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:
- Log in to post comments
More like this
If you haven't heard, fellow ScienceBloggers Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum of The Intersection have launched a movement called Sciencedebate 2008, in which they demand that the presidential candidates have a debate entirely on science and science-related issues. They've received the backing…
Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney have been promising something for a week, teasing us with tantalizing hints about something big. We were told to read Chris' article Dr.President, and then this morning another article, Science and the Candidates by Lawrence Krauss.
Finally, today a little…
Sorry to bring this up again, as I'm sure most of you couldn't care less, but something about the idea of a presidential debate on science-related issues really bugs me, and I've been trying to figure out exactly what that is. Plus, part of me is hoping that someone will come along and explain to…
In 2008, I was visiting the Nobel Conference held annually at Gustavus Adolphus college in Minnestoa. The conference was on Human Evolution. The college provided space in a large room for people to have their lunch, and while I was having lunch on the first day, I noticed a table off to the side…
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.)