Jean H Anglade
IndependentQ1 Data centers are a controversial part of America’s growing AI industry, supporting cutting-edge innovation and potential job creation, but raising issues of resource use and utility costs. New York now has a moratorium on data center construction. At the same time, state tax law grants tax exemptions to equipment and services used by data centers, which some proposed legislation would repeal. What do you see as the right balance of costs and benefits for new data center construction in New York, and how would your policies accomplish that balance?
New York should put its residents first when making decisions about AI data centers. I oppose allowing large-scale data center construction to proceed without addressing its effects on electricity costs, water resources, the environment, and local communities.
Technology can create jobs and support innovation, but private companies should not receive public subsidies while residents face rising utility bills or taxpayers absorb the costs of infrastructure expansion. I support reviewing existing tax exemptions and ending subsidies that fail to demonstrate clear, measurable public benefits.
I would support a moratorium on new data center approvals while New York independently evaluates their cumulative effects on energy demand, water consumption, emissions, and utility rates. Any future approvals should require transparent environmental assessments, meaningful community input, enforceable limits on resource use, and proof that costs will not unfairly shift to households.
My administration would prioritize investments that create good-paying jobs and improve people’s lives without sacrificing affordability or environmental responsibility. Innovation should benefit New Yorkers, not simply corporate shareholders.
KEYWORDS: AI accountability; affordable electricity; environmental protection; community oversight.
Q2 New York currently generates about 47% of its energy from low carbon sources including nuclear, hydropower, and wind and solar, with the remainder coming from combustion sources (natural gas, oil, biofuel, and solid waste). While New York committed to shifting to low-carbon energy sources and emissions reductions in passing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), Governor Hochul recently moved to delay implementation of several components of the state’s climate law to December 31, 2028. As concerns about energy costs, reliability, and emissions grow, what energy sources would you prioritize, under what timeline, and what evidence would guide that decision?
New Yorkers deserve energy that is affordable, reliable, and environmentally responsible. My goal is to reduce dependence on polluting combustion sources while ensuring that families and businesses are not burdened with unaffordable utility bills.
I would prioritize maintaining safe existing nuclear and hydropower resources, expanding responsibly sited wind and solar, improving energy storage, and investing in energy efficiency and grid modernization. Natural gas and other combustion sources should be evaluated transparently as part of the transition, with reliability and emissions considered together.
I would establish measurable milestones for the next two, five, and ten years rather than promise a transition on a timeline unsupported by available infrastructure. Major decisions should be guided by independent scientific research, grid reliability assessments, lifecycle emissions data, projected construction costs, and the effects on household utility bills.
New York should not delay climate protections without explaining the consequences, but implementation must also account for practical constraints and protect working families. Any transition should include public reporting, independent oversight, and assistance for low-income households facing higher energy costs.
The objective is a cleaner energy system that works for everyone, not one that makes basic electricity unaffordable.
KEYWORDS: Energy affordability; reliable clean energy; evidence-based policy; grid modernization.
Q3 Young adults say that social media is their top source of science information, but acknowledge that it is less trustworthy compared to other sources. In addition, the widespread usage of social media and other sources of scientific information has resulted in the spread of misinformation that has spurred public education policies to curb it, such as a NYC vaccine misinformation legislation. What role should public education play in combatting misinformation and disseminating trustworthy, up to date scientific information to students and their families?
Public education should help students and families distinguish reliable scientific information from misinformation while protecting critical thinking, open discussion, and freedom of inquiry.
I support teaching scientific literacy, including how to evaluate evidence, recognize misleading claims, understand uncertainty, and identify credible sources. Students should learn how scientific conclusions are developed, tested, challenged, and updated as new evidence becomes available.
Schools should provide age-appropriate information based on current scientific evidence and established educational standards. Teachers should have access to trustworthy educational resources, professional development, and materials that help families understand important public health and environmental issues.
Public education should not become a tool for partisan messaging or punishment of people who ask questions. Government agencies and schools must communicate honestly about what is known, what remains uncertain, and why recommendations change when evidence develops.
I would encourage partnerships among educators, universities, public health experts, and local communities to make reliable information accessible to all families, regardless of income or background.
Trust is earned through transparency, evidence, and accountability. Our goal should be to equip New Yorkers to make informed decisions rather than simply tell them what to believe.
KEYWORDS: Scientific literacy; critical thinking; transparency; evidence-based education.
Q4 Pesticides are widely used in food production to help manage pests and support crop yields, but ongoing debates over their safety have raised questions about their long-term use and led to proposals to restrict certain pesticides. What data and evidence will you use to weigh the role of these products in food security against safety concerns when shaping policy on their use in New York agriculture?
New York must protect both public health and farmers’ ability to produce an affordable, reliable food supply. Decisions about pesticides should be based on the strength of scientific evidence rather than political pressure or assumptions that every pesticide is either completely safe or inherently unacceptable.
I would evaluate independent toxicological research, exposure levels, long-term health studies, environmental persistence, effects on pollinators and other wildlife, and the risks to farmworkers and nearby communities. Regulators should consider the dose, method of application, frequency of exposure, and whether safer effective alternatives are available.
Where evidence identifies significant risks, New York should restrict or phase out particularly harmful products while helping farmers transition to safer alternatives. Where uncertainty remains, the state should invest in independent research, transparent monitoring, and regular reassessment as new findings emerge.
Farmers should have access to integrated pest management, technical assistance, and affordable alternatives that protect crop yields. Regulations should be enforceable and understandable, and the public should have access to relevant safety information.
Fair policy protects consumers, workers, farmers, and the environment together. Food security must never be used as an excuse to ignore credible health risks.
KEYWORDS: Public health, pesticide safety, food security, independent research.
Q5 New York has the second largest international student population of any U.S. state, the majority of which study in STEM fields. The federal government is pursuing largescale changes to student visa approval, including increased visa denials, revoking existing visas, restricting travel from certain countries, and decreasing student visa durations. How, if at all, should New York respond to federal visa changes affecting international STEM students and researchers, and the resulting projected changes in the scientific workforce supply?
New York should protect its ability to attract scientific talent while respecting federal immigration law and ensuring fair opportunities for people who study, work, and conduct research here.
International students and researchers contribute to universities, laboratories, innovation, and economic activity. Sudden changes to visa approvals or duration can disrupt research projects, create uncertainty for employers, and weaken the state’s ability to compete in science and technology.
I would direct relevant state agencies and public universities to assess the effects of federal visa changes on research programs, workforce needs, and university finances. New York should coordinate with universities, employers, and federal representatives to communicate the practical consequences of disruptive policy changes and advocate for transparent, consistent rules.
I would also expand opportunities for New York residents to enter STEM careers through affordable education, apprenticeships, research placements, and workforce training. Publicly funded research programs should emphasize fair hiring, lawful employment, and opportunities for qualified New Yorkers.
International talent and local workforce development should complement each other rather than be treated as competing priorities. My goal is a fair, competitive scientific workforce that creates jobs, advances research, and benefits New York communities.
KEYWORDS: STEM workforce; research investment; educational opportunity; fair employment.
Q6 Extreme weather events are increasingly impacting farmland and food supplies across NY, including up to 30 million dollars in damages to farmer livelihoods. This has prompted the USDA to designate 30 counties in New York as Natural Disaster Areas. What policies, if any, would you support to help farmers adapt to and prepare for increasingly erratic weather?
New York farmers deserve practical support when extreme weather threatens their livelihoods, food production, and local economies. Protecting agriculture is also essential to keeping food supplies dependable and reducing unnecessary price increases for families.
I support expanding access to disaster assistance, affordable crop insurance, emergency recovery funding, and technical resources that help farms prepare for droughts, floods, extreme heat, and unpredictable growing seasons.
New York should work with agricultural universities, local extension programs, farmers, and independent researchers to identify which adaptation measures work best in different regions. Potential investments include improved drainage, efficient irrigation, soil conservation, cover crops, weather-monitoring systems, and crop diversification where appropriate.
The state should establish clear procedures for assessing damage and distributing assistance quickly and fairly, particularly to small and family-owned farms that may lack the resources to recover from a major loss. Programs should be evaluated for effectiveness and accessibility rather than judged by spending alone.
I would also support better forecasting and emergency communication so farmers can prepare before disasters strike.
Farmers should not have to face increasingly unpredictable conditions alone. Helping them prepare protects jobs, rural communities, and New York’s food supply.
KEYWORDS: Agricultural resilience; disaster assistance; soil and water conservation; food security.
Q7 Law enforcement agencies across New York have contracted with Flock to install Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras as a public safety tool. The technology is receiving pushback over concerns over privacy and data sharing, resulting in city councilors in Syracuse voting to remove Flock cameras. What are your views on accessibility and utilization of ALPR data by local and federal law enforcement, and what legislation, if any, would you propose governing how ALPR data is collected, stored, shared and retained?
Public safety matters, but technology used by law enforcement must not eliminate people’s reasonable expectations of privacy or operate without accountability. Automated license plate readers can assist legitimate investigations, but their use should be limited, transparent, and governed by clear laws.
I would support legislation establishing strict rules for collecting, accessing, retaining, and sharing license plate data. Access should be limited to authorized personnel for documented, legitimate law enforcement purposes. Agencies should maintain access logs, conduct regular independent audits, and publish transparency reports that protect active investigations and personal information.
Data should not be retained indefinitely. I would support a short, clearly defined retention period for data that is not connected to a documented investigation, with narrowly defined exceptions subject to oversight. Sharing with federal agencies or outside jurisdictions should require a lawful basis and documented authorization, with safeguards against unauthorized secondary uses.
New York should prohibit using these systems to target people unlawfully based on protected characteristics or to conduct indiscriminate tracking without appropriate legal authority. Residents should have a process for reporting misuse and seeking remedies when their rights are violated.
Technology should help protect communities without turning everyday travel into unrestricted government surveillance.
KEYWORDS: Privacy rights; public safety; data retention limits; independent oversight.
Q8 Smoke from Canadian wildfires in recent summers has pushed New York air quality to unhealthy levels. The long-term consequences, if any, of these wildfires are unknown: Short-term data show a rise in asthma-related emergency department visits during smoke events, though some studies suggest the increase is comparable to that seen on high-pollen days. With extreme wildfire seasons projected to become more frequent as global temperatures rise, what measures, if any, do you think New York should invest in to prepare for future smoke events?
New York should prepare for wildfire smoke as a recurring public health and environmental challenge. Smoke can affect air quality over large areas, and residents need reliable information and practical protection when pollution levels become unhealthy.
I would invest in air-quality monitoring, improved forecasting, and clear public alerts that explain when conditions are dangerous and what precautions people can take. Information should be accessible to people with disabilities and available in multiple languages.
Schools, public buildings, libraries, and other appropriate community facilities should be assessed for their ability to provide cleaner indoor air during severe smoke events. The state should prioritize assistance for communities with limited resources and residents who may have difficulty accessing air filtration or relocating temporarily.
I would support coordination among environmental agencies, public health departments, emergency services, and local governments to establish consistent response plans. Public health officials should monitor emergency visits and other health indicators during smoke events while supporting research into possible long-term effects.
New York should also evaluate the costs and benefits of investments in early warning systems, building ventilation, filtration, and emergency preparedness.
Protecting residents requires planning before the next smoke event, not waiting until air quality becomes hazardous.
KEYWORDS: Air quality monitoring; public health preparedness; clean indoor air; emergency planning.
Q9 New York is the second largest recipient of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Proposed federal budgets would significantly reduce NIH funds going to New York hospitals, universities, and research institutions. Where do you stand on the proposed changes to NIH funding levels, and what steps, if any, would you take to address their potential effect on New York’s research sector?
I oppose indiscriminate federal funding cuts that undermine valuable medical research, weaken New York institutions, and threaten jobs without demonstrating that the reductions will improve efficiency or research outcomes.
NIH-supported research contributes to medical discoveries, scientific training, university activity, and economic development. Significant reductions could disrupt ongoing studies, affect researchers and support staff, and delay work that may benefit patients and communities.
I would urge the federal government to make funding decisions through transparent, evidence-based processes that consider scientific merit, public health priorities, research outcomes, and the long-term consequences of interrupted projects.
At the state level, I would assess which research programs face the greatest risk, identify opportunities to protect essential ongoing work, and explore targeted state investment where funding gaps threaten substantial public benefits. I would also encourage collaboration among universities, hospitals, research institutions, and responsible private partners, with appropriate safeguards for research independence and public accountability.
State assistance should be transparent, fiscally responsible, and evaluated against measurable outcomes. New York should also continue investing in research training and opportunities for its own residents.
Scientific research is an investment in public health, future innovation, and good-paying jobs. Funding decisions should be guided by evidence and public value rather than arbitrary reductions.
KEYWORDS: Medical research; scientific funding; public health; research workforce.