A Candidate Debate on Science and Technology?
Dec 18 at 6:06pm by Aileen
They’re calling it Science Debate 2008. It’s a grassroots initiative to petition for a Presidential candidates forum specifically about issues of science and technology. The list of science bloggers in the Blogger Coalition is impressive, and represents almost all of Seed Media Group’s ScienceBlogs stable. The list of initial signers includes Nobel Prize laureates, academics, corporate CEOs, congresscritters, political science policy advisors, journal editors and regulatory agency veterans.
I heard about the initiative from Steven “DarkSyde” Andrew’s front page post announcing it over on Daily Kos on December 10th. He called for bipartisan and independent science bloggers to sign up, so I emailed the group through their form and offered my support. I didn’t get a reply and I’m not listed as a supporter, but I’m going to talk about it anyway.
Among the science bloggers who have already posted about the subject is a favorite of mine, “GrrlScientist” over at Living the Scientific Life. While I certainly agree with the description of why a science debate would be good - “intellectual stagnation in public policies” - I was not so impressed with Grrl’s complete rejection of sociopolitical realities in favor of current theoretical consensus in her particular field of science. She concludes:
“It is hoped that, by placing each candidate’s science and technology policies squarely into the public consciousness, the average American will realize that not “believing in” evolution unacceptable, that it constitutes intellectual dishonesty that is tantamount to not “believing in” gravity…”
Um… that sort of attitude isn’t going to fly in the national political arena, with candidates or with voters. Not that I don’t agree that public rejection of current theoretical consensus can interfere with necessary social and political policies that indeed are the responsibility of politicians to develop and implement. But politicians are not scientists and are not required or expected to be scientists. That’s what “science advisors” are for, along with the junior staffers who type up the position statements for candidates’ campaign websites.
That’s how it works for the politicians who get elected too. In the US, government is not a dictatorship of current scientific consensus. I do not believe it’s going to turn into one if scientists insist on displaying their arrogance on television while insulting the politicians, the voting public, and democratic political philosophy.
So I went over to Bora Zivkovic’s blog A Blog Around the Clock, because Zivkovic has so far posted 4 different questions he would ask candidates if this debate takes place. This can help us get a better feel for the issues that concern scientists as well as an idea of how such a debate would be conducted. Zivkovic’s first question is excellent:
“If elected President, what do you intend to do to make sure that you receive trustworthy scientific information and that your policies are based on the best available empirical knowledge about the world? What do you see as the primary role of the Presidential Science Advisor? In what way, if any, would you change the current federal framework of implementing science-related policy?”
It’s a good question because science is quite notorious for harboring opposing and highly contentious views in many disciplines and sub-disciplines. Simply following the science news for a few weeks will give you a general idea of how much incoming research “contradicts” other scientists’ older research, and answers to questions of detail change depending on who you’re asking today. If you care to follow the in-house debates, they’re as rancorous as anything politics can dish out (short of the notorious Hamilton-Burr duel or notable assassinations and impeachments).
Zivkovic’s second question concerns science funding:
“How would you address the current problems of scientific research in the USA - stopping the brain-drain, attracting foreign students, energizing young Americans to consider careers in science, and encouraging development of science in other countries (with free flow of information between nations as well as between scientists and the public in the USA) while still retaining the US dominance?”
Another good question. Not an easy one to answer, either. Looks to me like some work on science education needs to factor in here, particularly at the university level where a scientist gets out of grad school so far in student debt they’ll never dig out. Same problem is happening with doctors (and all other professions), so doing something about that would help everybody. As far as “US dominance” is concerned, that may not be something politicians can do much about. Seems that distinction is up to scientists and their institutions to preserve - if they can. Scientific knowledge is not something that can be held exclusive while at the same time encouraging a ‘free flow of information’.
Zivkovic asks about the complex issue of climate change in question 3, a subject bound to take up a lot of space at a science debate. Question 4 mentions science education and asks for a candidate’s position on who s/he will trust to be “the voice of true authority on a scientific question.”
I’d imagine the answer to that will be no different than it’s been for decades. The NAS panel overviews parsed by ‘expert’ hired science staff and filtered through the advisor to the politician. Perhaps this debate should be held with the candidates’ respective science advisors, who should at least know more about science than any of the politicians running for President.
I understand that most in the scientific community are upset at the Bush administration’s reliance on marginally capable, ideologically biased advisors who’s advice and operational tactics have led to some really awful science policies. But they couldn’t have accomplished that if science were absolute (as opposed to provisional) and there were no disagreements about evidence, interpretations or theoretics. What can politicians be expected to do about disagreements among scientists about science?
I’ll keep my eyes open for more science bloggers and other supporters weighing in with their own issues and concerns and questions. Maybe they can just choose the best questions and send the list to all the candidates well before the debate so their science advisors can come up with answers and the writers can draft responses. And so the candidates can practice their delivery in front of mirrors and focus groups so they won’t look like complete idiots.
If scientists want to play in the political arena - The Show - they should give a thought to its customs, formalities and rules before taking the stage. Otherwise I fear the program will turn out to be more sit-com than useful educational resource.
Links:
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply