After all, nearly every aspect of our continued existence relies on science, from climate control, to curing existing diseases and preventing new ones. New advances rely on a great deal of funding from the federal government and support from the public at large. Why is it that at best science is an ignored industry when candidates are running for office? The only time science is brought up is in reaction to public religious pressure (stem cell debate) or corporate pressure (global warming).
Maybe Al Gore screwed us! He was one of the only candidates ever to talk openly about and support science. Maybe since he never made it into office people think its a bad idea? In reality though, we've been living under a fundamentalist anti-science administration for the last 8ish years. Researchers have been moving over seas to do important stem cell research, climate science has been directly manipulated by the Bush administration, and researchers in all fields have had tremendous difficulty attaining grants from federal funding sources. It's time to fix this stone age of science funding the Bush administration has knocked us into.
To remedy this problem the science community has gathered together to demand the 2008 presidential candidates publicly debate about science.
Science Debate 2008 is a grassroots initiative spearheaded by a growing number of scientists and other concerned citizens. The signatories to our "Call for a Presidential Debate on Science & Technology" include Nobel laureates and other leading scientists, presidents of Universities, congresspersons of both major political parties, business leaders, religious leaders, former presidential science advisors, the editors of America's major science journals, writers, and the current and several past presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among many others.
Support this great cause by visiting their webpage and pledging you support.
I think the science debate is a great idea! But I also think that politicians spend their political capital where they get the most bang, votes, for the buck. They are trying to woo the entire socioeconomic spectrum so if some area doesn't interest a large enough audience it goes on the back burner.
Dave Briggs :~)
After all, nearly every aspect of our continued existence relies on science, from climate control, to curing existing diseases and preventing new ones. New advances rely on a great deal of funding from the federal government and support from the public at large.
I had to come back to comment on this again. I think you did a real good job in this paragraph, the problem is that most people don't think this way about it like you and I and all the other people here do! And this motivates us to work harder to reach the unenlightened!
Dave Briggs :~)