James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
The editors of Nature, that really important science journal, have weighed in on the wisdom of holding a presidential debate devoted exclusively to science policy. They aren't impressed with Science Debate 2008. There reasons are severalfold...
But here's the essence of their argument:
... any sort of science debate is quite a stretch from business-as-usual. Well meant though it may be, the idea of Tim Russert or some other journalist-interrogator looking Republican hopeful John McCain in the eye and asking "What balance will you seek in federal science funding between major-programme project research and investigator-initiated basic-research grants?" is somewhat fantastical.They also describe the entire Science Debate movement as "as an attempt by various élite institutions to grab the microphone and set the agenda from the top down."
What they seem to be getting at, in a roundabout way, is this: why not try to inject some science questions into one of the conventional debates? To bring this about, perhaps the AAAS or something else could co-sponsor a debate. I mean, if Facebook and YouTube can, the AAAS surely could.
I'm still a supporter of the concept, but given the the huge hurdles to mounting a full-fledged debate, perhaps sponsoring three questions of a larger event would be a more realistic goal.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Crikey, they're channeling RP Jr.
In one sense, the odds of getting a debate just went up since McCain will likely be all alone one Repub side soonish and he's probably the only one who'd consider participating anyway. OTOH it's hard to imagine a workable format with 2 vs. 1.
That aside, I've seen nothing in the way of a format proposal. I too have a hard time imagining people like Russert asking the questions since they know nothing about science. But there are still science reporters around, so why not several of them?
Posted by: Steve Bloom | February 6, 2008 8:31 PM
"alone on the Repub side"
Posted by: Steve Bloom | February 6, 2008 11:20 PM
Ugh. So there you have it, Nature representing the very worst elements of cluelessness in the science community. Honestly, just as a savvy group of Americans begin to realize that the world of science actually CAN have a voice in society, here is Nature saying, "slow down, kids, not so fast," and trying to pull everyone back into the usual second class citizen position of science. There's more than just a few thousand miles separating the U.S. and U.K. Bunch of dummies when it comes to them trying to understand American society. Sheesh.
Posted by: Randy Olson | February 12, 2008 11:29 AM
Well, AAAS is co-sponsoring this debate, as is Ira Flatow who would be the shoe-in to actually ask the questions rather than Tim Russert or a "standard" journailst.
Wasn't Nature the journal that suggested we shouldn't knock ID as hard as we are? Someone needs to check their editorial board for RCI.
Posted by: Eric | February 12, 2008 12:25 PM
Framing the debate as a test for candidates (as Nature does) seems to detract from the purpose of the event. Indeed, these discourses are meant to give candidates a chance to distinguish themselves from one another, but they are certainly not intended as a booby trap. What is perhaps more disconcerting is the editorial's mocking tone, using phrases such as "You can join the throng..."
A discussion of science related issues is important as ever, especially in a way that elevates the level of conversation. What would it say about us as a country to have our leading Presidential candidates speak freely about the place of science in our society. Putting science in front of these candidates may be dangerous, but the popularity of the movement should indicate the desire to take that risk.
Lastly, open criticism of the idea is perfectly reasonable (and consistent with scientific reasoning, Nature points out), but discounting the idea a priori seems a little excessive. Even if this is wishful thinking from ScienceDebate2008's organizers, but isn't creativity and ingenuity what inspires us forward?
Posted by: Brian Smoliak | February 12, 2008 4:57 PM
ARgh. So Nature comes up against a new idea and their first impulse, just like the first impulse of the luddites, is to say "No! No! This is all too new and we don't like it!"
Yeah, this will be a HUGE challenge, Nature. Probably best not to attempt anything new and different, and just let things stay as they are.
It's all been working out SO well thus far.
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 12, 2008 7:34 PM
I haven't read anywhere that the panel would include either Tim Russert or Anderson Cooper. Why are all the naysayers jumping to that conclusion. There are loads of independent science journalists who would be qualified to moderate an effective Q&A on the positions of science; for example the aforementioned Ira Flatow, or how about Carl Zimmer, Neil DeGrasse Tyson or any of a number of other people who would be able to handle it?
Or, say, Coturnix has demonstrated his skill at interviewing. Why not him?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | February 12, 2008 7:44 PM
Mystified by Nature's argument. Yes, great idea to introduce some questions in existing debates. Even better to try and raise the level of attention on Science & Tech issues, as a policy priority that too often gets neglected, with a full debate. Which may motivate all campaigns to issue specific policy papers, and reward the ones who prepare best.
There are many questions every candidate should be able/ briefed to answer, from level on NIH funding and priorities to outcome measurement of federal money, university IP laws, whether personal beliefs may come to play (like in stem cells), areas of focus that may help economic growth over the next 5-10 years, how to improve science education at K12 and college levels, H1B visas...
With all respects for Bora :-) I vote for Sharon Begley, Newsweek's science writer (previously at the WSJ) as a potential moderator who'd be able to quiz the candidates and make it relevant to the millions of potential viewers.
Posted by: Alvaro | February 13, 2008 3:26 PM