President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney have answered 14 of the nation's top science questions, but of the many committee leaders in Congress who deal with the nation's science policy, just two--Reps Henry Waxman and Chris Van Hollen--have responded to the ScienceDebate questions for Congress. And two of more--Senator Jeff Sessions and House Speaker John Boehner--have declined to answer the questions.
This raises an important question: if the candidates for president will discuss the nation's top science issues, why won't the key members of Congress who lead the committees that deal with science policy? The nation's responses to dozens of critical questions--from climate change to water quality to protecting the Internet--originate not with the president, but in Congress.
Understanding why members would be refusing is difficult in a time when jobs are top of mind. Science drives over half of US economic growth and lies at the center of several of our most critical national challenges and opportunities in areas as diverse as the economy, public health, and the environment. Many of the leading science organizations in the United States arrived at a consensus on the Top American Science Questions: Congressional Edition, and the effort is supported by nearly two hundred science organizations and universities, and tens of thousands of individuals, ranging from concerned citizens to Nobel laureates and corporate CEOs.
And yet, most of the members of Congress who received the ScienceDebate questionnaire, submitted to them by ScienceDebate and Scientific American magazine, are currently ignoring it or actively declining to answer questions about their policy views on science-related issues.
Three others--Sen. Harkin, Rep. Johnson and Rep Bishop--have told the groups they intend to reply but have not yet, and a few more--Rep. Mica, Sen. Wyden, Sen. Alexander, Rep. Gibbs, Rep. Markey, and Sen. Murkowski--say they are "considering" it.
Here are the elected officials that lead key science-related committees who have not yet responded to the Top American Science Questions put to them by ScienceDebate.org, Scientific American, and more than a dozen other leading US science organizations:
Senate
House of Representatives
Shawn Lawrence Otto is an award-winning author, science advocate and filmmaker. He is cofounder and CEO of ScienceDebate.org in which Obama and Romney debate science policy, and author of Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America,"One of the most important books written in America in the last decade." Starred Kirkus Review; Starred Publishers Weekly review. He is also an award-winning screenwriter. Visit him at http://www.shawnotto.com. Like him on Facebook. Join ScienceDebate.org to get presidential and congressional candidates to debate science.
Follow Shawn Lawrence Otto on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shawnotto
For example, ask them questions and then also introduce effective solutions such as this:
Whilst many billions, if not trillions of dollars have been spent on research, propaganda, conferences and such, would it not have made more sense to invest in things like irrigation, water treatment/purification systems. Considering the scientific evidence, and the knowledge that there would be widespread enviromental difficulties, is it not sciences goal to overcome, rather then manipulate. Drought resistant crops are easily doable, some relatively simple irrigation practices could have been developed yet i find little evidence that these things are happening, in fact the contrary has been happening?
Co2 is a greenhouse gas, and warm temperatures are beneficial for plant growth, given the push to force people to be vegetrian, it would seem the most logical approach would simply to grow a lot of plants. Since in truth only a small fraction of the earths surface is today being used, it would appear that once again, rather then overcoming, science is more interested in manipulating.
Does the OP have a response?
Basically if there was a Jesus and ignorance committee, you know they'd just kick out the Muslim and atheist members.
I see nothing in the Constitution giving the federal gov't the right to formulate science policy at all, or spend any of the public's money on it.
If any such policy is made by Congress, at least, the cost of it should be funded through voluntary contributions -- above that which is enumerated in the Constitution and paid by regular taxation. If voluntary, then folks can fairly evaluate the relative knowledge of their respective Congressperson with respect to science before deciding if any contribution to the programs is warranted.
I am sure that most folks would decide to keep their money rather than voluntarily contribute it to gov't science programs.
Science is a lot like the civilian version of military intelligence. (Yes, I know that's an oxymoron. Just pretend for a moment, okay?) If you launch a military operation without reliable intel, you tend to get a FUBAR operation.
Same thing with science and civilian policy. Science provides us with the intel necessary to make better decisions. That's why the anti-science crowd is so dangerous. They propose that we operate without the best information we can get, and that's a recipe for disaster.
http://www.sciencedebate.org
The President and Mitt Romney answered them. I couldn't get all the way through.
Here's the President and Mitt Romney's answer to the questions. It is also the main site.
http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/
And I want to defend Senator Harkin as he is not only my Senator but also is highly intelligent. I am a member of many progressive groups and the Union of Concerned Scientists and I sign petitions daily on all kinds of issues like the environment, water and land management, GMO labeling and other scientific issues and he (his office?) responds with an email outlining his positions and the reasons he is taking those positions and more than 95% of the time they are very progressive, pro-science and pro-fact.
As for Senator Boxer, who knows? Maybe she doesn't want to deal with her New Age constituents' reactions to any classical science answers she might give.