The Wall Street Journal has an article by David Baltimore and Ahmen Zewail about the Science Debate that didn't happen today at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia:
All three candidates declined. Apparently the top contenders for our nation's highest elective office have better things to do than explain to the public their views on securing America's future.
The piece lays out what we--America--must do to re-energize our commitment to being the world's leader in science and technology:
We need a president who moves science back into the White House. Today we do not have a presidential science adviser and there is no office of science in the White House.
Our government needs to treat science honestly. When the world's scientists flag global warming as a threat to our way of life, it is a warning that should be taken seriously. Stewardship of the planet is our responsibility. No one else is going to do it for us.
We need to fund ACI and double the National Science Foundation's budget for basic research. The government should fund science at a level that will ensure that the U.S. stays in a leadership position in areas like biotechnology, military preparedness, electronics and communication. We need to pay special attention to health research.
We also need to encourage young people to become educated about scientific issues, regardless of whether they become scientists.
Veritas. It is my hope that the candidates display the courage to discuss
how they plan to face the greatest challenges to our nation so that on November 4, 2008, when our votes become our voice, we can make the most well-informed decision.
More on the article from Time and The New Republic...
- Log in to post comments
What's next guys? What about OR? The general election?
I am following this with great interest. Hoping that the importance, significance, and perhaps, pressure from everyone will have the proper imprint on them.
We will all see...
I noticed today that the Pentagon is funding stem cell research. You would think that might be relevant to candidates.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080417/hl_afp/usmilitarymedicine_08041721…
I've been so disappointed with both Clinton and Obama since I heard they didn't agree to do the Science Debate.
Do you think its because they are concerned that they will lose some potential voters just by even being more public about their support for stem cell research, etc.?
They are obviously both pro-science. Maybe they figure they have the scientists votes already and can only be hurt by talking about science.
I'm not sure it's an issue of being hurt by talking about the issue as much as seeing no particular benefit for participating. They may think there's not enough policy differences between them (at least between the Democrats, though I don't think that's true) to really expose anything in a debate. They have no way of knowing that regular voters will respond positively to them if they participate. It doesn't matter that the self-interested scientists will pay attention - they can handle them through their policy statements.
Let's be clear - and Wednesday's debate was a great example - these events are more often theater than effective policy discussion. ScienceDebate knows they're trying to do the latter, but it can be really hard to persuade people that this debate will be different, when they've seen 21 others that weren't (and that's just this election cycle).
I doubt the candidates know enough science to "debate" it themselves.
My guess is that they are afraid they might come across as uninformed (or worse) which would be much worse than not showing up at all. Debates are all about "avoiding mistakes" and a debate on a subject that is even more foreign to politicians than foreign policy is just an accident waiting to happen (from their standpoint and that of their campaign advisers).
I think if it were proposed that each candidate select his/her choice for Science Adviser to the President and then invited these people to debate, you would have a much better chance of actually having a debate.
I don't think Obama wants any more debates. The last one was a fiasco. Even when it got down to issues, the candidates pandered, and made ridiculous statements when asked, for example, what to do about about high gas prices. In the general election campaign there are, what, three debates? No room for ScienceDebate.
I suppose that the economy will dominate the fall campaign. With the combination of high energy costs and the credit crisis, things could be pretty ugly.
I have suggested before that by 2012 the only issue on the table will be energy (its increasing cost and decreasing reliability). What we are seeing now is only the overture to the symphony.