Do Norwegian politicians care about research?

According to the CEO of the Norwegian Research Council (NFR) Arvid Hallén, Norwegian politicians don't care about science. Recently, NFR sent out an invitation to our national politicians at Stortinget, encouraging them to define and discuss their opinion on research and science policy. Less than 25% showed up.

Me, I'd really like to know who showed up, so that I can use that information to vote more strategically come next Fall. Can't say that I'm surprised. Every election year, politicians of all genders and political orientations utter a variation on the following into TV cameras with a straight face: "We need to put more money into research and higher education. If we're elected, we'll see to it that research contributes to 3% of the GNP within (enough time that people have forgotten, but still a time frame)". Last election, I read the programs of each registered party, and the majority echoed the 3% of GNP goal. The exception: The Progress Party (FrP), which more or less comes right out and says they don't give a damn about science, and as a matter of fact they don't much care for people with skills within science either. They strongly support science education, as long as it doesn't progress beyond high school level. All things in moderation, dontcha' know.

But at least the Progress Party is honest - to the extent politicians have the capacity for honesty - about the fact that they think scientists suck and that universities are a waste of perfectly good bowling alleys, night clubs and pre-owned car sales lots.

The time-tested promise of more science and education, only to never mention said promise again - conveniently supported by the opposition which never intended to make good on that promise either - is a play straight outta' ye olde Switch-and-Bait for Dummies manual. After all, it sounds awesome to be all about science and research, but when it comes down to it, how many people work within higher education and R&D? Who's gonna be the "disgruntled nurse/kindergarten teacher" equivalent? Some professor or that walking stereotype they dust off and display every time there's an eclipse? Good luck getting any sympathy from the general population. Imagine the following televised debate between Professor Feynman J. Oppenheimer-Hawking, PhD, and I.P Freely, 15 study points in art history (E average), black belt with matching shoes in sophistry and televangelism, representative of the Neanderthal Party:

Prof. Oppenheimer-Hawking: During the last election, your party, as well as your coalition partners, promised to increase the research council budget. Three years in, you have cut the NFR budget with 75%, put a 100 kNOK cap on budgets for individual grant applications, and publicly expressed a plan for what you refer to as "our moon landing" which you have promised will occur within the existing budget limitations. If you try to match the projected costs with the existing funding - even without including personnel expenses - you end up having to take the square root of a negative number.
I.P. Freely: We have to prioritize and spend the money where the situation is most dire. For example, the last administration failed spectacularly in providing kindergarten capacity for all children in Norway, whereas we have literally constructed tens of kindergartens within the last three years.
Prof. Oppenheimer-Hawking: Considering that your promised deadline for full kindergarten capacity expired two and a half years ago, this is hardly impressive. How do you expect Norway to meet the expressed goals - expressed by you, I might add - of becoming, and I quote: "World leaders in science and hi-tech stuff within 2020" when you routinely reject any grant application exceeding 100 kNOK? When my department applied for grant money to purchase a new electron microscope last year, we got a rejection letter suggesting that we try to squint really hard through two pairs of glasses.
I.P. Freely: This is all about determining how the money can be spent for the greater good, not about appeasing your self-indulgent research. We need to improve the roads, so that all the commuters can drive faster while drunk, if they want to. Also, we need to focus on collective transportation, because car traffic is bad for the environment. And we need to lower fuel costs, because people can't afford driving their cars to work. And won't someone PLEASE think of the children.....

I'm the world's worst politician, but it would take me three seconds to derail a debate like this into focusing on something which affects the general population more directly.