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

[lastams]

Science and technology?
Look, the Republicans are reaching out to the same double digit IQ Nationalists that want to kill or torture everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus.
...a debate on Science?
they refuse to even admit to evolution.

[Rescisco]

Right on! Lets get a petition going on this. If we make it clear that the public wants this debate, our putative "leaders" will be sure to follow the crowd. Just don't expect too much from such a debate. After a couple of sound bites, most of these candidates will run out of things to say very quickly.

[StephenSmoliar]

This argument rests on a misconception of its fundamental premise: It is not that science and technology are "the two most pressing social issues of our time;" it is that the CONSEQUENCES ensuing from how science and technology are currently PRACTICED are the "most pressing social issues of our time." Einstein understood the need to reason about consequences, but his wisdom went out of fashion with the rise of the Military Industrial Complex and remains neglected to this day. I can understand that scientists and technologists who see their careers in jeopardy want to confront any would-be President; but our very social world is in jeopardy from some of the abusive practices that now pollute science and technology. My guess is that this latter problem is "off the radar" for both Science Debate 2008 and the candidates it wishes to invite.

[radmul]

The republicans have put forth their position on science and technology. Science is bad and technology should have no regulation.

[ianrthorpe]

Over in the states you have religionist politicians who oppose sciences as a matter of faith, here in the UK we seem to have bred a generation of scientists who are determined to turn "science" into a faith.

We should remember the sciences are simply formalised bodies of knowledge, the religionists need to understand scientific study is essential if we are to deal with climate change, those who appear to believe "science" is some kind of deity should learn the origins of science are in religion, in the Avesta, the sacred texts of the Zoroastrians: http://www.avesta.org/
It is not all that long ago many of the great pioneers of modern science, Joseph Priestley for example, were deeply religious. There need be no divide between the two, but fundamentalist religion and scientific pedantry seem set on having head banging contests on every issue.

http://machiavelli.blog.co.uk/2007/12/10/support_for_sensible_science~3423651

[Camel54]

I can't imagine the Republicans ever participating in this. I believe they would fear a "gotcha" forum in which they would have to defend the completely idiotic tenets of Intelligent Design, which is not science and should not even be mentioned in such a forum anyway. Plus, we already know some of the Republican candidates believe or say they believe the earth is 6000 years old and the Bible accurately describes its creation. How can science even be seriously broached in that context?

Plus, I think we all agree education has a heavy bearing on this subject as well and we have yet to see any meaningful debate on that.

In some ways, I would almost rather not hear politicians speak about science. They have no idea what they're talking about. Between them and the talking heads who spout off on the subject, they are distorting America's understanding of what is and what is not actual science. I want to hear the politicians say they will defer to the scientists on the ground, the generals in the war on stupidity. Put it in terms the Republicans put the Iraq debacle in and say, "I want to hear from Stephen Hawking, Stephen Jay Gould (or his ilk anyway), Watson and Crick, etc."

[Talcott]

Energy is the Key Issue

Energy

Is

The

Key

Issue

[Skeptjk]

Matthew, you have the support of www.TeamGaia.com
-mark

[Libsrule]

I have been asking the same question since they started. WHEN are we going to ask candidates their stand on science funding and what they believe with regards to stem cell research and evolution, etc.

I can already see the fence straddling though

AND I want to see what they would say when asked if they would continue the torture and rendition that this criminal administration has been doing.

Would they have investigations of the CIA, The Department of Justice, FBI, etc. or just give everyone a pass like they have so far with Chimpy McFlightsuit and Darth Cheney?

Because right now as much as I agree with you, if you had a debate scheduled on science and technology every last one of them...well maybe not Edwards, would have "Scheduling conflicts".

The reason they will be too cowardly to show up is because they are afraid of saying anything that would offend the fundies who are anti science and anti evolution and thus possibly losing one of those votes.

Better to get into office than to take a principled stand.

[smheart78]

Have we had an All Iraq/Middle East foreign Policy debate yet?!?!
Isn't this a little more important?

[BDuPont]

One word will suffice: OUTSOURCE.

Why fight it? The truth is that Americans are getting fatter, lazier, and increasingly incurious. Science taxes the brain, best to pay others to do it. Afterwards, we'll tour their facilities, assuming the $ remains almighty.

[DemPartyGirl]

No, it really is a bad idea.

One of these [criticisms] 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.

Your logic is flawed. While the candidates may not need a degree in economics to talk about the economy, many of the candidates are career politicians who lack a basic understanding of economic principles. Even so, they understand only what their advisers tell them.

This country has a population that is barely literate in science. Even if such a debate were to take place, I seriously doubt the viewing audience would comprehend the issues at stake. And what would such a debate do to improve the understanding of those who believe in creationism over evolution and who believe that global warming isn't caused by humans?

A debate like this is a pipe dream. A good one, but a pipe dream nonetheless.

[hopeless277]

I just hope they talk about BOTH side of that science thing. Gravity is only a theory after all.

[echoes44442002]

A science debate is necessary especially in light of the fact that the U.S. government is currently, without legal sanction, secretly using thought reading technology on unwilling U.S. citizens--Kathy Heckman [e-mail]