Image: League of Women Voters Election 2012 button used under Creative Commons license BY 2.0.
Innovation, economic growth and climate change are just a few of the challenges and opportunities that face the U.S. They are also firmly linked to science. For example, research findings provide a basis for understanding how to respond to climate change, and technological progress fuels economic growth. Science is a vital to many government policies, and thus Scientific American has joined a swelling chorus of voices and partnered with ScienceDebate.org, a grassroots organization. We call for the two main presidential candidates—Pres. Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney to address science and technology policy during the 2012 campaign.
ScienceDebate.org sent 14 questions to the presidential candidates in late July and awaits their responses. In addition, we've posed eight of the 14 questions to influential members of Congress, chosen because they lead their parties or congressional committees in charge of science and technology-related policy.
The Scientific American editors will publish and grade the presidential candidates' responses in the magazine's November issue. Congress's replies will be available online, where readers are welcome to challenge our grade and offer their own thoughts.
For a detailed look at each of the questions, see our ongoing series listed below and weigh in with your comments. A new question will appear weekly on Fridays. The individual posts follow (list will be updated):
What Do Obama and Romney Know about Science? And Why It Matters By Christine Gorman, July 19, 2012
Advances in Science Drive Economic Growth By Christine Gorman, July 26, 2012
Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise By Christine Gorman, August 3, 2012
Who Should Fund Scientific Research? How Much? By Christine Gorman, August 10, 2012
Will the Candidates Tell Us about Their Policies on Pandemics and Biosecurity? By Marissa Fessenden, August 17, 2012
Will the U.S. Remain a Leader in a Science- and Technology-Driven Economy? By Marissa Fessenden, August 24, 2012
Can the U.S. Achieve Energy Independence by 2020 By Christine Gorman, August 31, 2012
Food Safety: Romney and Obama Focus on Different Solutions By Christine Gorman, September 7, 2012
Voters Should Pay More Attention to Freshwater Issues By Christine Gorman, September 14, 2012
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentPoliticians being too involved in science is part of the problem, we dont need to encourage more of their interference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat would they debate anyway? The ridiculous junk science that is everywhere? These guys would just spout the nonsense spewed out by whatever "scientist" they happen to like and that scientist will be promoting unproven theories put forth as fact all in the name of getting more government money in the form of grants.
These politicians will believe anything that has the potential of increasing their power and control or gives them potential excuses to take more money from the people. Most "science" is willing to tell those politicians what they want to hear or provide them with the "science" needed to help in the goal of obtaining money and power.
So a debate on science policy would be entirely pointless.
"Politicians being too involved in science is part of the problem, we dont need to encourage more of their interference."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be a one sided debate. Republicans don't understand any science, don't want to understand any science and would just make up nonsense to further their agenda anyway.
priddseren, are you a scientist? I have worked all my career (30 years) in science, and have yet to meet a single scientist who "promotes unproven theories put forth as fact all in the name of getting more government money in the form of grants".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@krab, here's the thing about priddseren; he's an idiot. He's also a pathological liar. He trolls sciam in order to do one thing, comment about how every article is bad science. He'd like to be on the payroll of the Koch bros but even they think he's a nut. For every Einstein humanity produces it produces millions of prids. The sad thing is that his vote counts just like everyone's. Hopefully congress will pass a bill legalizing retroactive abortion and we can be done with him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW...anyone who mentions Santa has failed Logic 101.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one is looking for the origin of presents under the tree. No one is desperately searching for why money is under your pillow when you lose a tooth.
Equating the reason for *Existence when the probabilities are effectively zero that it is due to chance--something most humans understand in all of 3 seconds without knowing anything about fine tuning, with faith in santa is ludicrous, biased, and devoid of proper reflection.
It is so utterly fallacious that I see no point in ever trusting that persons capabilities on any topic.
When a community starts proposing multiverses to explain this zero probability we are not only looking at scientific faith---but reasonable proof that we were Created by intelligence.
Completely disregarding that and interjecting into the conversation bogus analogies that are intended to make believers look foolish only makes you look desperate.
If you think teaching children that their brains are just random particles colliding and they have no say in anything they think or say then it is You that have harmed a child. Just the mere fact that this very opinion would be random shows how far science has allowed bias to plow a path of utter foolishness. Its a never ending spiral downward as the construct has inescapable deficiencies, such as there is noting actually wrong with rape, you no control over your decisions, nothing you do matters. Nowhere on earth has atheism eve produced a moral leader. So again, this wish making is not a wish you want to come true.
What is more important, preventing climate change or preventing economic bankruptcy of the US government?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not true that economic bankruptcy of the US government is less important than climate change. Try telling the collapsing Greek government to worry about the climate a decade from now. They wouldn't listen.
It is not true that both climate change and bankruptcy be prevented simultaneously. There are choices to be made which favor one but not other. e.e. frac'ing.
While on matter of climate change, why is policy to prevent climate change, always about giving more money to the government, so that they can redistribute it to needy people? How does charity help the climate?
Why are interventionist methods like geo-engineering not preferred by climate policy makers?
Edwinwhere,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuick lesson in economics, a country that can borrow at negative real interest rates cannot logically be considered to be in a debt crisis; and its creditors clearly do not consider it to be in danger of bankruptcy.
As to your other question, geoengineering is considered as an option, albeit an extremely dangerous option; numerous articles on this site have been written on the subject.
What can politicians debate if they are unknowledgeable about the topics at hand? None of us would be satisfied with the results of the debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMs. Fessenden:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease send the science questions to Jill Stein, presidential candidate for the Green Party! We know what many Republicans think about science, and the Democrats know science, they just choose to ignore it. A few examples, climate change and keeping marijuana as a level 1 drug. Science is on our side, the Dems and Repubs are not. Please send the questions to Dr. Jill Stein.
Thank you!
Anybody heard of seperation of Science and State? As with seperation of Church and State it's most probable that the state would stick it's nose into "science" and co-opt psuedo scientific justification for policy. And if history is to be learned from, factions would then accuse the field of science of interfering with the pure worship of government. Come to think of it, isn't that sort of what psychopaths do, externalize and project? Just what we need, the government co-opting science for it's own agenda. One of the shining examples of that was the Nazi cherry picking parts of the psuedo-science of Eugenics for genocide policies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnybody heard of seperation of Science and State? As with seperation of Church and State it's most probable that the state would stick it's nose into "science" and co-opt psuedo scientific justification for policy. And if history is to be learned from, factions would then accuse the field of science of interfering with the pure worship of government. Come to think of it, isn't that sort of what psychopaths do, externalize and project? Just what we need, the government co-opting science for it's own agenda. One of the shining examples of that was the Nazi cherry picking parts of the psuedo-science of Eugenics for genocide policies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ultimate result of unchecked global warming will be a 200 ft rise in sea level along with many other disastrous effects. If we consider the sea level rise only, the effects would be the destruction of every major city near sea level in the world. This would cost several hundred trillion dollars in infrastructure and probably lead to the deaths of over a billion people. How fast would this happen? We don't actually know, but linear projections so far have fallen short of the actual climate changes and we should consider that the large positive feedbacks in climate change may well lead to exponential rates of change that could shorten the time to melt antarctic ice to a few decades. Spending a few trillion dollars now to save 100's of trillions later (not to mention the lives) is clearly worth the effort. Failure to do so is a crime against all humanity, and the many species that will go extinct due to our lack of action. Such expensive infrastructure changes in energy supply will surely cost a lot, but could be paid off with decade long bonds (like your house mortgage) with minimal destruction of the economy. In fact, the resulting collapse of oil, coal and gas prices might actually save a bundle during the transition and eliminate a few wars along the way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispriddseren is right and wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) This is true.
"What would they debate anyway? The ridiculous junk science that is everywhere? These guys would just spout the nonsense spewed out by whatever "scientist" they happen to like and that scientist will be promoting unproven theories put forth as fact all in the name of getting more government money in the form of grants."
(2) This is false.
"So a debate on science policy would be entirely pointless."
It is false because it would serve the purpose priddseren stated in (1). That is a matter of some importance.
Take 2012 Sciebce Question 12, foe example.
"Space. The United States is currently in a major discussion over our national goals in space. What should America's space exploration and utilization goals be in the 21st century and what steps should the government take to help achieve them?"
A lot of good has come from space: GPS, geo-mapping, satellite communications, etc. A lot of waste has hitched a ride on the coattails of the good stuff: the ISS, Moon landings, Mars landings, the 100 Year Starship Study, the idea of a permanent US Moonbase by 2020 (to mine Helium 3 for a fusion process that doesn't exist) and so on. Those are / were projects that we did / could do because we were technically able to do them or attempt to do them + associated economic stimuli.
priddseren is right about that. Think of all the lobbying by vested interests in Florida, Texas, California and elsewhere.
Think of Space as an example of other areas of wasteful government-sponsored science projects...at least 13 others. It is not that any of these areas consitute inherently foolish uses of public funds; it is that they are more or less politicized, like bank regulation, healthcare, abortion, education, etc.
Thus, any public debate on that science would be biased from the start. "Space exploration is a good thing, we think. How much more do we need, and how much should we be willing to pay?" No sign in that hypothetical predicate that anyone would be seriously hard-nosed about our default attitudes and beliefs.
I read a lot of comments about space and the environment. This leads me to believe those are the only two interests of these readers. They are both very important areas, but they are not alone. Fixing the methodology of the FDA, continued funding of alternative energy studies and tax incentives, believing the science of climate change and evolution, believing in and committing to continued and expanded support of basic research. These and many more are very important topics we should be able to ask of our candidates before we vote.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@rational72-- According to Shawn Lawrence Otto's comment on Sciencedebate.org's Facebook page- the Green party also received the questions. (Here's a link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/sciencedebate/)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this