I'm at the AAAS meeting in Boston - sitting in an excellent session on the history of scientific visualization with Felice Frankel and Michael Friendly. Hopefully I'll be blogging from the convention center all weekend, assuming I can find the time.
Update: I'm now in a fabulous session entitled "strengthening science through the 2009 presidential transition." Former Illinois Congressman John E. Porter just excoriated the scientific community for remaining silent as the Administration has eviscerated research funding and marginalized scientific viewpoints. He called us "pathetic" - which we probably deserve. . . if only for not realizing that the public thinks we are silent. We are complaining - but in many cases, our complaints remain insular, echoing within our own communities. As, ironically, is this session here at AAAS. And probably many of you reading this blog.
Update 2: It was just announced that representatives of the Clinton and Obama campaigns will be here for a session tomorrow afternoon, and will answer questions about their candidate's positions on scientific issues.
One step closer to Sciencedebate 2008? Maybe. . . but McCain's people apparently aren't coming. Even though he is arguably pretty well informed scientifically.
- Log in to post comments
Jessica, did Porter have suggestions as to what we could do/could've done differently. Most of our scientific societies, plus others like Research!America, have had very active lobbying efforts in DC but was he saying that we should find a way to mobilize the public on our behalf?
Did you attend the women/science bloggers session? I have a photo of it that I would like to offer the panelists--and I came in late and missed everyone's contact info....Also I would like to know if there are blog posts summarizing the information there--the links and guidance and all.
Mary - ironically, I could not attend the blogging session, because I was judging student posters at the time!
Abel: Porter was angry about the lack of scientific outcry over a number of issues like the Administration's decision not to maintain the post-doubling NIH budget, etc. However, I did get the impression he thinks things are improving, in part because of groups like Research!America. Unfortunately it was standing room only in that session and I came in partway through, so I couldn't take detailed notes on my laptop. I hesitate to attribute specifics to him without notes, because it's hard to remember who said what.
I can say the general tenor of the session was that scientists need to worry less about retaining an aura of objective distance, and go ahead and be vocal in defense of scientific programs and research - in venues where the public/policy-makers will actually hear their concerns (ie, not just Science/Nature). Another recurring point was that it's not deficient public understanding of science that's the main roadblock - as with stem cells, people can understand the science at a decent level, while disagreeing on other grounds. So we need to rethink our advocacy and stop blaming poor science literacy. . . although we should do something about poor science literacy for its own sake, of course. Sorry that's so nebulous. I wish there were transcripts somewhere. . .