In an editorial at this week's Science, editor Donald Kennedy raises concerns that religion has come to dominate the presidential race and argues that instead science should have an equal if not more prominent place on the election agenda. This week's issue of Science features statements on science policy by most of the major presidential candidates. Here's how Kennedy ends his editorial:
Given this new focus on religious disclosure, what does this U.S. election have to do with science? Everything. The candidates should be asked hard questions about science policy, including questions about how those positions reflect belief. What is your view about stem cell research, and does it relate to a view of the time at which human life begins? Have you examined the scientific evidence regarding the age of Earth? Can the process of organic evolution lead to the production of new species, and how? Are you able to look at data on past climates in search of inferences about the future of climate change?Especially because we are in a new era of faith advertisement, we should demand that candidates provide thoughtful answers to such scientific questions. That religion has entered the political space should not produce a conflict between science and religion. Some of my scientist friends are religiously committed, others are actively disengaged, and both kinds are principled. Most of them are disinclined to join the religion versus science debate, which has become uncomfortably combustible.
But we share a right to press candidates about their views on the boundary. After all, determined efforts have been made to introduce scriptural versions of the age of Earth or of "intelligent design" in science classrooms. We need to know the candidates' qualifications for understanding and judging science, and for speaking intelligently about science and technology to the leaders of other nations in planning our collective global future. I don't need them to describe their faith; that's their business and not mine. But I do care about their scientific knowledge and how it will inform their leadership.
- Log in to post comments
Some of my scientist friends are religiously committed, others are actively disengaged, and both kinds are principled. Most of them are disinclined to join the religion versus science debate, which has become uncomfortably combustible.
I thought Kennedy did an excellent job here. I happen to believe in both evolution and creation. I have a few scientist friends who think the same. This "versus" topic seems be the hottest one currently.
I see the stem cell thing as more of an ethical one. Besides, science is making progress to the point where the ethics may be taken out of stem cells from what I have heard.
I think the best approach, with science having so many wonderful things in the works, is to respectfully steer clear of the hot buttons that can have limited value to a leader's tenure anyway, ( not to say that your particular hot button isn't important), and try to major on what any human being would agree on, such as solutions to problems that effect the whole country and planet.
Science has the R and D that has the best shot at fixing what is wrong and preventing bad situations in the first place. This can become more self evident in a friendly environment.
Try to get a versus mentality out of the picture as much as possible and instead nurture an attitude and atmosphere of mutual cooperation.
I was brought up being taught that religion and politics where topics you don't push people on. They are allowed to peacefully believe what they want. Generally, to attain maximum results with people I have lived over 50 years seeing this tact work very well.
Dave Briggs :~)