The invitations have been sent, the date and venue scheduled, and already the blogosphere and beyond are ablaze!
Hot off the Greenwire, Lauren Morello, reported:
A group of scientists, journalists and lawmakers pressing for a presidential science debate said today it is planning to hold the event at a Philadelphia science museum in April, just before the Pennsylvania primary.
The Franklin Institute will host the April 18 event, which organizers hope to broadcast on national television and the Internet.
Pennsylvania's presidential primary is just four days later, the group noted in its official invitation to Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R).
Over at Daily Kos:
Official invitations have reportedly gone out to Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Huckabee for Science Debate 2008. Please, please, let Huckabee hang in there long enough to attend a science debate.
You read that right: this is for realz. We want the candidates to stand on stage and talk about their stance on various topics in science, and discuss the policies they have about scientific issues. We already know how many of them feel on various issues, but this would be a chance for them to debate, air out their policies, and see who stands where.
Jeff Masters' Wunderground:
We need your help to make this debate happen! Contact the campaigns of the candidates to ask them to participate in the debate, sign a petition to approve of the debate, or write a letter to the editor of your local paper.
Andrew Revkin of Dot Earth asks:
If you were an adviser to one of the front-tier candidates, what would you suggest?
We'll add more links as they come in... Not bad for a Monday morning, eh?
- Log in to post comments
Great job Chris and Sheril! I never thought this would happen, but at this point and especially with you two at the helm, I'm hopeful. Actually, I'm counting on it ;>
Congratulations!
I would suggest that they be smart enough to realize the total value of participation.
This is really getting exciting!!
I wrote to the four major candidates who are left, urging them to be a part of the April 18 debate.
Please check if Sen. McCain's e-mail address is correct.
Whatever happens, thank you, Sheril and Chris, for all your effort and hard work.
Any idea how to try for a ticket to the event? I am a Philadelphian.
Thanks.
Congratulations on getting the invite together. I know it's been a LOT of work on your part.
I just was wondering if you planned on responding to the criticism brought by David Goldston in the Feb. 6, 2008 issue of Nature (see here: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/060208/full/451621a.html and here: http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/02/debating_the_scienc…)
Goldston brings up some interesting issues and warnings about the science debate format. I would agree that if this debate is to be successful, there should be a clear and explicit statement in the beginning that what we are debating is policy, not science. I know you may have made this point several times before but it needs to be repeated. It will be interesting to see differences in policy but I know that every candidate's view of science itself will be much the same (i.e., science is good).
What would be helpful to me is to ask a question like "What do you think of an organization like the IPCC? Do you think organizing a large group of experts to synthesize the current state of science on some issue is the best way to make informed policy decisions? If yes, then why do you think so many Americans (politicians included) still do not accept the IPCC conclusions?"
Thanks.
First off, I applaud this initiative! But before I get going writing the candidates and my contacts to support the debate, I wanted to express a serious concern of mine from the invitation. What is this about? -"Nor are we interested in state-level battles such as the evolution versus creationism/ID debate." Really? This topic is central to the quality of science education in America. And the quality of science education links directly to our competitiveness internationally, not to mention our national image. This may be a state-level debate when it comes to implementing policy, but as an American citizen, my president's comprehension of and stance on this issue is of utmost importance. Creationists have paved the way for abuses on not only evolutionary biology but have also attacked scientific integrity. And I want a president who will stand up for science and science education, so we should give them an opportunity to state their position.
Congratulations! I hope we can get the major candidates in Philadelphia on April 18!
I wrote to both Democratic candidates today and copied my letters to my blog.
One topic that the folks pushing this idea have not addressed is who the moderator and questioners will be. We certainly don't want scientific illiterates like Wolf Blitzer or Tim Russert moderating the debate (which like the debates which have taken place so far is really a series of joint news conferences). The problem comes in that most of the people pushing the idea appear to be liberal Democrats (e.g. Mooney, Krauss, etc.). There is no possibility that any of the Rethuglican candidates will accept a debate with the moderator and questioners consisting of liberal Democrats. I think it would be appropriate, at this point, for the folks pushing this event to provide some names of possible moderators and questioners.
For those like SLC who worry about Republican participation, let me remind you that all Republicans are not cut from the same cloth. There are still some who remember the fact that Conservation and Conservative had the same root meaning. Such a Republican is Martha Marks, head of Republicans for Environmental Protection, a truly green organization whose members have worked for a long time to repair the damage of those like ex-Congressman Pombo and current Senator Inhofe who remain like dinosaurs of 19th Century politics and Western Expansion.
A little thought will solve this problem. I am much more afraid that the zeal of some (on both side of the issue) will allow a debate to become bogged down in the ID controversy and this is too important to allow a single issue to dominate the discussion.
Wes notes: "There are still some [Republicans] who remember the fact that Conservation and Conservative had the same root meaning."
Indeed. This includes even some I find hard to stomach, like Newt Gingrich, whose new book (A Contract With the Earth) may change some minds on the Right.
Click my name for my lukewarm review, as well as the publicist's positive pitch for the book.