Tony Thompson
DemocraticQ1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?
Iowa’s cancer crisis demands urgent action, grounded in scientific evidence rather than political ideology. We need to better understand why cancer rates are so high, identify preventable risks, and invest in solutions that address the underlying causes while improving access to screening, early detection, and treatment.
I support strengthening cancer research, expanding water quality monitoring, investigating environmental and occupational exposures, and ensuring that Iowans, particularly in rural communities, have access to affordable cancer screening and care.
I’m especially interested in solutions that address multiple challenges at once. Diversifying Iowa’s agricultural economy, for example, could create new opportunities for farmers while greatly improving soil and water quality and reducing exposure to harmful substances. These are the kinds of investments that can strengthen our economy and protect public health simultaneously.
We know enough to take bolder action now. Iowa families deserve more than concern about our cancer rates. They deserve a serious, sustained commitment to reducing them.
Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?
Reduced funding for our research institutions undermines our ability to address some of Iowa’s greatest challenges: a struggling economy, declining water quality, and troubling cancer rates. These are complex problems that demand rigorous scientific research, innovation, and evidence-based solutions. Cutting research funding moves us in the wrong direction.
We must invest in our future, and that means investing in higher education and scientific research. Iowa’s universities are economic engines, attracting federal dollars, creating jobs, developing new technologies, and preparing the next generation of researchers and innovators.
I would advocate for restoring federal research funding while strengthening Iowa’s own commitment to public universities, competitive research grants, and partnerships that translate discoveries into practical solutions for Iowa communities and businesses.
We cannot cut our way to prosperity. If we want a stronger economy, healthier communities, and a future that gives our children reasons to stay in Iowa, we must be willing to invest in the knowledge and innovation that make those outcomes possible.
Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as policy making related to public health, energy, agriculture, and environmental regulation. What role, if any, should scientific evidence and expert input play in your policymaking process, and how would you evaluate competing or uncertain scientific claims when making policy decisions? What role, if any, should that process play when scientific consensus and public opinion diverge?
Sound policymaking starts with evidence. Scientific research and expert input should play a central role in understanding problems, evaluating solutions, and anticipating unintended consequences. When scientific claims compete, I would seek input from experts with differing perspectives, examine the quality of the research, and give greater weight to findings supported by rigorous methods and broad scientific consensus. Where uncertainty remains, we should acknowledge it and be willing to adjust policies as new evidence emerges.
Public opinion is also essential to representative government, but it should inform policymaking rather than substitute for evidence. When public opinion and scientific consensus diverge, legislators have a responsibility to listen, explain the evidence, and build public understanding and trust. That is increasingly difficult do to in a time when the pace of change is accelerating rapidly.
Science helps us understand what is likely to work; our shared values and public priorities help determine what we should seek to accomplish.