Our efforts were recently mentioned in an editorial in Nature:
Election year offers a chance for scientists who aspire to a direct role in the political process to make their voices heard. Prompted by seven years of what they see as manipulation of scientific findings by the Bush administration, groups are trying to raise the profile of science in the upcoming campaign. An organization called Scientists and Engineers for America plans to launch a project tracking the science- and health-related votes of all members of Congress, plus challengers for their seats as well as the presidential candidates. Meanwhile, dozens of prominent scientific leaders have mounted a push for a 'Science Debate 2008', calling for a candidates' debate on science and technology issues.
It's a laudable idea, and even if the prospects of such a debate are rather remote, the campaign can play a useful role in raising the profile of important issues as the election unfolds. For it is now -- while candidates are striving to win their respective party nominations -- that their priorities, preferences and policy teams will be forged. Many researchers, of all political stripes, are deeply troubled by what they regard as the dysfunctional relationship between science and the outgoing Bush administration. There is a better chance of a more fruitful relationship arising next time round if scientists get involved early with the candidates, and with the energetic, nationwide public debate that already characterizes this most intense and open of primary seasons.
Meanwhile, here's just a sampling of the many new signatories that came in over the holidays:
Eric Chivian, Director, Center For Health And The Global Environment, Harvard Medical School; co-founder, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Nobel Peace Prize, 1985
Judith Curry, Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Vernon Ellingstad, Director, Office of Research and Engineering, National Transportation Safety Board
Ira Flatow, Executive Producer and Host, Science Friday
Kevin Finneran, Editor-in-Chief, Issues in Science and Technology
Mauri Katz, Former Director, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of Defense Program Laboratories
Eric Lander, Director, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; first author of the Human Genome Project; one of TIME's 100 most influential people of our time (2004)
Russell Lefevre, President, IEEE-USA, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Martin Peretz, Editor-in-Chief, The New Republic
Richard Schrock, Frederick G. Keyes Professor Of Chemistry, M.I.T.; Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2005
Lesley Stone, Executive Director, Scientists and Engineers for America
Momentum continues to grow....
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The "many new signatories" link doesn't work - I think you wanted this link
If this is a science blog, why haven't we seen anything about the Federal budget train wreck?
I would guess that Obama would win hands down in a science debate.
Chris, mind if I steal your Science Debate button? Nobody but my friends reads my blog, but that's who I'd like to influence...
Absolutely Greg. We encourage everyone to adopt the Science Debate 2008 button and spread the word. This is a collective call!
While I have a graduate minor in glacial and Pleistocene geology and spent considerable time in my youth collecting proxy climate data from sediment cores, most of my friends are petroleum geologists. They are applied scientists. They test their predictions daily, as if their lives depended on it. They, more than anybody, appreciate what is happening to the oil and natural gas supply. And that supply will be diminishing faster that anybody suspects.
We all seem to know that there is an energy problem, but for the most part, as on this blog and as suggested in the discussion surrounding Science Debate 2008, most energy considerations are "framed" in terms of climate change, not in terms of...well...energy. There is apparently a naive belief that renewable and other non-renewable sources of energy will be able to compensate for the expected shortfall, which will likely begin to play out in the next few years (it already is playing out in many parts of the world), or that somehow climate change represents a more relevant or all-encompassing challenge. Or, even, that the solutions to the two problems are somehow congruent. This would be a mistake, and I am continuously disappointed that The Intersection seems not to have appreciated or addressed this reality. This topic should be front and center in any "Science Debate 2008," but alas it is barely mentioned.
As I have stated before, mostly to an audience that responds with all the alacrity of a blank stare, this may be the only issue on the docket in "Presidential Debate 2012."
It is time to grips with the issue. I know it is uncomfortable--we might not be able to continue our life-style in the way that we are accustomed--or at all. This is a particularly difficult issue for young people. Until then, I will continue to be the voice in the wilderness.