A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology Policy

"Science Debate 2008," launched today by a group of concerned citizens, is calling for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology policy.

Science Debate 2008 already has the support of almost sixty eminent scientists (including 11 Nobel laureates), business leaders, journalists and editors (including the editors in chief of both Science and Scientific American), politicians (including several members of Congress and two former Science Advisers to the President), the president of Princeton, and several presidents of large science organizations.

This is the longest running presidential race in history, and yet no event is scheduled in which the candidates are asked to focus on the two most pressing social issues of our time: science and technology. We are asking the candidates to take time out of their busy schedules for this because nothing could be more important.

If you go to ScienceDebate2008.com, you will see who we are, who has signed the initial letter, and the list of issues we believe should be discussed by the candidates. They fall under three broad categories: Health And Medicine; the Environment; and Science and Technology Policy.

When you think about it, it is peculiar that debates on these vital issues are not already an integral part of the electoral process. We want to make sure they become so.

Our idea, which is already flourishing in the blogosphere, has generated great enthusiasm, but also received some initial criticisms. One of these is the suggestion that the candidates simply are not equipped to talk about science. We disagree. The candidates do not need a degree in economics in order to talk about the economy, nor do they require one in science in order to discuss science.

We are not proposing a pop quiz or an argument, but rather, we are suggesting an illuminating debate. The electorate should have the opportunity to hear the candidates discuss their policy positions on our many scientific and technological challenges, what their ethical positions are in relation to them, and what their aspirations are.

We do not approach discussion of these issues with a gloomy or adversarial attitude. Along with such people as Newt Gingrich and many church leaders, we acknowledge there are serious problems that must be faced, that we have a moral obligation to face them, but also that within these problems lie opportunities that can bring out the best in the entrepreneurial American spirit. America can be a leader in finding cures for our worst diseases, invent the best alternative energy sources, and graduate the most scientifically literate children in the world. But if optimism is not followed by sound policy, if we do not ensure that these things happen here, they will happen elsewhere and America will concede huge economic and humanitarian benefits to other countries.

The choice is ours. Whoever we elect will have to make these great decisions. They are decisions that will effect not only us and not only our immediate future, but the entire world for a very long time.

We already have an extraordinary group of signatories calling for Science Debate 2008. Additionally, a growing coalition of bloggers have joined us and we are encouraged by the tremendous level of enthusiasm expressed already. We now seek further support from individuals and groups from any part of the political, religious, and social spectrum.

We would like you to go to our website, ScienceDebate2008.com, and register your support for this important idea. But don't stop there. If you belong to a campaign, talk to your candidate and ask him or her to become a part of this. Send an email to the head of your party, Howard Dean, for Democrats, Mike Duncan for Republicans, and tell them you like this idea.

Matthew Chapman and Sheril Kirshenbaum are Science Debate 2008 steering committee members

Comments

[Chris24Ruh]

I am just not at all sure what is to be gained for any inquiry into what the presidential candidates think and believe when it comes to technology and science. All we need to know about such things as the origin of the planet, the evolution of our species, the movements of the stars in the skies and such is contained in the Bible. Yeah, I know, what the Bible actually says (already open to interpretation depending upon whether you believe it to be truly literal or not) doesn't exactly square with how little things like molecules, germs, genes, atoms and elements behave, nor can I make any sense at all of what the fossil record and geologic stratification of sediments suggest is the age of the plent with what the Bible says. But I'm pretty sure if I just believe enough it'll all work out.

And that's what I want in my next president. What they know about all those facts and stuff is not important to me at all. But what they believe, well, gosh, that's what really counts, right? Anyway, I gotta go. I'm on my ay to visit the Noah's Ark museum to bone up on my natural history. Bye.

[EDRO]

"The key to preventing the next mass species extinction and preserving human cultures is one of creating the opportunity for humans to evolve at very low rates of energy (and material) consumption."
edro.wordpress.com/energy-dinosaurs/

[EDRO]

"The key to preventing the next mass species extinction and preserving human cultures is one of creating the opportunity for humans to evolve at very low rates of energy (and material) consumption."

http://edro.wordpress.com/energy-dinosaurs/

[GoodwithWood]

Dam good Idea. And the hand raisers in that earlier republican debate can site this one out cuz they lost before it started.

[MagisterLudi]

In a speech to a gathering of mathematics professors from throughout the United States, George W. Bush warned the academics not to misuse their position to force their often extremist political views on young Americans. "It is my understanding", the president said, "that you are frequently teaching algebra classes in which your students learn how to solve equations with the help of radicals. I can't say that I approve of that..."

[ChristopherLib]

Sounds like a good idea, just like the preposal for a New Orleans debate, but like that this will never be agreed to by Republicans. They do not want to debate anything they can't spin in their favor with cheap slogans and BS, and a Science and Technology debate could be a disaster for them.

[arturoK]

The comments seem to confuse science with science and technology (S&T) policy. S&T policy includes such questions such as the division of funding between pure and applied research; the extent the military can be depended upon to push technology; in the competition for a fixed pot of funding, what fields should be emphasized. In other words, what is the government's role in S&T? One might also suggest the inverse: what is S&T's role in government, but I think that is a philosophy of governance, not S&T policy. Thus, whether to fund stem cell research is S&T policy, but whether to change the CAFE standards due to scientific global-warming evidence is not S&T policy. I agree with the original post that we ought to know what the candidates think about S&T policy, but I question the value of a debate on the subject. I have worked in this area during (but not in) the administrations of four Presidents, and in all of them economic philosophies affected or drove S&T policy to some degree. It would be interesting to know how the candidates view that relationship, but I would rather know how they view science itself. The current administration clearly has been prepared to ignore science if it didn't suit other policy goals. Thus, the administration made NOAA take down its web site projecting effects of global warming; this was because the Republican Party's energy clients didn't want to be regulated. On the other hand, the stem-cell debate has virtually no scientific content at all: it is a philosophical-religious debate that affected a funding decision in exactly the way abortion funding decisions were driven. So, the comments here may have a point: we need a debate or position papers on what the candidates think about S&T per se. Short of someone who thinks the government has no role in S&T, I much more fear someone who thinks evolution is false than someone who would dicker with how much the NSF gets vs. NIH or DARPA.

[AMolinaro]

Well, as long as the debates are sponsored by energy companies you'll never see a moderator allow discussion of the environment. Even without the environment, you'd only get the Democratic candidates to show up. The GOP is strongly against science, since science disagrees with their Christofascist base.

[cognate]

I'd love to hear the candidates debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Mormondude]

I don't think 'the environment' has a place in such a debate.

Sure, talk about energy research and such, but harping on environmental policy would significantly distract from and overshadow everything else, and should really be discussed on its own.

[Counterglow]

You're doomed.

Bible thumpers couldn't care less about science and technology, and their ignorance is bottomless. There are a lot of them in the race, and there's no way they're going to let somebody ask questions that have showcase the aforementioned ignorance.

Even the relatively sane candidates probably think RNA is something in a laundry detergent.

Yes, science and technology should be on the agenda, and I wish you luck. But I'm not holding my breath.

[white_mende_man]

have we gone beyond evolution yet to talk about science?

[white_mende_man]

Before we have a debate on any other subject we should have one on religion. religion whether good or bad seem to be the driving force or hidden agenda the candidates are using to pander and mislead the masses. its use is far worst than if you openly hand out opium, and its consequences are far reaching and for more dangerous pitting one set of values over someone else's globally. it's as if we are being told to go back in the cave while we devise even greater destructive weapons to kill and maim our fellow human beings.

[The Collinbrandt]

I've been around a long time and, I have observed that even animals use technology both to survive and, make life easier for themselves. Humans and animals do not exist in a faith based world. Animals that are faith based do not survive. A couple of years ago I saw a turkey walk boldly out alone into an open field. The turkey evidently had faith the field was safe since no predator was waiting out there. But, alas, I saw an eagle dive almost straght down from the sky upon the prancing turkey. I saw the eagle pounce on the turkey, the turkey let out a horrible turkey scream, then a yelp, then it was dead. The turkey had faith it could prance across the field in total safety, whereas, the eagle used animal math to calculate that when the turkey was at a certain point, the eagle could pounce upon the turkey and the turkey would have no means of escape. The turkey used faith whereas the eagle used his complex understanding of of geometry, wind currents, turkey/eagle physiology etc, to win his meal. If science teaches us anything it is that we need to be proactive. I'm not sure you can debate people that rely on faith for their survival and want everyone else to do the same.

[Fez]

Forget having a debate about science and technology until the current candidates for President show that they understand the scientific method, logic, and how hypotheses are postulated, argued for or against using factual evidence, and proven or disproven. Listening to the current Republican candidates, one would think that the last 500 years of western civilization (sic) had never happened. These people do not understand how science works and have made the mistake of trying to substitute faith and belief for facts. The last time we had anyone in the White House who understood science and technology was Jimmy Carter, who was a nuclear engineer trained at Annapolis. Next we had Ronald Reagan, who believed that trees caused pollution, ketchup was a vegetable, and that necromancers and soothsayers should be consulted before he made any major decisions. I suggest that we stop chastizing our youth for their lack of scientific knowledge until we can produce some "leaders" who will conduct a reality-based government.