Isn’t it about time that we learned what our Presidential candidates feel – and what they know – about science and technology research and public policy? Why do we hardly ever – never? – hear questions on these topics posed at the presidential debates?
“As you watched the scores of U.S. Presidential debates, did you ever wonder why there has been no debate devoted to policy surrounding what may be the most important social issue of our time: Science and Technology?”
That’s the question posed by the organizers of Science Debate 2008 who want to create a Presidential debate that focuses on issues that affect us all but really never get debated by the candidates: climate, renewable energies, the oceans, food, drug patenting, drought, pollution, and more. This is a terrific idea and one that I support, and I have signed on to the growing list of scientists, public policy makers and journalists who believe these issues need to be addressed and should be the focus of a debate.
We might even learn something about the science literacy of our political leaders; how much do they know about science? Apart from the obvious question about evolution, how many understand some of the most basic science: how science is done, how it’s funded, what directon should research be headed, why it’s hotter in the summer than in the winter?
As we head into the meat of the primaries, and as the debating season heats up down the stretch, why can’t even one of the upcoming Presidential debates be about these important issues?
It can…and it should.
And it would be a good idea for local politicians running for House and Senate seats this year, to be asked the same kinds of questions. Think global, act local.
Hi, I couln’t be more in aggrement of your statement. The world’s advancement in technology and science is very rapid, yet our politicians are still debating issues as if it were the 1800′s. The scary thing is that none of the government seats have requierements of knowledge in science and we don’t know if they even listen to the science advisors. The media is also at fault here. They only ask about the evolution vs. creationism issue because, as per them, it’s whats on the publics mind. What public? I ask. There are a lot of us who are interested in more than evolution. I vote for an in depth debate on science and technology, and Ira, thank you for bringing this up.
Your thoughts are thinly veiled Ira. I think you should be investigated for false advertising, Science Friday, my foot! I wish you would just change the name of your program to Politics Friday and get it over with. Or you could actually discuss research, science, facts, reality, and their commercial implications. Otherwise, your (formerly) excellent program will go the way of the dinosaur. Too bad!
why are politicians never asked such questions?
Does no one care to hear their answers?
I do
Dream on. there will be no “science debate” and here’s why:
Unfortunately, most of America is science illiterate, or thinks of scientists as nerds in lab coats that occasionally come up with some new cure for cancer or a fancier cell phone. They have no concept of the network of researchers, grad students, and post docs that incrementally increase our knowledge of how things work.
Also, they don’t even know how to critically examine information from sources as non-scientific as Newsweek. Thats why the evolution debate will be at least a generation long in resolving, because to really understand the symbiotic relationship between radioactive age dating, electromagnetic theory, genetic divergence and fossil ontogeny, takes some work- too much work for the abundantly average TV addicted American. Many of whom don’t even vote.
The only interest in a Science Debate will come from what appears to me to be the few thousand listeners of Science Friday who care at all about these issues.
I apologize for my pessimistic attitude- will someone else please come up with a legitimate reason and process for one of these debates to occur.- And, how to prevent the debate from being more than just a presidential version of “Are you smarter than a fifth grader”.
While I am greatly in favor of a science debate for politicians, I have 2 observations:
a.) The guests and Ira Flatow’s view on the funding of science seems to suggest that scientists need education in economics;
b.) Though I think the attention he brought to global warming is good, That Al Gore is so highly praised for bad science says a science debate is irrelevant.
I am not sure why you have come to this conclusion. Politics is very important to science, because it affects so many areas of it, not only funding exploration.
Especially you should consider that conservative forces have been pushing against science for so many years, I think that paying attention to politics is a vital mission for shows like Science Friday. And we need to know more about how our presidential candidates will approach it, because if they don’t understand it or respect it they will certainly cause all of us a great deal of harm.
It’s valid.
As a scientist and citizen of the USA, I couldn’t agree with you more Ira. The truth is science is only a part of the political spectrum unfortunately. This is even true when policy makers are making decisions about science itself (e.g. NIH funding).
The sad part is that on average 8 of 10 of this countries nation policy iniatives are science oriented, yet there is very little discussion about science at the national level until some candidate wants a vote.
Can we get the BELIEVE word and the BELIEVE IN phrase out of the debate? They are ambiguous at best. I think when used in relation to science they create and perpetuate misunderstanding.
I’m an old retired trial lawyer and when I read or hear a Science Writer or worse yet a Scientist use the word or phrase in a science setting I just want to ‘call him/her to the stand and cross examine’.
Q. Dr Dawkins,you said you “believe in evolution”. Define the phrase “believe in” when used in discussing the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Do you hold the Theory to be true as a “matter of faith”? Did you learn this belief while attending the “Church of Science”? (apologies to Susan Sarandon and the movie Bull Durham) Does the word believe have a special scientific meaning?
Q. Aren’t you just using the word believe as a synonym for “think, suppose, consider etc.”? ?Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say you understand Evolution to be a scientific theory which is supported by and almost overwhelming amount of scientific evidence which continues to accumulate as more science is done?
I hope we have the debate. I hope we don’t confuse science with religion or philosophy.
Ira I will be graduating in May from Duke university with a B.S. I was informed for the first time in class yesterday that the NIH funding quotas have dropped from ~30% of research proposals just 4 years ago to ~14% last year.
It doesn’t matter how much money we otherwise “put into education”, if professors can’t get funding and make tenure, our universities will shut down.
I’m counting on you Ira!
You support an organization which excluded Ron Paul from speaking. This in itself is against science at it’s core.
Science is the search for truth. All science must include all circumstance. No ommission or fact or possible fact.
If by your own action you create an outcome then your science is flawed.
You know this!!!!!
So don’t complain. You brought it on yourself. Let Dr. and I repeat DOCTOR Ron Paul speak. You may not agree with him, but science seeks truth and required all the facts to make a decision. Otherwise you live in belief and religion and not fact.
Look to your own for the problem and see your error of observation. You call yourself a scientist? hmmmmmmmmm
“..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in people’s minds.”
— Samuel Adams
“With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.” — Abraham Lincoln
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” — George Orwell
“The state can’t give you free speech, and the state can’t take it away. You’re born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free…”
— Utah Phillips
quixotic quest
I am about to send off my contribution to Science Debate MN 55047-9760 even though it’s doubtful they’ll become 501C3. If there ever is a candidate’s Science Debate, I’ll be watching it. Everyone else’ll be watching AmIdol, right? I bet more folks watched the candidates on Letterman, Leno,and SNL than watched the actual debates.
Ira,
Once again the candidates have bowed out of the Science Debate 2008. Any chance of bringing the back up on Science Friday. I know you did a story on this back in January, but now it seems the candidates will never give us a debate