If you're looking for a better explanation of why it would be good for the presidential candidates to have a debate on science-related topics, the ScienceDebate now has a number of videos available where knowledgeable people talk about why they think the debate is important. Here's former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta on the subject:
More like this
In a fascinating cover article at the Sunday NY Times magazine, Bill Clinton reflects on health care and climate change as the two major failures of his presidency.
From the BBC:
US President-elect Barack Obama will seek to reverse Bush administration policies when he enters office on 20 January, his transition chief has said.
From the BBC:
US President-elect Barack Obama will seek to reverse Bush administration policies when he enters office on 20 January, his transition chief has said.
While some of the trope of science as "the endless frontier" has come under a lot of question several times (and John Podesta trots out that horse yet again), I do agree that it is very important to have presidential candidates describe their stance on science, science advisers, science oversight, science policy.
This president has played fast-and-loose (and dirty) with science fact and science fiction for the past 7.25 years, and it would be really nice for scientists (and those associated with scientists) to know WTF's likely to happen in the future.
Also, I personally DO think that if a president is pro-science and has even a modicum of science knowledge that it will be a effin-fantastic thing for the state of science education in this country. Too long have people been able to justify their science-luddite ideologies under the shadow of presidents that were science-theory lightweights, and who had similarly unqualified science advisers around them. (Of course, what I might consider an "unqualified" individual might be an expert in a field I just happen to find irrelevant, but yet has the gall to make obviously uninformed statements about my own field.)