Chris Mooney is a visiting associate in the 
Let us quote the source:
February 4 -- The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine are joining the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Carnegie Institution, the Council on Competitiveness, and several other organizations and universities in an effort to co-sponsor a presidential candidate debate on science, technology, health, and the economy. "This would provide a nonpartisan setting to educate voters on the candidates' positions on key science, technology, and health challenges facing the next administration, while giving the candidates an opportunity to discuss issues that are often overlooked in presidential candidate debates but that are critical to U.S. competitiveness," the presidents of the NAS, NAE, and IOM said in a statement."A discussion focused on such issues as how to spur innovation, improve science and math education, confront climate change, and guide advances in biotechnology would do much to inform the American electorate," the statement adds. The NAS, NAE, and IOM are independent, nonprofit organizations that provide advice on policy issues to the government and public under an 1863 congressional charter.
Excuse me, but....have we not managed to unite, like, virtually all of American science in this cause in the space of about 2 months?
Calling all bloggers who care: Please spread word of this incredible news. And then ready yourselves to motivate your readers in the very near future to help make this debate a reality. We are going to need their support, and yours, before all is said and done....
Politics
Technology
Comments
Chris,
you left out the Discovery Institute q)
Posted by: TrekJunkie | February 4, 2008 2:28 PM
Why was uniting science on this point a major concern? I'd think it would be harder - and more important - to get people on board from outside our natural constituencies.
Posted by: David Bruggeman | February 4, 2008 4:15 PM
Excuse me, but....have we not managed to unite, like, virtually all of American science in this cause in the space of about 2 months?
I think this is great news! A debate where people can tune in. Even if they only have certain specific interests, they could have a chance to catch up on other areas as well and maybe it could help form a ground swell of grass roots movements!
Dave Briggs :~)
Posted by: Dave Briggs | February 4, 2008 4:53 PM
There is still little or no publicity for this activity in the mainstream media. Until there is, I am afraid these folks are barking at the moon.
Posted by: SLC | February 4, 2008 6:19 PM
I really find this negativity just amazing....
Posted by: Chris C. Mooney | February 4, 2008 8:08 PM
Unfortunately, I think SLC is correct. Chris, if I didn't read this blog, I don't know that I would ever have heard of ScienceDebate '08. Do you have a better sense of public penetration? For example, is any polling being done, anything like that?
Posted by: Jersey | February 4, 2008 11:36 PM
Trust Chris and I have reason to believe this initiative is possible. For now, keep watching, reading, and listening... here and well beyond the blogosphere.
There's more coming.
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | February 5, 2008 12:39 AM
The word needs to get out regarding this debate and the word needs to get out that Senator Mike Gravel is still in the running - according to him, until the end! He is a pro-science candidate and everyone needs to hear him at ScienceDebate 2008. He has great ideas for this country.
Posted by: Sheila Price | February 5, 2008 1:38 AM
Re Chris C. Mooney
I'm not being negative. I think it is a good idea. I'm just being realistic. Mr. Mooney and Dr. Kirschenbaum should ask themselves whether they've heard anything about this initiative on CNN, or the Washington Post or the New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times (now Mr. Mooneys' home town paper).
Posted by: SLC | February 5, 2008 8:49 AM
SLC,
I've heard something about this initiative in the LA Times... and a few other places too ;)
Further, I expect we'll all continue hearing more in coming weeks!
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | February 5, 2008 3:47 PM
I got a similar response to SLC's at my blog posting.
Click my name to see the posting and how I responded to the nay-sayer.
As far as I'm concerned, this effort is on a good trajectory, and it's worth trying to add some buzz in every little niche of the blogosphere and in traditional media.
Posted by: Fred Bortz | February 5, 2008 4:32 PM
Re Fred Bortz
The anonymous comment on Dr Bortzs' blog was me. Furthermore, PBS is hardly mainstream media.
Re Sheril Kirschenbaum
The article in the LA Times was an op-ed. Most people don't read the op-eds in newspapers. We need come coverage in the news sections and on TV newscasts to generate some pressure on the powers that be.
Posted by: SLC | February 5, 2008 6:07 PM
Sheril: I clicked on the AJC and NYT stories, and didn't see a mention of the debate (though they were great general-science stories: especially the AJC, a wonderful example of science being made relevant for writers/readers). I also saw a lot of press releases.
Having said that, if you say to keep the faith that bigger things are coming, consider the faith kept. =)
Posted by: Jersey | February 5, 2008 10:16 PM
I guess we need folks like SLC to keep us honest about how far we've really come with this, just as I commented on the need for organizations that went beyond science.
But we also need folks like Chris and Cheryl to keep believing and keep pushing, even when the odds are against them.
SLC, please don't let your doubts blot out your hopes.
As Barack Obama tells us, "Yes we can!"
Posted by: Fred Bortz | February 6, 2008 10:19 AM
For every minute that you take posting something here, spend the same amount of time writing to the editor of your local newspaper, to the management of your local TV station, to Charlie Rose, to Faux News even, demanding that they get off their duffs as respond.
If this is not in media other than a few blogs, then SLC is right. We have the ability to change that... Let's just do it.
Posted by: Wes Rolley | February 6, 2008 11:11 AM
Andy Revkin, in his dot-earth blog, talks with a researcher who has some reservations about the debate. They're worth thinking about.
Posted by: Don Monroe | February 6, 2008 6:05 PM