Candidates: It's time to talk about science (update 14 February)
On 26 December the two credentialed scientists in Congress, physicists Vern Ehlers and Rush Holt, signed on as co-chairs of the Sciencedebate2008 project. The object is to get the presidential candidates to hold a debate on science and technology policy as soon as possible. I am endorsing it, and I'm asking my fellow About.com Guides to do the same.
This is not a partisan campaign—both Democratic and Republican candidates are falling short. Scientists alone amount to more than 5 million voters, and scientifically literate voters add up to far more. The time has passed when candidates can pander to those who call science irrelevant or ungodly. Science has a place as a controlling authority, whether it is in assessing missile-defense programs, enacting truly carbon-neutral energy policy or overseeing nuclear technology projects. The president must understand science, and we who cherish science must be reassured. We must see the candidates respond to tough questioning.
The names of those endorsing this effort are among my heroes. Those I recognize immediately, besides Ehlers and Holt, are Peter Agre, Steve Chu, Rita Coldwell, Ann Druyan, Niles Eldredge, Kendrick Frazier, Richard Garwin, John Gibbons, Sheldon Glashow, John Holdren, Gerald Holton, Jack Horner, Donald Kennedy, Neal Lane, Leon Lederman, Jere Lipps, Michael Mann, Bill Nye, Kevin Padian, Bob Park, John Rennie, Allan Sandage, Eugenie Scott, Maxine Singer, Jill Tarter, Kip Thorne and Frank Wilczek. I'm proud to add my name to theirs.
Update: As Chris Mooney points out, the position of the Presidential Science Advisor has deteriorated from the place of influence it has had since the Eisenhower administration. Yet the importance of science is as great as ever. He suggests that the traditional physicists in the position should give way to a biologist or environmental scientist—funny that no one can say "geologist" any more. I think a geologist is just what is needed, here as well as elsewhere in government.
I'm listed now at ScienceDebate2008 with almost a hundred other bloggers. A good roundup of related news is on Slate's Cosmic Log blog by Alan Boyle.
UPDATE II: Sciencedebate2008.com has continued to collect signatures and announced, on 12 February, that a date and place have been chosen for the event. The debate will be held at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia on 18 April at 7 pm. The presidential candidates have been invited. And Sciencedebate2008 also issued this nifty graphic for supporters to use.
Comments
Yes! I’ve been a writing letter to the editor to this effect in my head during the hectic Christmas season. Here are some questions.
If elected, will you name a presidential science advisor? What type of person would you name? How will you make decisions where science is involved? What role do you see for the National Academy of Sciences?
you lost me when you started involving politics with science.
the Gore hoax is being perpetuated by so called independent thinkers like yourself who endorse his brand of junk science
thanks for several years of wonderful articles and good bye
That’s pretty funny, jtmckee. You can’t point to a single thing I’ve written that endorses “the Gore hoax”.
Andrew Alden: Impressed to see comments on science that are not party biased or linked to Global Warming.
The Global Warming nazis will only stiffle real science.
If science or technology could grant you the power to do ANY 1 thing , but 1 thing only , what would it be? That is my question to the candidates and to the voters in America. Every one should pay attention to how their candidate answers. If you don’t agree don’t vote for them
As i recall all President’s since FDR has has “science advisors” and there is a formal office of science policy as I recall in the EOB. The issue is not naming an advisor, a Presidential appointment–I am not even certain if Congressional approval is required-but rather the character and quality of the individual named. The perspective of a President will determine the person appointed, but it really is another matter whether that person will have any meaningful influence in scientific matters, or whether the President the advisor serves really cares.
There are serious issues related to the beliefs of the current group of candidates. Mr. Huckabee, a perfectly charming person with a sense of whimsy about him also seems intellectually troubled by evolution, Darwin, fossils, and the idea that humans evolved or that the world is not 6000 years old. Mr. Huckabee is an intellectual Neanderthal in spite of his golden personality. Mr. Romney supports a belief set that maintains that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri; that Jesus was ressurected and journied to America; that Native Americans are of the Lost Tribes of Israel, and much more that is patently absurd and antiscientific. Mr. Romney has not distanced himself from these views and if he belives this nonsense, he is an intellectual australopithecine. Thus, I am less concerned with who might be appointed “Science Advisor” then I am concerned with wheter a Neanthal or australopithecine occupies the Oval Office.
Mr Wolberg’s comments are well taken. I guess I’m nostalgic for the Ike Eisenhower-Jim Killian days when it seemed that science really mattered.
The creationism movement is gaining ground! If you forget science in our schools; we will de-evolve and our future will not have a prayer of a chance!
I am a postdoc at Johns Hopkins and I think “Science Debate 2008″ is a great idea. It is really unfortunate that they have decided to exclude one of the five remaining major-party candidates due to their arbitrary definition of “viability”: Ron Paul. Maybe with the news that Ralph Nader is running, they should extend invitations to both Ron Paul and Ralph Nader.