To keep the conversation about the Science Debate 2008 going, I decided to post, one per day, my ideas for potential questions to be asked at such a debate. The questions are far too long, though, consisting more of my musings than real questions that can be asked on TV (or radio or online, wherever this may end up happening). I want you to:
- correct my factual errors
- call me on my BS
- tell me why the particular question is counterproductive or just a bad idea to ask
- if you think the question is good, help me reduce the question from ~500 to ~20 words or so.
Here is the fourth one, so comment away!
Emboldened by the generally anti-science positions of this Administration, both politically motivated and religiously motivated assaults on science have reached unprecedented levels of intensity over the past seven years, quite openly stating their goals of rolling back the Enlightenment. There have been increased attempts, often looked kindly by some people in Congress as well as the White House, to introduce Intelligent Design Creationism into public schools, to ban abortion and even contraception, to reduce sex education to the ineffectual "abstinence-only" classes, to ban nuclear transfer techniques ('therapeutic cloning'), to ban stem cell research, to deny global warming is caused by human activity, etc.
For the first time in history the websites of Federal agencies (e.g., FDA, CDC, NASA) cannot be 100% trusted to present complete, up-to-date, correct and uncensored scientific information on such "hot" issues.
Various cranks, quacks, pseudoscientists and paid PR people are trotted out as "authority" on scientific matters for which they are not qualified in order to provide an illusion of 'controversy' where no such controversy exists. The media gullibly accepts the perception of controversy and strives to provide a false "balance" by giving both "sides" equal time and perceived authority.
If elected President, what can you do, and what you intend to do to reverse the anti-science trend seen in the USA over the past several years? How will you determine what is the voice of the true authority on a scientific question? What is your role as President to enhance public understanding of science and what can you do to ensure quality science education in all public schools in the country at all levels?
Previously:
Science Debate 2008 - my Question #1: Scientific Advice to the President
Science Debate 2008 - my Question #2: Science Funding
Science Debate 2008 - my Question #3: Global Warming
- Log in to post comments
"How will you determine what is the voice of the true authority on a scientific question? "
A: With prayer.
Thanks for keeping this coversation going! I think the length of your question speaks to the difficulty of the candidates ever having a science debate. They would need so much background on the issues that it would be very difficult to get them to agree to it.
I think you touched on many different issues above- I would break these down into a number of questions:
- There have been numerous recent examples of political appointees inappropriately altering scientific data and denying scientific funding for politically motivated reasons. How will the candidate ensure that federal scientific research is insulated from politics in the future?
- An open-ended question about reversing the anti-science trend in the US.
- Does the candidate support teaching evolution in public schools?
- Who will the candidate look to for scientific advice during his/her administration? Presidential science advisor? National Academies? Richard Lindzen? (jk)
- The question about quality science education is great and one that definitely needs to appear in the debates, even if there isn't a science-specific debate. I would put it in the context of our declining test scores and the American Competitiveness Initiative
- The question of how the media portrays science is important, but how can it be made relevant to the presidential administration? They don't control the media.