Today, citizens in Pennsylvania will go to the polls, the result of which will most likely decide the Democratic presidential candidate. Last week, the Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama could have changed the tone of the campaign had they participated in ScienceDebate 2008 but apparently they had better things to do. (Half this debate was also spent on trivial issues.)
At the Wall Street Journal, David Baltimore and Ahmen Zewail, two leading Nobel Prize scientists, clearly lay out why it is important to discuss science in politics:
That’s embarrassing as well as shortsighted. We need to re-energize our commitment to being the world’s leader in science and technology. We can start doing that by doing a few things:
We need a president who moves science back into the White House. Today we do not have a presidential science adviser and there is no office of science in the White House.
Our government needs to treat science honestly. When the world’s scientists flag global warming as a threat to our way of life, it is a warning that should be taken seriously. Stewardship of the planet is our responsibility. No one else is going to do it for us.
We need to fund ACI and double the National Science Foundation’s budget for basic research. The government should fund science at a level that will ensure that the U.S. stays in a leadership position in areas like biotechnology, military preparedness, electronics and communication. We need to pay special attention to health research.
We also need to encourage young people to become educated about scientific issues, regardless of whether they become scientists.
So true. I hope that science—and other important issues—become more discussed over the next few months. We need to talk less about Obama’s lapel and more about education and environment, research and economy. These are the issues that matter to us, to the people.
Maybe they don ‘t see much benefit in participating. Maybe they think they already have the science vote. Maybe they don’t know enough (or have those talking points ready) to debate the issues. Regardless, they are making a strong statement when they don’t participate.
Further Reading
- The Debate That Didn’t Happen (Time)
- Blinding Them With Science (The New Republic)
(via Laurie, The Intersection)
