Science Debate 2008: Shockwave in the Blogosphere

Because the idea is awesome, that's why. Can we get Neil de Grasse Tyson to moderate? Or even just Al Gore? Heck, Dr. Stephen Novella at the SGU would be good too.

Have there been any canidates who have said they would be happy to do it?

Thanks!

Just added a few more....

Sheril and Chris -

You two are amazing. You're the voice of your generation.

If you don't already realize this, you will soon.

The idea is great. I even got a message to my congressman, Jerry McNerney (PhD - Math. Univ. of New Mexico, Member AMS) encouraging him to endorse this.

However, it is such an opportunity for a candidate to look less that stellar that I am sure you will get zero takers.

In Jane Jacobs last book, Dark Age Ahead, she writes about "the abandonment of real science." One of her signs of the coming of darker times was the fact that science, and the understanding of the world through science, is no longer very important to most people. We give lip service to science and award scientists with Nobel prizes, but choose to act on beliefs rather than facts, to make decisions base on some easily understood theory rather than testing the theory against messy real world observations.

You didn't add my blog to the list.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/fred_bortz

Fred,
It's coming, we are not in charge of posting on that site

I think this is a great idea in the abstract, but consider it improbable in the extreme. Given the reaction I have seen here and elsewhere, there are bloggers frothing to ridicule the candidates (mostly republicans) and/or to expose their anti-science predilections. Whether deserved or not, why would those candidates agree to this kind of forum in what already appears to be a hostile environment? It's a lose-lose proposition. Some level heads will need to prevail if this has half a chance.

Be careful what you wish for. As far as I know (to take one example mentioned elsewhere on this blog) Huckabee's position on evolution is public record. He is a likeable guy. No doubt his responses would reflect his "sense of humor and personable nature" as one poster commented, and his humble, down-home manner may indeed be in the end what will be reported in the MSM and what people will remember. George W. played off his lack of grammar skills by suggesting that he "mangles a few syl-lables" now and again. Although this example hardly reaches the level of science policy, don't expect such a debate to resolve itself in black-and-white.

I believe that there is a general sense, or hope, that policy decisions be rational and informed by the best accounting of our scientific knowledge. But governments and nations are no more rational than people. And the latter are hardly rational, despite what they may think of themselves.

Sharing the blogosphere with the best coblogger of all: priceless

855 Members at the Facebook group now BTW.

Graham

Even if nothing happens, the effort is a win, because it brings the issue of science, and the candidates' positions about it, onto the table.

I would suggest a list of questions/issues, prepared in advance, with each candidate choosing one (or more) to produce a position statement about and then defend it against the other candidates and perhaps a few experts.

As others have mentioned, I would recommend that questions veer more towards policy about science, funding, oversight, freedom of speech, and integrity rather than getting into scientific details.

Another issue is long-term commitment. Dealing with CO2 requires a coherent plan with a 20-50 year timeline. So does any credible blue-sky science program. (So does my personal favorite, space solar power.) If the candidates aren't willing to discuss such long-term issues, the voters should be made aware of it. If they are, their positions should be publicized.

About 100 blog posts and about 940 FB group members right now...

A short post at my blog, Sweet Waters.

I am a daily reader of your blog, and couldn't love it more -- thanks so much for your efforts! Would love for this to happen -- but just wanted to make sure that AAAS got some credit for doing something along these lines during the past two elections. Of course, none of the candidates showed -- Bob Walker (former Congressman, Science Committee Chairman, etc.) spoke for the Republican side in both 2000 and 2004 (if I remember correctly), while David Beier (Gore domestic policy)spoke in 2000 for Gore and Henry Kelly (former OSTP staffer under Clinton, FAS president after that) debated in 2004 for Kerry.

The events were interesting -- but probably lacking in the star power that really bringing these issues to the forefront of the campaign would require. Nevertheless, AAAS is to be commended (I have no affiliation at all with AAAS). As are all of you (Chris and Sheril here, all the rest at the larger group) -- again, I hope it happens.