Science Progress Supports Science Debate 2008
Let's Talk About It
SOURCE: SP
Policy decisions on the issues of greatest concern to voters–national security, the economy, health care, and energy and the environment–should rest upon a foundation of sound scientific advice.
To: Science Debate 2008 Steering Committee
From: Science Progress Advisory Board and Editors
The undersigned members of the Science Progress advisory board and editorial staff express their support for the Science Debate 2008 initiative and encourage the presidential candidates of both major political parties to devote one nationally televised debate specifically to issues related to science, technology, and innovation.
The next president must be able to make clear and effective decisions about science and technology policy, and must be able to synthesize advice from advisers who can make recommendations without fear of political interference. Policy decisions on the issues of greatest concern to voters–national security, the economy, health care, and energy and the environment–should rest upon a foundation of sound scientific advice. Candidates must be able to clearly articulate how they will harness that counsel to lead the United States toward a clean energy transformation, care for the health of the country’s citizens, and cultivate a diverse and dynamic low-carbon economy that capitalizes on American creativity and entrepreneurship.
The objective of Science Progress is to improve the understanding of science among policymakers in order to develop exciting, progressive ideas about innovation in science and technology for the United States in the 21st century. We believe that the Science Debate 2008 initiative shares the same ethos that is behind our mission statement:
Science Progress proceeds from the propositions that scientific inquiry is among the finest expressions of human excellence, that it is a crucial source of human flourishing, a critical engine of economic growth, and must be dedicated to the common good. Scientific inquiry entails global responsibilities. It should lead to a more equitable, safer, and healthier future for all of humankind.
Current Advisory Board Signatories
Martha Farah, PhD, Walter H. Annenberg Professor of Natural Sciences; Director, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania
Steve Fetter, PhD, Dean, School of Public Policy University of Maryland - College Park
John Gearhart, PhD, Professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Physiology, Comparative Medicine, and Population Dynamics; Director of Stem Cell Biology, McKusic-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
John H. Gibbons, PhD Science Advisor to President Clinton; President, Resource Strategies
Barry Glassner, PhD, Executive Vice Provost, University of Southern California
Kathryn Hinsch, Founding Director and Board President, Women’s Bioethics Project
Neal Lane, PhD Malcolm Gillis University Professor; Senior Fellow, James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy Rice University
Zack Lynch, MA, Executive Director, Neurotechnology Industry Organization
Tara O’Toole, MD, MPH, Chief Executive Officer and Director, Center for Biosecurity, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Scott Page, PhD, External Faculty, Santa Fe Institute; Professor of Complex Systems, Political Science, and Economics University of Michigan
Jonathan Tucker, PhD, Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies
Paul R. Wolpe, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Bioethics; Professor, Departments of Psychiatry, Medical Ethics, and Sociology, University of Pennsylvania
Laurie Zoloth, PhD, Director, Bioethics, Center for Genetic Medicine Professor of Medical Ethics and Humanities Professor of Religion, Northwestern University
Richard O. Lempert, JD, PhD, Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology, University of Michigan Law School, NSF, AAAS, NRC
Dawn Bonnell, PhD, Trustee Professor of Material Sciences; Director, Nano/Bio Interface Center University of Pennsylvania
John S. Irons, PhD, Research and Policy Director, Economic Policy Institute
Susan Solomon, JD, CEO, New York Stem Cell Foundation
Editorial Staff
Jonathan Moreno, Editor-In-Chief
Kit Batten, PhD, Editorial Advisor
Ed Paisley, Editorial Director
Andrew Plemmons Pratt, Assistant Editor
Comments on this article
I’m afraid I do not understand this growing push for a “science debate”. Why should science have its own debate?
These issues (the environment, health and medicine, and science and technology policy) are or should be integrated parts of the larger political debate, and I don’t see how candidates can effectively and usefully debate these issues in the isolated and artificial environment of a science debate.
As someone who is intensely interested in matters of basic science and engineering, including science and technology policy, I’m all for the candidates discussing their policies in these areas. But what should we hope to gain from Science Debate 2008? Is the scientific community hoping to see which candidate knows the most science? To borrow some topics from the SB2008 website, do we want to know the candidates’ position on the best way to fight antibiotic resistant bacteria? or the best way to combat species lost and promote conservation?
I don’t expect a candidate to know all these things. I expect a candidate to follow the advice of advisers who are experts in their fields. Such a debate seems more like a platform for various parties to promote and push their agendas, seeking either for some promise which they can leverage against the future President, or, in the egotistical fashion of someone who would demand a science debate in the first place, the opportunity to ridicule the candidates for a scientific understanding that fails to match that of the experts promoting the debate.
Again, why should science have its own debate? I would love to hear them expand on these issues in more depth during the debates, but the same could be said for any one of the issues covered in the debates or indeed any one of the number of issues that are never brought up. And as I mentioned before, most of these issues cannot be debated in a vacuum but are integrally related to other policy topics.
At the end of the second paragraph above, you say that the candidates must “must be able to clearly articulate how they will harness that counsel to lead the United States toward” a few important science-related policy goals. But it seems to me that asking for such specific policy proposals belies the stated importance of relying on the advise of experts in the ever-evolving world of scientific knowledge.
I don’t want to sound too critical. I think this is a well-intentioned initiative and part of me is actually torn on the issue. I think the discussion surrounding Science Debate 2008 is worthwhile, and even (as I see it) more important than having the debate itself.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:59 amYikes! I didn’t realize that comment was so long. Sorry.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:00 pmBrock raises an important question, which occurred to me too when I first heard about Science Debate 2008: Why consider “science” a separate category for a political debate, when it is such a heterogeneous enterprise and its importance comes from the very fact that it relates to so many different issues.
Here’s one answer: Science may be heterogeneous and its policy implications widely dispersed, but recent governmental neglect of science has been MONOLITHIC. Consider the following issues on which our policies could be criticized: climate change, energy policy, science education, stem cell research, censorship of gov’t scientists, FDA oversight, research funding… They all have one thing in common: the neglect (from ignorance or malice) of science. It’s “the two cultures” on steroids!
So, while the specific problems are numerous, the root cause is pretty singular. What better way to address the pervasive neglect of science than to get the presidential candidates to debate and the nation to watch?
Martha
March 13th, 2008 at 9:23 pmI think Science Debate 2008 is a good idea. I do not expect our politicians to be expert scientists because they’re politicians. That’s why they have advisers. My reason for supporting Science Debate is that science, in general, has been under attack lately in our country. The White House supporting “Abstinence Only” sex education rather than contraception. If I remember, former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders got the axe for going against that. The Bush Administration only recently figured out that Global Warming is a real issue. Another instance is, again, The White House supporting that Intelligent Design be taught along side Evolution as a “competing theory” in our science classes!
April 1st, 2008 at 5:50 pmThe White House ignores the Surgeon General (see Congressional testimony of former Surgeon General Richard Carmona) and inserts political rhetoric to fill the space. That certainly is a problem.
I think the importance of having a science debate is that it will bring science to the public arena. The public would be able to make decisions based on who is likely to listen to his advisors.
I agree with Martha Farah 100%.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:58 pm