Chris Mooney is a freelance writer and the author of two books, 
So this is the first bit of news that we've been promising....
In the latest issue of Science, we--the ScienceDebate2008 crew--have a policy forum article that lays out how this all got started, its implications, and where it's going. Doing the article was Sheril's idea, and she did a great deal of the work, as a consequence of which she is now a twentysomething first author in Science...not bad, huh?
I am not sure yet whether we can link to the article in a non-password protected way. There will also soon be some press releases; we'll throw those links up shortly. But in the meantime, let me tell you about the article. First, the title and authorship: "Science and the Candidates," by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum, Chris Mooney, Shawn Lawrence Otto, Matthew Chapman, Austin Dacey, Rush Holt, Lawrence Krauss.
Second, the argument. We begin by observing the following:
The extraordinary speed at which ScienceDebate2008 became a national cause
célèbre demonstrates that the U.S. scientific establishment can be quickly organized when motivated....We see this as strong evidence that the U.S. science community has been yearning for a stronger voice during an administration that has been repeatedly criticized by scientists.
We also find the origins of the group somewhat instructive, as they underscore the need for interdisciplinarity and media savvy in the quest to expand science's relevance:
ScienceDebate2008 might not have emerged if not for a collective efforts of individuals largely outside of science. Two screenwriters, a journalist, a philosopher, and two scientists built a bipartisan coalition of leaders in government, academia, and among journalists and the religious and business establishments. The initial announcement came not from the major media (which initially paid little attention), but rather via the organization of a large coalition of science bloggers and other Web based forums...At a time when scientists are greatly dissatisfied with an increasingly fragmented media and its moribund treatment of science, "netroots" efforts provide a new means of outreach.
Finally, we conclude by addressing where this initiative currently stands. You may have noticed that despite the stunning mobilization of virtually all of American science, the candidates have not yet accepted our overtures. Nevertheless:
The effort has made the candidates aware of how critical science policy issues are in our global society whether they show the courage to debate them or not, and their response to this initiative will be on record, and will form a basis for future development. Looking ahead, the science debate initiative may provide a means of injecting science into political discourse in the next cycle of congressional races and the presidential race of 2012.
So with that, I'd like to congratulate Sheril--and everyone else who helped ScienceDebate2008 get so far in such a short space of time!
P.S.: Today our very own Matthew Chapman and Lawrence Krauss also have a Huffington Post piece about the candidates' choices in terms of which debate invites they do and don't accept.
UPDATE: The table of contents for the April 11 issue of Science is now online here. The actual article by us, if you have a password, can be read here.
Humanities & Social Science
Politics
Comments
Congratulations Sheril! And to you too Chris, and all the others. This is quite the honor.
I read Matthew Chapman's article in Huffington, and I must say that it is very disappointing the way Clinton, Obama, and McCain responded in the negative. I would be happy to again write to them, and encourage them to appreciate the importance of accepting your invitation. Would you please publish their e-mail addresses again...
Once more, this is wonderful news for all of you.
Posted by: Linda | April 10, 2008 2:41 PM
That's a big accomplishment and this should make a very different case to encourage a an actual debate. Congratulations Chris and Sheril!
Posted by: Rebecca | April 10, 2008 2:49 PM
I notice that Clinton and Obama have very quickly agreed to attend a CNN televised debate next Sunday "Faith in Public Life", which describes the forum as "a chance for Obama and Clinton to talk about how faith, scripture and public policy all come together."
Perhaps you aren't framing the debate in the right way to encourage them to say yes.
Posted by: Sigmund | April 10, 2008 2:53 PM
Dynamite! Congrats to the ScienceDebate team. I will try to do a post on it tomorrow when I can access it.
Posted by: Mary | April 10, 2008 3:15 PM
I win, I was closest.
Congrats, Sheril!
Posted by: greg laden | April 10, 2008 3:18 PM
Greg: No you don't. Isaid that at 3:18, you said it at 4:24.
THRRZZZZZZZZ!
Andrew :-)
Posted by: andrew | April 10, 2008 3:28 PM
Meant to add: WELL DONE, Sheril, Chris et al.!
Posted by: andrew | April 10, 2008 3:32 PM
Wonderful news! I can't wait to see the full article tomorrow!
Posted by: Carl | April 10, 2008 3:45 PM
Looks like good ideas and great work. Congrats, guys!
Posted by: Jon Winsor | April 10, 2008 3:56 PM
Let me be the first to say.. AWE-SOME!!!
(but if this is just "exciting news," what's the "big announcement?!)
Posted by: D | April 10, 2008 4:00 PM
congrats you guys!
(but if this is just "exciting news," what's the "big announcement?!)
yeah. what's next, candidacy?
Posted by: Carol | April 10, 2008 4:08 PM
The most recent episode of Charlie Rose's Science Series aired on Monday, April 7. Entitled "The Imperative and Promise of Science" it spent a lot of it's attention on the role of science in informing our political debate, especially regarding the presidential election. Co-host was Sir Paul Nurse, Nobel Laureate and President, Rockefeller University. Panelists were Shirley Ann Jackson (President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; former Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, signer Science Debate 2008), Lisa Randall (Physicist - Harvard), Harold Varmus (President, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; past director of the National Institutes of Health; Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1989 Signer, Science Debate 2008) and Bruce Alberts, (Past President, National Academy of Sciences, Biochemist, University of California at San Francisco, and Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine).
A lot of comment was also directed at the manner in which science is taught and how the current practices at some institutions fail to excite the students.
I was of two thoughts. First, that the Science Debate effort is still needed and that this would have been a great place to push for it... but they did not.
The second, that there just might be a connection between the failure of the educational system in America to present science in a manner that creates inquisitive minds and the need to "frame" science that has been the subject of so much controversy.
I can not think of anyone more articulate on that subject than Ms. Jackson.
Having said that, I must also say that I always walk away from reading anything the Sheril has written on this blog with a sense of her personal enthusiasm for science, even for the lowly sea cucumber. I am glad that she had the opportunity to study and work with those who knew enough not to kill that enthusiasm.
Posted by: Wes Rolley | April 10, 2008 4:09 PM
Wes Rolley wrote:
"I must also say that I always walk away from reading anything the Sheril has written on this blog with a sense of her personal enthusiasm for science"
I echo his sentiment completely. Chris-genius to bringing her on! Quite a pair, you two are.
Posted by: Alan | April 10, 2008 4:23 PM
What an accomplishment!! Congratulations.
Posted by: Anna K. | April 10, 2008 4:27 PM
Thanks to everyone, and especially, thank you to my overly humble co-blogger. Chris had a tremendous role in collaborating on this article as well as the entire ScienceDebate2008 initiative. And I must add on a personal note, he continues to inspire and motivate me everyday.
As for our big announcement... it's coming soon!
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | April 10, 2008 4:47 PM
Meh, I was hoping the announcement was going to be an engagement*, but I guess this is good too. ;-)
Heartiest congratulations to the both of you!
*yes, I realise that hope was dashed yesterday.
Posted by: MH | April 10, 2008 6:45 PM
Congratulations!!! Your publishing in Science magazine makes many of us envious.
It is obvious that you and Chris have affection for each other. I just don't think that it is anyone's business but your own.
He gives his five-0'clock shadow squinty grin. You give us your wide-eyed grin. I can read between the lines,but it is not something that I need to judge.
This is a science blog and not a soap opera.
Cal
Posted by: Cal Harth | April 10, 2008 7:57 PM
While I am extremely fond of my co-blogger, we are just good friends.
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | April 11, 2008 10:20 AM
Congratulations!
Posted by: Russell Blackford | April 11, 2008 10:20 AM
Not counting the references, the Science article is 835 words long. There are seven authors. That's approximately 120 words per author. Indeed, the article is nicely done and shows the power of synergy.
Posted by: Jeffrey Beall | April 11, 2008 10:37 AM
Yay, Sheril! You go, girl! That's great news. Congratulations! So when's your book coming out? ;-)
Posted by: Adrienne | April 11, 2008 1:00 PM
FYI: you got some ink (? electrons) in Genome-Technology today:
http://www.genome-technology.com/issues/blog/general/146236-1.html
Posted by: Mary | April 11, 2008 1:31 PM