Science Debate 2008

A long list of science community luminaries, including Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum of our own Intersection, are trying to organize the first ever presidential candidate debate on matters scientific and technological. This would be a good thing. Science Debate 2008 is at this point just a proposal, however, and it won't materialize without pressure from a much wider support base than the current list, which includes:

Evolution guru Niles Eldredge, Scientific American editor John Rennie, conservation ecologist Stuart Pimm, some corporate heavyweights, two congressmen, a bunch of science writers and Bill Nye the Science Guy, among other "eminent individuals from astrophysics, physics, chemistry, biology, paleontology, meteorology, science education, theology, the law, journalism, elected office, and publishing."

But they're not the kind of people we're going to need to convince those who have the ears of the contenders, most of whom will be arguing forcefully against taking part in a debate where you actually have to understand more than rhetorical technique.

Another attempt to mount a debate, one focusing exclusively on climate issues, was reportedly scuttled when almost no candidate showed interest.

I fear that, to attract serious participation, we'll need to attract the likes of Oprah Winfrey. (I said the likes of Oprah. No one's actually expecting her to join the team, although that would be nice.)

Lawrence Krauss, the director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University (and who has just started a promising every-other-week column in New Scientist), justifies what will almost certainly require an enormous lobbying effort to bring the debates about, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:

Almost all of the major challenges we will face as a nation in this new century, from the environment, national security and economic competitiveness to energy strategies, have a scientific or technological basis. Can a president who is not comfortable thinking about science hope to lead instead of follow?

That's a rhetorical question, but let's hope those put to the candidates, should this effort succeed, invoke more substantive issues.

If I could ask them one question, it would be:

"How will you work to bridge the gap between what climatologists say will be required to avoid catastrophic climate change and what is currently politically feasible? Be specific."

You can offer your own favorite question, and lend your personal support to the effort, by visiting the project site.