From Randy Olson: Interview with Matthew Chapman on How Science Debate 2008 Kicks Ass

I spend a lot of time complaining about the ineptitude of the science world when it comes to mass communication and function in mainstream society. But all of a sudden here is this Science Debate 2008 effort that is being run with shockingly good style and savvy. Who in the world is behind such a non-science-like effort? It all tracks back to Matthew Chapman, science writer, screenwriter, descendent of Charles Darwin, and member of the general public who was disappointed at the lack of discussion of science and technology by the presidential candidates. I contacted him and asked 5 simple questions.

Q1: How did SD 2008 begin?

I watched the first couple of months of debates and was astonished that science was not being talked about when it seemed to me that at no other time in our planet's history was a discussion of science (and its offspring technology) more essential. Because the issues we should be talking about - from the environment to medicine to technology - cannot be discussed within narrow definitions of "the economy," or "domestic policy" or "foreign policy," but require recognition of their global nature, it became apparent that these issues deserved their own unique debate. If this could be pulled off, a Science and Technology Debate would be the most important debate of the presidential election and would become part of all future races. When you think about it, it is extremely odd that a Science and Technology Debate has not been an integral part of all presidential elections since the fifties.

Q2: Don't you think the candidates know very little science and will look bad?

Not at all. This debate would not be a quiz, it's all about policy. You don't need a degree in economics to discuss economic policy. You don't need a degree in science to discuss science and technology policy. Furthermore, this debate--contrary to what some people have said--should not be about the science community begging for money, but a real and open discussion of the issues. If someone wanted to argue that all science had done was produce the technology by which mankind might destroy himself, they could argue that. Or they could argue that science has brought many benefits, including longer life, and that technology had provided huge humanitarian and economic benefits, and that both deserved to be funded more, controlled more or less...and so on.

Q3: How did you actually get this incredible SD 2008 snowball rolling?

I spoke about the debate idea to a few people who were more or less entirely cynical. I then spoke to Chris Mooney. Chris was interested, and brought his Intersection co-blogger, Sheril Kirshenbaum, on board and they immediately began to stir up the blogosphere as it had rarely been stirred up before, and also recruited scientists and science related people. Another friend of mine, Austin Dacey, created the website and provided organizational help. Then physicist and writer Lawrence Krauss joined us. Lawrence was unbelievably effective in recruiting top people from both science and business. He got 6 Nobel laureates to sign on in a single day! At about the same time, I was introduced over the phone to fellow screenwriter, Shawn Lawrence Otto, (House of Sand And Fog) by a producer who had a project both of us wanted to write. We went from being competitors to collaborators. Shawn, who has managed political campaigns, brought the final ingredient that holds the whole thing together. He is a far better manager than I am, he's diplomatic, politically wise, hard working, and fearless.

As with all endeavors there is a great deal of luck involved. All I did was say "Yes" to whoever wanted to help, and luck delivered a core group, the founders of this, each of whom brings something unique and essential. Chris is proactive and impatient to make progress. Sheril is proactive and optimistic and encourages everyone. Austin is philosophical. Lawrence is our energetic link to the upper levels of academia and science. Shawn is as described above.

Q4: Who did the logo? Who was smart enough to have it copied onto a background for videotaping testimonials at AAAS from many of the most important voices in the science world today?

I can take no credit for this. I think it was a combination of all the other members of the core group. I just shot the videos when I was up in Boston for the AAAS meeting. Shawn edited them.

Q5: Have any of the candidates committed yet?

No, although we know they are thinking about it. If anyone feels like helping us bring this about, they should visit our website and check out what they can do, from signing on, to contacting the campaigns.

One other point that is interesting. Although the blogosphere has enthusiastically embraced this and science journals have mostly endorsed it and encouraged it, the mainstream media has to a large extent ignored us. Because we truly believe that no debate is, or could possibly be, as important as ours, all of us are surprised and disappointed by this.