When Science Becomes the National Priority

This just out from the House Oversight Committee: Report Describes Systematic White House Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science. You can also read the full report here. The report details a number of findings from a series of hearings, document requests, depositions, and other Committee activities - all of which point to efforts to edit, modify, or delete written references to AGW as well as controlling which government scientists were allowed to speak with the media.

Well, I can't fathom why freedom of conscience, freedom of inquiry and freedom of association (just a short list...) aren't anywhere on the national agenda. They seem to be, if not necessary preconditions, at least factors conducive to research, innovation and technology.

Oh, about the 2008 election and all that... it's just the contemporary version of bread and circuses. But Roman plebes at least got something in their bellies and some gory entertainment. We just get the _illusion_ of participating in decision-making.

As a follow-up to my comment above, the Republicans on the Oversight Committee have released their own report, contending that "Democrats were interested only in presenting distorted information that supported their preconceived conclusions." Get their side of the story here.

So I'm guessing that the big surprise is what currently has been announced on the Daily Kos front page? If so, I'm all for it. I hope it comes to pass.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/134537/80/769/420263

According to the info there, it was aggreed before-hand that the news would be broken there first since they are the biggest political blog.

I just posted on Chris' Call for a Presidential Science Debate, which is also addressed to you. This news is very exciting; I'm sure it is taking alot of time and effort on your and Chris' part. Keep up the excellent work. I look forward to all of this...

I would be surprised if more than 5% of nationally elected politicians could pass a basic high school science test. I'm not sure the general public would score much higher.

If there was a debate on science - would most of the country know when a candidate got an answer wrong?

I'm afraid I don't count on things getting much better no matter who is elected. There are two tracks in our society - the science one that a small percentage take, and the non-science one that most of the population takes -- including the politicians, pundits, and entertainment producers. In general, the population finds science, in terms of ideas and details, to be yucky. They like only the results: Gameboys and lasers and Viagra.

On a broader note, this topic of science illiteracy has been taken up to some degree by a site called LabLit.com, which among other things notes the dearth of good, accurate science in entertainment. People learn and absorb a lot through good storytelling. My own area of interest is fiction - which is unlikely to become much of a science learning tool in the near future, I'm sorry to say. See http://www.lablit.com/article/179 and http://www.lablit.com/article/83 for examples why. (Basically, if you put much science into the fiction it won't get published or staged.)

James Aach
Author of "Rad Decision", the insider novel of nuclear power. Endorsed by Stewart Brand, noted futurist and founder of "The Whole Earth Catalog". The book is available at no cost to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com and is also in paperback at online retailers. (The author gets no royalties.).

By no means would a debate quiz candidates, but rather the intention is to bring science into the national dialog and understand the candidates' priorities. I'm reposting Matthew Chapman's comment from Pharyngula because he summarizes the purpose very well:

As a member of the steering committee of Science Debate 2008, I'd just like to say it's great to see so many positive responses to our idea. If we want this to happen, if everyone pushes for this to happen... it will happen.

I'd also like to mention a couple of other concerns people have. From the start there have been those who thought that the candidates' lack of scientific knowledge made the debate pointless. I don't agree. We don't expect a candidate to have a degree in economics before speaking about the economy, or understand every single detail of life in Iran before talking about the Middle East. Obviously, they can comment on some specifics but not all. What we want to understand is their attitude to science. How will they promote it? How will they use it? How seriously do they take medical issues, environmental problems, science education? This is not a quiz, it's a debate.

Most importantly, if we make this debate happen we will raise the profile of science and empower science and scientists. The strangest thing about the idea of a debate on science and technology is that it hasn't been an integral part of the electoral process for the last twenty years. Let's make sure it IS a part of it for the NEXT twenty years.

I would agree with the idea that the focus would be on the attitude towards science, the environment, and so on, versus knowing what the atomic weight of carbon is. However, the basis for a candidate's attitude would also seem to be important - and these for the most part would be "facts" that could quickly be checked. Candidates often toss these into the pot to stoke listener interest. For instance, if a candidate says he opposes doing anything about global warming, he/she should at least be asked why. If there is a vague answer about it being clearly unproven, ask for a couple of references and have a prominent scientist comment on them right there on the spot if he/she can. If a factoid like "global warming has already cost millions of lives" is tossed out, that should be instantly fact-checked as well. The alternative is that each politician can say whatever they want, factual or otherwise, and you'll get the standard TV effect - if people hear it on TV from such an important person, a lot of them will take it to be true. This would especialy be the case with a population that has such a poor grasp of science, in general. I'd love to see a prominent candidate say that a handshake can transmit AIDS, and then have him corrected by Dr. C. Everett Koop, for instance.