Science Debate 2008 -- Take Two

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

Co-authored by Lawrence Krauss

On April 13, Messiah College in Pennsylvania will be hosting a "Compassion Forum," an event at which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will sit on the same stage and talk about "faith, values, and other current issues." John McCain has been invited but has not yet said if he will come. The event is being organized by Faith In Public Life and will be broadcast live on CNN. Each candidate will sit down individually with two "moderators." On April 20, the Sunday evening before the Pennsylvania primary, the Church Communication Network (CCN), will broadcast the event to "tens of thousands of people of faith in at least 1,000 congregations nationwide."

On April 16th, Clinton and Obama will attend a second, more conventional, debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, presumably focusing to some extent on constitutional issues. This will be broadcast by ABC.

Obviously, the candidates can accept whatever invitations they want, and these events, (at the former of which the candidates will discuss domestic and international poverty, global AIDS, climate change, genocide in Darfur, and human rights), are of great value and importance. As elections are all about choices, however, it is worth noting, that while Obama and Clinton accepted these invitations, they (and McCain) responded in a very different way to another invitation of equal value and importance.

Almost five months ago, the following was posted on a newly formed website:

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we, the undersigned, call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Medicine and Health, and Science and Technology Policy.

With no advertising, very little financial support, and scant attention from the mainstream media, Science Debate 2008, the organization that posted the initial call, soon had 37,000 individual signatories. Among these were 80 university presidents (including the presidents of Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Duke, Columbia, NYU, Princeton, Dartmouth, the University of Pennsylvania, and Brown), the CEOs of companies like Intel and Texas Instruments, over two dozen Nobel laureates, and more than a hundred institutional signers including dozens of science and technology organizations collectively representing over 125 million American voters. In Pennsylvania, the initiative had the support of, among others Carnegie Mellon University, Drexel University, Temple University, Lehigh University, Lafayette College, and the Fox Chase Cancer Center.

Long before it was known that Pennsylvania would be so critical, and giving the candidates ample lead time, an invitation was sent on behalf of the above. It invited the candidates to discuss their policy approaches to the science and technology issues that will determine the economic, human, and ecological health of not just America, but the entire world. The event was to be held at the venerable (and highly appropriate) Franklin Institute on April 18th.

In spite of all the individuals and organizations who passionately supported the debate, and in spite of repeated requests from many different angles, none of them accepted. Only one, Obama, bothered to give a definitive no.

A new debate, now with the additional support of PBS's Nova and NOW, is being proposed for Oregon in early May. The invitations have gone out again. Stay posted. Or better yet visit ScienceDebate2008.com and join in the call for this important debate.

Matthew Chapman and Lawrence Krauss are two of the founders of Science Debate 2008.

Comments

[dgscol]

Global population rise is creeping - species are disappearing, and countries are being reduced to civil strife. Scientists are in no better shape than Bear-Stearns is, to handle the challenges ahead. Face facts : It is unpopular to tell the truth about global population and ramifications, and also about the deplorable state of our educational system. No one can face it. Research scientists can begin to innovate immediately. Why hold back? Scientists that care about the US and the world, in that order, can stop playing games and go for it.

[dgscol]

How many sons and daughters of former faculty, are actually capable of doing anything? They have the Bush factor - a small bit of privilege upon which their careers are built.

[dgscol]

What are the universities doing to ensure protection of idea in the academic environment? At present you have a bunch of people accustomed to stealing other people intellectual property and presenting it as their own.

There is along way to go to get an idea, made into a domestic corporation.

[dgscol]

Just one last statement old chap, "Perhaps they can obtain Asian graduate students, steal from them, and incorporate before they do." Is that even possible?

[mgloraine]

It says a lot about the state of American politics and the perceived intelligence level of the American public that our candidates feel compelled to address issues of "faith" while at the same time they unconcernedly brush aside or ignore issues hinging on scientific realities, such as stem-cell research and global warming.

So we select our leaders based upon their ability to recite folk lore, anthropomorphise natural phenomena, and engage in magical thinking at a national level, while genuine intelligence and awareness of current scientific research is regarded as a detriment to electability.

For once, I'd like to see the candidates decline to discuss their personal religious beliefs in the context of civil politics and instead accept the challenge of incorporating the scientific & technological issues into their plans for today and visions of the future.

Reject Apocalypse and build a Future for Humanity!

[TheApeMan]

Ugh...What is the purpose of discussing your belief in fairy tales?!

I really don't see how Obama is "religious" seeing that he was raised by an atheist mother.
It seems most intelligent people that are religious, were almost always brought up that way.

Obama, is obviously very intelligent, and seeing how he was not brought up (brainwashed) religious, it seems odd to me that he would be such a "gung-ho" Christian.

(I try to convince myself it's just for politcal reasons)

[Desiderata]

In Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for Congress has flooded the media with his history of being an Eagle Scout (commendable) and the fact that, as a deacon in his church, he has been giving "your children" instructions on morality.

He should remain in his church and obey Christ's order to stay out of the political (Caesar's) world.

And so should McCain, Clinton and Obama refrain from answering faith based questions. There is no religious test for any elective office recognized in the Constitution. Pandering to this 21st Century Inquisition just adds fuel to the flames that are consuming our democracy.

[noneIn2008]

Imagine any of them commenting on science. They do not have the training nor intellectual integrity to even begin to understand science. Science is a foreign concept to all the candidates. They understand only political science. "We should fund research to stop illness, improve our technology, add jobs, improve our environment........."