A group of sciencebloggers has proposed that the public call for a presidential debate, specifically on the issue of science and technology. You can visit their website here.
We have noticed that science and technology lie at the center of a very large number of the policy issues facing our nation and the world - issues that profoundly affect our national and economic security as science and technology continue to transform our lives. No matter one's political stripe, these issues pose important pragmatic policy challenges.
We believe these scientific and technological policy challenges can bring out the best in the entrepreneurial American spirit. America can be a leader in finding cures for our worst diseases, inventing the best alternative energy sources, and graduating the most scientifically literate children in the world - or we can concede these economic and humanitarian benefits to other countries.
I think this is a fantastic idea. Somehow, politicians seem to weasel out of these sorts of questions every time they're asked, crying "But I'm not a scientist! Science is hard!" or trying to divert the topic to something fluffier. The public and the media don't let it go when candidates pull that crap with questions about the economy, defense, or civil rights.
Well, the media used to not let it go.
But you don't need to be a scientist to understand, for instance, that "intelligent design" creationism is disguised religion. You don't need to be a scientist to understand that burning coal releases mercury, and that's a bad thing. You don't need to be a scientist to understand why soaking livestock in antibiotics is a bad thing. I, along with many other people, don't want to have another president elected that isn't a proud member of the reality-based community.
Even though I think this is a fantastic idea (and I am supporting it), I'm not terribly optimistic about the chances of actually getting front-running candidates to participate, for a few reasons.
First, I don't think that many of the candidates would be to thrilled to speak about issues that would limit their opportunities to waffle uselessly. They'll be asked questions about issues on which there is a substantial amount of data, by people who are very familiar with the issues at hand. Clinton's and Romney are out because they'd have to take a firm position on an issue with a right and wrong answer. Giuliani is out because questions regarding NSF funding, open access publishing, stem cell research, and evolution can't be spun into answers about 9-11 or New York City. The topic necessarily takes the spotlight off the issues politicians love because they tug the heartstrings and provoke the atavistic us-vs-them reflex that forcibly disables the rational part of a voter's brain. How will Huckabee make people think he's better than Obama if "moral fiber" just doesn't come up?
Second, half of the candidates clearly don't think their key constituencies are with the whole "science" thing. This definitely includes the anti-evolution handraisers Tom "throw 'em back" Tancredo and Mike "OMG GAY AIDS" Huckabee.
Though it could just as well be to the advantage of some candidates. If they want to show people that no evidence, however concrete, can puncture their little personal reality, what a better way to do it than by throwing an audience of scientists the bird?
Third, the primaries are all happening ridiculously early. I doubt that we'll be able to coax anyone into showing up, as they'll all be too busy pretending that Iowa is important. Come on, they're all busy! The front-runners have more important issues to address, like whether or not Jesus and Satan were brothers!
Plus, science says that the whole corn-as-a-fuel thing is a crock of... uh... corn. Can anyone tell me where that might be a problem? Hint: it's the only state I've mentioned so far.
And finally, I'm just not optimistic enough to believe that the concerned science-literate segment of the population is sizable enough to (strategically) matter to the candidates. With the evangelical vote up in the air, it's more important to make public appearances at church than it is to ask "is our children learning [science]?"
For my own sake, I hope I'm wrong.
1 comments:
Every time I hear the name Huckabee, I laugh. We cannot have a president with that surname, it's too ridiculous even for a comic book.
Which inspires me to get some journalist credentials and ask them how they feel about funding adamantium-bonding research on adults and see if they bite.
They'll wish they had done a science debate then, by golly.
Post a Comment