As Sheril hinted earlier, there is now a formal call for a science debate by the presidential candidates.
A CALL FOR A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we, the undersigned, call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Medicine and Health, and Science and Technology Policy.
I’ve expressed my opinion of such an effort before — I think it’s an excellent idea, but suspect that most of the candidates would refuse to submit to it. Not only is there the science test factor, in which we’re asking them to get evaluated on something most know nothing about, but the Republican slate in particular is full of astonishing idiots who hold beliefs contradicted by science. I just can’t believe they’ll step up on the podium for this one, unless they perhaps see an opportunity to hijack the discussion to promote their personal piety.
I still want it to happen: this is an opportunity to apply pressure to our candidates to have some minimal, basic science literacy. As I previously mentioned, though, those airheads with nice hairdos that populate the television media are even more dim than the candidates themselves, and must not be allowed anywhere near the event — I want wildlife biologists armed with tranquilizer guns at the doors, with orders to shoot Russert and Blitzer and anyone from Fox News on sight. How about if we put Natalie Angier, Carl Zimmer, John Horgan, Ira Flatow, John Tierney, and Cornelia Dean on a panel asking questions? How about if we ask Science and Nature to send representatives with questions? I would dearly love to see a debate on any subject where the candidates had to deal with issues of some substance.
So let’s all make a noise about this one, OK? Rattle the cages, and tell the candidates we want to hear opinions on topics that matter for the leader of a technological, 21st century society, rather than the usual tripe.
I don’t even necessarily want a candidate who’s extremely knowledgeable in science, just one who demonstrates the proper deference to scientific consensus. I want a candidate who will listen to people who are actually experts in their fields, and who will establish policies based on the scientific soundness of the arguments and not personal ideologies. In short, I’ll take someone who at least knows they don’t know and who is willing to listen to the people who do. Anything but the current crop of relativists who continue to pay more heed to propagandists than scientists.
I agree about the wildlife biologists armed with tranquilizer guns. I don’t think I could survive listening to Tim Russert ask his famous “tough” questions–Mr. Obama, which is your favorite element?
One wonders if a display of science illiteracy on part of the candidates would help the vast majority of US citizens relate to them, and end up being a benefit to their campaign…
I’m imagining candidates poring over textbooks SAT-style the night before the debate, and I’m getting kind of giddy.
That said, the logistics of this boggle my mind. Realistically, the scientist or whoever is posing the question is going to spend more time explaining the question than the candidates will spend answering it. Because unless you’re asking the most basic of questions, they’re probably going to be pretty advanced and none of the candidates would be experts in that field. And if all you’re going to do is ask basic questions, then it’s basically science trivia-cum-litmus test.
If it’s focused on science policy, then the candidates can talk about their philosophy and their approach to implementing science, but it’ll be the same boilerplate you’d get from one of their staff aides. I honestly just don’t see what anyone would hope to get out of this, other than some schadenfreude at the fact that none of these bozos could accurately describe the water cycle. But we already knew that.
It’s well worth calling for a debate like this, despite the fact that it almost certainly won’t happen.
The main value is to indicate and advertise the importance of science to our society, to humanity. Science needs to take the initiative, rather than merely responding to the initiatives from the anti-science forces.
Importantly, I don’t think we can lose by pushing for such a debate. And if it were to happen, I’d enjoy watching Huckabee flounder like the ignoramus that he is (I’d actually watch a presidential debate for once).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Dibs on O’Reilly.
Obama would double federal spending on basic research
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071114-obamas-innovation-plan-a-christmas-list-for-the-geekerarti.html
Quite frankly- I don’t care if Obama can’t tell an electron from a neutron. I just like him for the money he’d throw at us. Does that make me shallow?
I for one would really like a debate that doesn’t fucking combine science AND technology. If tech is included, you know it will largely end up being a technology debate. Where we would get answers from these folks about how they actually think would be on questions of science. It might be ok because there would be a lot of global warming stuff, but even biotech is gonna end up being all about the tech or will end up just being a stem cell debate.
Note to whoever gets assigned to dart Limbaugh… with his tolerance to tranks and morbid obesity you better use the big gun.
I guess this is a sign of how much this blog of yours has helped me grow. A couple of years ago, I’d have asked why; I’d have put it in the back of my mind, and considered it, at best, a secondary consideration.
Now, however, I see how important science denialism is. It means that you are part of a culture that can deny any sort of connection with reality. It’s a culture I now completely reject.
Two years ago, I’d have put economics first. And economics is still important to me. It’s just that the friends I have all said that Republicans are better at accounting than Democrats are. We now have incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, most recently comparing Clinton with Bush.
It just seems to me that on every issue, from denial of reality to adding and subtracting numbers, to figuring out interest rates, to understanding why diversification of species is important, why mass transit is important, why freedom from religion is important… I just can’t see an issue where Republicans win.
Okay, I think Giuliani would do okay in a science debate. But, as many have noted, 9/11 pervades everything he does. If you threw in a question about Darwin, he’d figure out a way to throw in “9/11” in his answer.
Anyway, now I’m way off-topic. Now I more-or-less demand a scientific debate. You are making a difference. Thank you.
Rather than make their excuses for them as to why they can’t do this, let’s demand that they DO. Let them figure out how to debate intelligently to their constituents about science policy.
I think it would do much better if Energy (and possibly Education) were part of the topic list.
As for Nature supplying questions, well, they are British…
That is the best Idea I’ve heard for a very long time.
Think about, it suffices that at least two agree to participate (my guess will be 2 dems first) that it will put pressure on the others to join the bandwagon by fear of looking outdated.
Well, at least, that’s the way it should be spinned.
Think about it, at least 40% of the econmy, jobs, etc… depend on science and technology. That’s a very big voice.
I’d absolutely LOVE to see this. It would be incredible.
I’d like to see a panel of experts from various disciplines question candidates on issues in science. I want to make sure the candidates stick to the facts.
I don’t see this happening either but it would be great.
“No Politician Left Behind” – how about an organized plan to drop by the offices of politicians to give them basic science lessons?
A recommendation. If you graduated from a scientific institution, contact the administration and ask them to participate. The list of scientists and leaders who are behind this is good, but I’d like to see some college Presidents and other Big Wigs on there.
(Besides, everyone knows that college presidents want to be politicians anyway.)
The group organizing this listed as “steering committee” is quite eclectic and not the usual suspects.
I’m particularly interested in the woman involved. Sheril sounds very accomplished for one who appears so young (www.scienceblogs.com/intersection/) I don’t read Intersection, but it looks ok at first glance and I predict we should be watching her pursuits over the coming years with great interest.
I do have a question for the supporters of this idea: Can you give me a sample question of something you’d like to see asked? Maybe part of my hesitence is just not being able to imagine what kinds of science questions a politician would be qualified to answer.
Kim Stanley Robinson suggested something like this in his book 50 Degrees Below. It has been awhile since I read it, but I think the characters realized they couldn’t get someone with a background in science in as president, so they came up with a list of suggestions they felt were necessary for a president to be backed by the scientific community…or something. If anyone else has read the book, maybe they could clarify. Like I said, it has been quite awhile since I finished it…
There is one big problem with having a science debate, it assumes that the forces friendly to science will prevail.
Don’t forget that a large majority of the population supports “teach the controversy” when it comes to the issue of ID vs evolution. We can also see how the Republicans have managed to spin Bush’s decision to ban new lines of embryonic stem cells in the light of recent news about new methods of producing them.
By all means have the debate, I would certainly watch it, and there any many important issues that should be aired, but it’s important to recognize that any power such a debate would have to inform the general public is severely limited by the majority’s preconceived notions and ignorance of science, and by the politician’s seemingly limitless ability to pander to their supporters.
I agree with the previous commenters that it shouldn’t just be a trivia contest. I’d much rather know what our future president plans to do with NASA than whether she can remember all of Newton’s laws. There is usually a prerequisite level of knowledge for each science policy question, so perhaps the moderator could just fill us in on the background info with a brief, high-budget, multimedia intro, for example a brief walkthrough of embryogenesis before a stem-cell question. Then it would be educational too! Where’s AAAS?
Of course, perhaps there’s something fundamentally wrong with including facts in a political debate.
Okay. How?
On the webpage, there’s a link to “support” the movement; it just asks for contact information and gives no indication at all of what they’ll do with it. Against my better judgment, I gave them my e-mail address anyway; I got a thank-you message and an option to subscribe to their announcements, which I accepted. Nothing else has happened. No petition, no brochure, not even a confirmation e-mail. I feel like I haven’t accomplished anything.
Examples :
1. Will you sign the Kyoto protocol ? Do you believe, like Europe, that the US should show leadership in reducing greenhouse gazes ?
2. How important do you think it is that the US remains in the lead in Science&Technology, and what will you do to ensure this ?
3. Stem Cell research and your views on bioethics
4. What are your thougts on the theory of evolution
5. How do you view the latest PISA results that show the US below OECD average on mathematics and scientific litteracy ?
Jon,
Sheril Kirshenbaum is obviously intelligent, lovely, and sophisticated, but it’s ridiculous and insulting to this cause to read your comment. She’d probably agree: http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/11/coming_out.php
PZ, I hope this debate happens! I REALLY can’t wait to watch things progress. Can any blogger join the coalition or do they have to be with Science Blogs?
A science debate would actually do more to hurt any candidate that not only freely and openly supported science, but actually knew some themselves. We’re in the minority here people. Those of us that would love to see a President that respected science, and understood science aren’t the majority in this country. People that want a President who thinks goddidit are.
A lot of you are enjoying the idea of watching Huckabee squirm, but in actuality, the fat majority of ignorant sheep in this country love when he proudly proclaims “I don’t put much stock in science, because it’s always changing… I believe in the Holy Bible because it hasn’t changed in 2000 years.” They get friggin wet over that shit, they eat it up. I mean sure, when a candidate says something like that it makes us squirm. But I don’t squirm because he’s ignorant, and has no concept of what science can tell us about the world, and all the benefits we reap everyday because of science. I squirm because I know that over 50% of the country is gonna agree with this retard and say “Yeah, who needs science anyways, let’s go read the Bible!”
Example:
Candidate, please explain the differences in how the words fact, hypothesis, and theory are used in science.
I’d be pretty happy if they could do that.
Zero, I like comment #24 a lot.
Actually, while respecting science would be nice, I’d be happy with them just understanding it a bit. How it’s done. Given the amount that science affects the developed world, it’s simply irresponsible for the leader of the US not to have a understanding of it.
Oh, I can imagine it now:
“Governor Huckabee, what holds protons and neutrons
together in the nucleus?”
“God!”
…
“Mayor Giuliani, how would your administration use
the testimony of recognized scientific experts in
shaping public policy?”
“9-11!”
And on and on it goes.
John Tierney? Please. He’s only marginally better than Steven Milloy.
I’d watch only if each candidate were shocked with non-lethal electricity every time they made a factually untrue statement. Heck, I think all politics would benefit from electroshock conditioning.
Call the candidates offices. Identify yourself as a voter and ask if the candidate intends to participate in the ScienceDebate. If not, ask why not. Be polite, but ask for an explanation. If they profess ignorance, tell the staffer what it is and why you feel it is important. Tell them you consider science a touchstone issue in this day and age.
The candidates wont do this because Meszneirs thinks its a good idea. They wont do it because the President of Princeton has signed on. Theyll do it if they think the voters demand it.
Call, dont email. The candidates will place much greater emphasis on a call.
OK- who here can tell me if 911 is prime?
It is prime… but not because I did the math… I googled it RAWR! http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/primelist.html
As a member of the steering committee of Science Debate 2008, I’d just like to say it’s great to see so many positive responses to our idea. If we want this to happen, if everyone pushes for this to happen… it will happen.
I’d also like to mention a couple of other concerns people have. From the start there have been those who thought that the candidates’ lack of scientific knowledge made the debate pointless. I don’t agree. We don’t expect a candidate to have a degree in economics before speaking about the economy, or understand every single detail of life in Iran before talking about the Middle East. Obviously, they can comment on some specifics but not all. What we want to understand is their attitude to science. How will they promote it? How will they use it? How seriously do they take medical issues, environmental problems, science education? This is not a quiz, it’s a debate.
Most importantly, if we make this debate happen we will raise the profile of science and empower science and scientists. The strangest thing about the idea of a debate on science and technology is that it hasn’t been an integral part of the electoral process for the last twenty years. Let’s make sure it IS a part of it for the NEXT twenty years.
After there is a science debate:
I want to see a debate on religion moderated by a Jew, a Catholic, a Protestant, a Muslim, and an acolyte of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I want to see a debate on economics moderated by a Commie, a Socialist, a Capitalist, and an Anarchist.
Let’s find out what they really think!
They need to post a general link/graphic/news post, so that it can spread around to other blogs instead of those already involved.
I for one would really like a debate that doesn’t fucking combine science AND technology. If tech is included, you know it will largely end up being a technology debate.
Josh speaks wisdom.
Can you give me a sample question of something you’d like to see asked?
This is an excellent question. It deserves its own thread.
6. Abstinence-only “education”* and your views on spending public health funds on unscientific programs.
[*Baseline knowledge about this topic: a) the difference between ideal and typical-use failure rates; b) the typical-use failure rate for abstinence; c) an idea of the funds allocated to these programs; d) the overall consensus of the studies on the effectiveness of these programs].
7. Your views on allowing the SCOTUS to set the medical standard of care for surgical procedures*.
[*a) the recent SCOTUS decision on “PBA” doesn’t ban abortion, rather it bans intact delivery and mandates fetal dismemberment before delivery; b) ACOG, the medical specialty board, disagrees with the legally-imposed standard of care]
I think a really good question would be, “Do you think the story of Noah’s flood is literally true?”, and expect a yes or no answer.
Corner them.
It’d be fantastic to see Huckabee squirming, because I don’t think he could look at a camera and say “yes.” Come to think of it, I don’t think he could look at a camera at all when answering that one.
And I really want to hear their answers.
Are we talking about a debate after the primaries? I doubt that there is enough time in the schedule to organize one before the end of the year, and do they debate at all after that?
One suggestion I have in promoting the idea would be to contact Newt Gingrich about it. Yeah, I can’t stand his politics either, but he has long been an advocate for holding a substantial series of presidential debates over the months before the election. Getting him involved would certainly add weight to the idea from the Republican point of view. And that is probably where the most resistance to the idea will come from.
I’m still not clear on what is intended here. Is it a debate on science and what they know about science? Or on Science policy? These are two very different topics.
If it’s about science and scientific knowledge, then I concur with H Humbert in the first response that I don’t really care how much they know, but that they know where to look for the answers. For example, consider
“Can you explain your position on the question of teaching evolution versus intelligent design?”
“I’ll admit, I don’t know a lot about biology. I learned a little about evolution in biology in high school, and I learned about creationism in Sunday School class. Neither of these makes me an expert on either subject, such that I am not qualified to determine what should be taught in our schools. I do know that our schools need to be teaching the best of our scientific knowledge. In my administration, I will rely on my scientific adviser, chosen from among the members of our Academy of Science. I will direct him or her to provide me with the opinion(s) of the Academy on the state of knowledge in a given field, and I will consider that to be the best of our scientific knowledge. That is what we should be teaching. In my administration, I will rely on scientists to provide scientific information. Public policy is ultimately in the hands of politicians, but we must rely on proper scientific facts.”
Well, from Matthew Chapman’s comment (#33) it would seem to be a debate on science policy.
Take PNAS (that’s short for “Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA”, which in turn is short for “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America”).
For what it’s worth, the debate is a great idea. Obviously, it should be about science policy, but if the candidates know nothing about science, how can they know anything about science policy…?
Take PNAS (that’s short for “Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA”, which in turn is short for “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America”).
For what it’s worth, the debate is a great idea. Obviously, it should be about science policy, but if the candidates know nothing about science, how can they know anything about science policy…?
The 15th in the list of signatories is a Republican congressman, and the 21st is a Democratic congressman. The 28th is the Editor-in-Chief of Science. The 39th is Michael Mann. Numbers 40 and 42 are two Democratic members of Congress. 43 is Kenneth Miller, 48 is Kevin Padian.
Not bad. Not bad at all.
The 15th in the list of signatories is a Republican congressman, and the 21st is a Democratic congressman. The 28th is the Editor-in-Chief of Science. The 39th is Michael Mann. Numbers 40 and 42 are two Democratic members of Congress. 43 is Kenneth Miller, 48 is Kevin Padian.
Not bad. Not bad at all.
Forgot to mention: number 55 is another Republican congressman, 56 is the Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American, and 57 and 58 were attorneys in Kitzmiller vs Dover (guess for which side).
In sum, this is serious.
Forgot to mention: number 55 is another Republican congressman, 56 is the Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American, and 57 and 58 were attorneys in Kitzmiller vs Dover (guess for which side).
In sum, this is serious.
And I forgot to mention the director of SETI (number 64).
And I forgot to mention the director of SETI (number 64).
How many American Nobel winners (from scientific categories) are alive? (Excluding senile kooks, I suppose.) Would any of them be willing to serve on the panel and ask some questions? The Nobels have name recognition and some of the scientists who won them might too.
The perfect moderator (IMO) would have been Carl Sagan, but we’ll have to muddle through with someone else…
911 is prime. And I DID do the math, suckas.
That is to say, I divided 911 by all the prime numbers up to its square root. Are there any other methods?
Coincidences that make you go hmmm:
#29:
This is actually a very reasonable idea. OK, maybe not the electroshock part, but the moderating scientists should definitely have some sort of buzzer they can use to interrupt candidates the moment they start spouting nonsense. The goal, after all, is not just to hear what they have to say, but to make it clear to voters who’s capable of talking sense about science.
What’s Tierney supposed to represent in this dream lineup? Misleading ‘balance’, in his role as a global warming skeptic?
Seeing Bill Nye’s name on that list makes me wonder if he might make a good moderator for an event like this. Of all the public representatives of science we have in the US he probably has the most positive popular image. And his background in television would make him a logical choice from a broadcast perspective. Neil DeGrasse Tyson might be good, too.
Unfortunately, it won’t happen.
It’s very difficult for a politician to double-speak his or her way around concepts of science policy, let alone actual science.
Sorry, I can’t find anything worth voting for in this presidential election. I guess I’ll end up picking the least of two evils, knowing full well that I am still picking an evil.
Wouldn’t a debate on science be telling? Think about it…these guys will have their hands on nuclear weapons and their thinking is from the stone-ages.
PZ, a science debate is such a great idea! It would expose these mental midgets so we could “expelled” them. It would be the death of a few of them…Huck…bye, Romney…bye…really, all of them are delusional nitwits! All claimin’ to “seek the truth” and “shine their lights” but in reality…they all have dark shades on.
A presidential science debate is a brilliant idea! Look at it at the long term: future presidents should better go into science and knowledge if they want to make a good impression on television (if television stations would always broadcast a science debate). Besides, people don’t only look up to the beautiful and the glib, but also to intelligent people, so it would be a good idea for a candidate to make a nice impression this way.
Why Science and Nature? Why not one of these people (to whom I now am thankful for gainful employment) who have spent a lot of time lately thinking about these issues?