Jasen Cartwright

“Scientific evidence should be the foundation of good policymaking, not something politicians cherry-pick when it supports their talking points. As a scientist, I would approach policy using the scientific method: examine the evidence, question assumptions, consider competing explanations, and be transparent about what we know and what we don’t.

I would seek input from qualified scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, technologists, and people directly affected by the policy. Experts provide the information; they don’t get to dictate the outcome. Neither should politicians.

My job would be to present voters with the best available evidence, including legitimate disagreements, limitations, risks, costs, and uncertainties. If the evidence evolves, I would say so and explain why our understanding changed. Changing your position when better evidence becomes available isn’t weakness—it’s how science works.

Ultimately, the voters decide. My responsibility is to make sure they aren’t being asked to make decisions based on propaganda, fear, misinformation, or political spin. Give people the facts, explain the uncertainty, listen to them, and let them decide what kind of future they want.”

KEYWORDS: Scientific Method; Evidence-Based; Voter Choice

“Government has a legitimate role in funding scientific research, especially in areas where long-term investment and public benefit make private investment unlikely. Basic research, healthcare, energy, infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, and emerging technologies can create enormous economic and societal benefits.

As a techno-populist, I would judge research funding by outcomes—not political connections or which corporation has the best lobbyist. I would prioritize measurable public benefits: new treatments and cures, better infrastructure, American technological leadership, good-paying jobs, energy innovation, stronger manufacturing, and research that creates knowledge we can build upon.

I would also demand transparency and accountability. Taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going, what researchers are trying to accomplish, what the evidence shows, and why a project deserves continued funding. Not every experiment will succeed, and that’s okay. Science inherently involves failure. We shouldn’t punish legitimate research simply because every hypothesis doesn’t work.

The goal should be a government that invests in America’s future while making sure those investments ultimately serve the public—not special interests.”

KEYWORDS: Innovation; Accountability; Public Benefit

“Michigan farmers are the backbone of our food system and rural economy, and government should help create the conditions for them to succeed—not tell them how to run their farms.

I would support investments in agricultural research, water management, resilient infrastructure, crop development, precision agriculture, and technologies that help farmers reduce costs and increase productivity. We should also make sure trade and agricultural policies don’t put Michigan farmers at an unnecessary disadvantage in global markets.

Science and technology can be powerful tools here. Better weather modeling, drought-resistant crops, soil monitoring, automation, robotics, AI, and precision irrigation can help farmers make better decisions while using fewer resources. I would support research based on evidence and measurable results, not political ideology.

Most importantly, farmers should have a seat at the table. Researchers can provide the science, government can provide resources and oversight, and farmers can tell us what actually works in the real world.”

KEYWORDS: Agriculture; Innovation; Resilience

“Clean drinking water is not a partisan issue. It is a basic responsibility of government, and Michigan should be a national leader in protecting its water resources.

I would support significant investment in replacing aging water infrastructure, removing lead service lines, upgrading treatment facilities, and improving water systems in communities that lack the resources to do it themselves. PFAS and other contaminants should be addressed using the best available science, with polluters held accountable whenever they can be identified.

I would also support increased monitoring and transparent reporting so residents know what’s in their water and what is being done about it. We shouldn’t wait for people to get sick before acting.

The Great Lakes are one of Michigan’s greatest assets and an enormous economic and environmental resource. Protecting them requires long-term planning, modern infrastructure, strong environmental standards, and continued scientific research.

Taxpayer dollars should go toward measurable improvements—not political favors. We should use science and technology to identify problems early, fix infrastructure before it fails, and make sure every Michigan community has access to safe drinking water.”

KEYWORDS: Clean Water; Infrastructure; Accountability

“Access to healthcare shouldn’t depend on your ZIP code or whether you live in a major city. I would support policies that expand the healthcare workforce, particularly in rural and underserved communities, including incentives for doctors, nurses, specialists, and other providers to practice where they’re needed most.

I would also support expanding telehealth and removing unnecessary barriers that prevent patients from accessing specialists. Technology can make a huge difference here. A patient shouldn’t always have to drive hours for a consultation when a secure telehealth appointment can connect them with a specialist.

Emerging technologies, including AI, can also help with diagnostics, medical imaging, administrative work, and identifying patients who need additional care. But technology should assist healthcare professionals, not replace them, and it needs appropriate testing, oversight, privacy protections, and transparency.

I would focus on measurable outcomes: shorter wait times, more providers, better access to specialists, lower costs, and better health outcomes. Government should help create the conditions for innovation while making sure patients—not corporations or political interests—remain the priority.”

KEYWORDS: Access; Telehealth; Innovation

“America needs an energy strategy based on science, economics, reliability, and reality—not partisan ideology. Electricity demand is growing, and we need abundant, reliable, affordable energy to power manufacturing, electrification, AI, and data infrastructure.

I support an all-of-the-above approach that includes nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and emerging technologies. Nuclear deserves serious investment because it can provide reliable, low-carbon electricity around the clock. Wind and solar can provide inexpensive generation where conditions are favorable, but we also need storage, transmission, and other reliable generation to account for intermittency.

I would support research and development into advanced nuclear reactors, battery storage, grid modernization, geothermal energy, and other technologies that can make our energy system cleaner, more reliable, and more affordable.

Regulation should protect public health and the environment without becoming a political weapon against particular technologies. Projects should be evaluated on evidence, safety, cost, reliability, and environmental impact.

The goal isn’t to pick a favorite energy source. The goal is keeping the lights on, keeping energy affordable, creating American jobs, and maintaining our technological and manufacturing competitiveness. We should use the best available science and let results—not ideology—determine what scales.”

KEYWORDS: Reliability; Innovation; Affordability

“I support technological growth, but we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past by letting technology advance faster than the rules protecting people and the infrastructure we all depend on. We need clear, enforceable, technology-neutral regulations and what I would call Asimov-style rules: AI should be designed to protect human life, respect human rights, and remain accountable to humans.

Data centers should pay their fair share of the infrastructure they consume. If a company requires massive amounts of electricity, water, or new transmission capacity, taxpayers shouldn’t automatically be stuck with the bill. Developers should demonstrate that projects can be supported without compromising reliability or local water resources.

I would support research into more energy-efficient AI, advanced cooling systems, water conservation, grid modernization, and cleaner power generation. I also support transparency around energy and water consumption so communities can make informed decisions.

Most importantly, regulation should be clean, understandable, and based on measurable risks—not political panic or corporate lobbying. We shouldn’t try to stop AI. We should make sure the technology serves people rather than the other way around.

Innovation and regulation aren’t enemies. Good rules create the foundation for sustainable innovation.”

KEYWORDS: AI Safety; Infrastructure; Sustainability