Science. Such a simple term inextricably involved in every aspect of our being. It's exploring the past while looking toward our future. Science is life.
Step back and consider what we read, watch, hear, and experience in the news and everyday--stem cells, terrorism, immigration, human health, global sustainability, data mining, safety, geoengineering, socioeconomics, and beyond--all goes back to understanding our world: SCIENCE. So I can't fathom why research, innovation, and technology aren't already highest priority on the collective national agenda.
We'll be revealing big news later today so consider this article by Chris prep reading. He poses the question:
What would America be like if science were permitted to inform decision making, and if scientific issues that concern the world's future were a natural part of a broad national conversation?
I wonder...
You see, most of us, no matter where we fall on the political spectrum, do hope for a brighter future for our children and this home planet we share. So a society where policies are informed by the best science available presented with a nonpartisan agenda seems not only pragmatic--but absolutely critical.
These are exciting times of tremendous possibility. We've got presidential election 2008 coming after all. It's a unique opportunity to emphasize our national priorities when everyone is listening. Given decisions now will shape the very course of history, just imagine what's achievable.
Chris and I are looking forward to sharing our exciting news shortly and most of all, we hope you'll get involved! Check back soon...
- Log in to post comments
This just out from the House Oversight Committee: Report Describes Systematic White House Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science. You can also read the full report here. The report details a number of findings from a series of hearings, document requests, depositions, and other Committee activities - all of which point to efforts to edit, modify, or delete written references to AGW as well as controlling which government scientists were allowed to speak with the media.
Well, I can't fathom why freedom of conscience, freedom of inquiry and freedom of association (just a short list...) aren't anywhere on the national agenda. They seem to be, if not necessary preconditions, at least factors conducive to research, innovation and technology.
Oh, about the 2008 election and all that... it's just the contemporary version of bread and circuses. But Roman plebes at least got something in their bellies and some gory entertainment. We just get the _illusion_ of participating in decision-making.
As a follow-up to my comment above, the Republicans on the Oversight Committee have released their own report, contending that "Democrats were interested only in presenting distorted information that supported their preconceived conclusions." Get their side of the story here.
So I'm guessing that the big surprise is what currently has been announced on the Daily Kos front page? If so, I'm all for it. I hope it comes to pass.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/134537/80/769/420263
According to the info there, it was aggreed before-hand that the news would be broken there first since they are the biggest political blog.
I just posted on Chris' Call for a Presidential Science Debate, which is also addressed to you. This news is very exciting; I'm sure it is taking alot of time and effort on your and Chris' part. Keep up the excellent work. I look forward to all of this...
I would be surprised if more than 5% of nationally elected politicians could pass a basic high school science test. I'm not sure the general public would score much higher.
If there was a debate on science - would most of the country know when a candidate got an answer wrong?
I'm afraid I don't count on things getting much better no matter who is elected. There are two tracks in our society - the science one that a small percentage take, and the non-science one that most of the population takes -- including the politicians, pundits, and entertainment producers. In general, the population finds science, in terms of ideas and details, to be yucky. They like only the results: Gameboys and lasers and Viagra.
On a broader note, this topic of science illiteracy has been taken up to some degree by a site called LabLit.com, which among other things notes the dearth of good, accurate science in entertainment. People learn and absorb a lot through good storytelling. My own area of interest is fiction - which is unlikely to become much of a science learning tool in the near future, I'm sorry to say. See http://www.lablit.com/article/179 and http://www.lablit.com/article/83 for examples why. (Basically, if you put much science into the fiction it won't get published or staged.)
James Aach
Author of "Rad Decision", the insider novel of nuclear power. Endorsed by Stewart Brand, noted futurist and founder of "The Whole Earth Catalog". The book is available at no cost to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com and is also in paperback at online retailers. (The author gets no royalties.).
By no means would a debate quiz candidates, but rather the intention is to bring science into the national dialog and understand the candidates' priorities. I'm reposting Matthew Chapman's comment from Pharyngula because he summarizes the purpose very well:
I would agree with the idea that the focus would be on the attitude towards science, the environment, and so on, versus knowing what the atomic weight of carbon is. However, the basis for a candidate's attitude would also seem to be important - and these for the most part would be "facts" that could quickly be checked. Candidates often toss these into the pot to stoke listener interest. For instance, if a candidate says he opposes doing anything about global warming, he/she should at least be asked why. If there is a vague answer about it being clearly unproven, ask for a couple of references and have a prominent scientist comment on them right there on the spot if he/she can. If a factoid like "global warming has already cost millions of lives" is tossed out, that should be instantly fact-checked as well. The alternative is that each politician can say whatever they want, factual or otherwise, and you'll get the standard TV effect - if people hear it on TV from such an important person, a lot of them will take it to be true. This would especialy be the case with a population that has such a poor grasp of science, in general. I'd love to see a prominent candidate say that a handshake can transmit AIDS, and then have him corrected by Dr. C. Everett Koop, for instance.