educationally up to the challenge of understanding what science and technology will bring to us in the years ahead. Though candidates routinely release their medical records, in the current race for the White House we even have one major contender who refuses, on privacy grounds, to let us see his college transcript or even his high school record.

Although we respect privacy, we have to find some way to measure a candidate's knowledge of medicine and science.

All schools and educations are not of equal quality. Bush went to Yale, Gore to Harvard, but perhaps they took sociology or earth science, not biology or chemistry or physics, to meet their science requirement.

We simply don't know what they learned and whether the information stuck. We doctors take recertification tests and hours of continuing medical education courses every year. Why exempt politicians from similar requirements?

Admittedly it's not the best way to measure a person's ability, but it does provide a rough indicator. At least, for this group of native-born candidates (a constitutional prerequisite for the presidency), we wouldn't have to contend with claims of English language, ethnic or national origin bias.

We're not talking about a full-scale Presidential Aptitude Test -- a PAT. No one wants to start a new industry of PAT facilitators, PAT improvement centers and PAT Cliff's Notes.

Something smaller, open and accessible to the public would seem more appropriate, for we the public must bear witness and make the ultimate assessment.

I propose that most appropriately American format, the TV game show, perhaps modeled after the very popular "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" Some candidates will, undoubtedly, complain that they don't test well, especially in front of the class. Some will say they are dyslexic, or suffer from attention deficit, or offer some other affliction as a preemptive excuse. I'm sympathetic, really, but you know the line about the heat and the kitchen.

"Who Wants to Be a President?" would be a smash, guaranteed to increase voter interest in the presidential election -- certainly an outcome we can all support.

Take away one of the presidential debates with all the predicable posturing and platitudes. Let us, instead, watch our candidates, from inside their isolation chambers, answer the questions.

Appearing together, faced with the same question set, we could objectively see which candidate triumphed, mano a mano.

Perhaps hosted by Regis Philbin -- or better yet, someone with more spice. David Letterman, Eddie Murphy and Madonna come to mind. Or someone more academic, just so long as we don't have one of those boringly neutral debate moderators who would put us to sleep and deprive the nation of a rare opportunity to learn answers to important medical and scientific multiple choice questions.

I'll even offer the first question:

The name of Charles Darwin's breakthrough book on evolution is:
a. Apeman Cometh
b. Ape Fear
c. Ape House
d. Planet of the Apes

Dr. Levy is a preventive medicine physician and executive editor of two Web sites, as well as the author of the medical thriller "Chain of Custody."

Back to top