The NYTimes Claudia Dreifus recently interviewed Dr. Nina V. Fedoroff, science adviser to the secretary of state and administrator of the Agency for International Development:
Q. WHY DOES THE SECRETARY OF STATE NEED A SCIENCE ADVISER?
A. Because science and technology are the drivers of the 21st century's most successful economies.
There are more than six billion of us, and the problems of a crowded planet are everyone's: food, water, energy, climate change, environmental degradation. Other nations, even those that have lost respect for our culture and politics, still welcome collaboration on scientific and technological issues.
Science deserves higher priority than it receives in today's politics. Our presidential candidates have not discussed their positions on critical science policy decisions or participated in a debate called for by nearly the entire scientific establishment. Clearly this is evidence that more of us like Nina must stand up and demonstrate why these issues are intimately connected to our national security, our health, economy, and global future.
It's up to us to convince policymakers that science matters... or we all lose.
Alas, instead of the science debate, we just keep getting more religious debates trying to determine which is the more "Jesusier" candidate.
You say we "must stand up and demonstrate why these issues are intimately connected to our national security, our health, economy, and global future," but is writing blog posts effectively standing up?
Hey, for me to even try to do that would be pointless. Those guys aren't reading my blog and I'm only another voice drowned out by millions of fundies wanting to know how the candidates feel about Jesus.
I am surprised by the 'tepid' (almost none) discussion of Fedoroff's interview in the Scienceblogs. Nina's comments about technology and hunger are outrageous to say the least.