Let's get the Presidential candidates to debate science topics

By clock on December 10, 2007.

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 before 2pm EST, we got the idea what it was going to be and at 2, they posted their Call for a Presidential Science Debate on their blog, as well as invited everyone to the brand new Facebook group of the same title.

They have started an initiative to organize a debate for the U.S Presidential candidates on the topics of science, medicine, environment and technology. They got the support of a large number of top scientists, as well as journalists, science writers and elected officials, not to mention the ever-growing list of bloggers from all parts of the political spectrum.

While many of the policy topics that have been covered in speeches and other debates touch on science here and there, I am only aware of my Exclusive Interview with Senator John Edwards on Science-Related Topics as the only science-focused dialogue with any of the current candidates of either party. Yet, that was early in the process, at the time when they were just starting to come out with specific policy proposals. We can ask for much more specifics at this time in the cycle.

Some of the most pressing issues of the day are strongly dependent on the understanding of the underlying scientific findings, most importantly Global Warming. One's stand on other issues, e.g., stem cells or evolution, is a pretty good indication of the person's understanding of the world and how science studies it.

Of course, many details still have to ironed out. When would the debate be? Iowa caucus is in three weeks and the candidates' schedules are packed to the minute. Perhaps later in the primaries (although there is a danger that it can all be over by early February in one or both parties)? Or during the general election? Would all candidates be asked in two debates (one Dem one Rep), or just the two final nominees? Then there is the question of Where? Which venue, or perhaps entirely online? Who would choose the questions? Who would ask them?

Just the response by the candidates to this invitation is an indicator of their seriousness about the job they are vying for.

Then, there is the question of how do we make sure it does not turn into a science pop-quiz? After all, the candidates are not scientists and need not know the details of stem cell research or to explain the hockey stick, as much as it would be nice if they could.

What we primarily want is to gauge their relationship with reality - will they govern using the best available information about the way the world really works, or will they govern by gut-sense and spiritual inspiration, or will they govern by immediate economic considerations only?

So, I think the questions should revolve around three general themes, while the specific topics (global warming, evolution, energy, space program, etc.) could be used as test-cases and examples of their thinking, their ways of demonstrating that their policy-making procedure will include correct science in a correct way:

Funding - what are the priorities, how much money is dedicated to research, who pays, who receives, who decides? Basic vs. applied science; science vs. technology.

Information - freedom of information, copyright, open source, open access, who owns and controls the information? How do they define "sound science"? What is the role of universities? What is taught in public schools?

Authority - what is scientific authority, who has it, who decides? How does governing rely on scientific authority? What considerations can be allowed to dilute the policy based on empirical information about the way the world works? Role of the WH science advisor, congressional Office of Technology Assessment, National Academy of Science?

For other people's thoughts on this proposal, check out the early-bird bloggers, those who posted immediately after the 2pm announcement - and later check your Google or Technorati for additional responses:

More like this

ScienceDebate.org: Interview with Sheril Kirshenbaum

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…

It Is Time For A Presidential Debate On Science

We must adapt to the fact that over the last few decades it has become critical that our politicians and policymakers understand science and implement policy that is consistent with scientific facts. And it is past time that we made science enough of a priority to merit a presidential debate on…

If the Candidates Talk About Big Science Issues ...

... maybe they'll actually do something about them. Remember the Democratic and Republican party debates that were held just before that major international meeting about climate change, participated in by every country in the world? Of course you do. Do you remember the candidates' responses to…

ScienceDebate2008: In Search of a Science-literate Leader

tags: science, public policy, politics, federal funding, research, reality-based government, 2008 American presidential elections, ScienceDebate2008 I was disappointed, but not really surprised, when three Republican presidential candidates -- Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback (who has…

Science Debate 2008 - my Question #6: Space

Its very interesting to know about science and politics.

trackback: http://trinifar.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/a-quessing-game/

BTW great roundup -- as usual!

Advertisment

Donate

ScienceBlogs is where scientists communicate directly with the public. We are part of Science 2.0, a science education nonprofit operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Please make a tax-deductible donation if you value independent science communication, collaboration, participation, and open access.

You can also shop using Amazon Smile and though you pay nothing more we get a tiny something.

Science 2.0

Science Codex

More by this author

New URL for this blog

July 5, 2011

Earlier this morning, I have moved my blog over to the Scientific American site - http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/. Follow me there (as well as the rest of the people on the new Scientific American blog network

New URL/feed for A Blog Around The Clock

July 26, 2010

This blog can now be found at http://blog.coturnix.org and the feed is http://blog.coturnix.org/feed/. Please adjust your bookmarks/subscriptions if you are interested in following me off-network.

A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Science Blogging Ecosystem

July 19, 2010

It is with great regret that I am writing this. Scienceblogs.com has been a big part of my life for four years now and it is hard to say good bye. Everything that follows is my own personal thinking and may not apply to other people, including other bloggers on this platform. The new contact…

Open Laboratory 2010 - submissions so far

July 19, 2010

The list is growing fast - check the submissions to date and get inspired to submit something of your own - an essay, a poem, a cartoon or original art. The Submission form is here so you can get started. Under the fold are entries so far, as well as buttons and the bookmarklet. The instructions…

Clock Quotes

July 18, 2010

At bottom every man know well enough that he is a unique being, only once on this earth; and by no extraordinary chance will such a marvelously picturesque piece of diversity in unity as he is, ever be put together a second time. - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche