If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. ~Henry J. Tillman

It's happened! Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Huckabee have been invited by ScienceDebate2008 to participate in a science debate at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia on April 18!

Now, my question is will the candidates be part of the solution or will they continue to be stuck, refusing to dissolve and join in this discussion?

I don't care if they are republican or democrat, man or woman, black or white. I want to hear a debate. We need to move from a era of ignoring and dismissing science to a time of scientific discussion, progress and growth. What started as a grassroots movement could transform our next leader into a scientifically aware president that will impact our safety, our health, and our economy.



From Union of Concerned Scientists 2008 Calendar

Sure everyone talks about the obvious ignoring of global warming, but did you realize that science could have influenced the US war in Iraq? If the Bush Administration had listened to scientists stating that the aluminum tubes found in Iraq were the wrong size for uranium enrichment, perhaps billions of dollars could have been saved to find out there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Let's move from WMD's to WMI's: Weapons of Mass Instruction!

Who cares what their grades were in science class. I don't really care if they know how many bases are in DNA off the top of their head. That's what a science advisor is for (or wikipedia)-I know that the president should have basic knowledge, but they can learn that info as they go along.

And why scare them away with scientific discussion? No one likes to have a pop-quiz. Let's see if they have the ability to learn and understand, not see how smart they are currently. I think we should treat them like scientists: give the candidates a list of questions and the time to do the background research. As they research these topics, they will learn the basic science that goes along with it. Then let them present their ideas and methods.

Some of the questions I have are:

1)What role would a scientific advisor play in your administration and what qualities would you look for in choosing a scientific advisor?

2)How can we fight growing epidemics such as antibiotic resistant bacteria or mutating diseases, or make vaccines or even protect ourselves against biological weapons in a "war on terror" if the basic scientific ideas of natural selection and evolution are denied?

3)How will immigration laws affect scientific research?

4)What role does a president play in inspiring and educating the public in science and scientific progress? How can they promote science education?

5)Do you think corn-based ethanol is a viable alternative for fuel?

6)What is the potential impact of using cloned animals for food on human health, the environment and the economy?

7)Should the FDA regulate the use genetically modified crops the same way it regulates medicine created through recombinant DNA technology?

8)How can science stimulate the economy?

9)How could science have contributed to policy or decision making in the past administrations regarding war, health, or the environment? How have past presidents let science influence their decisions, for better or worse? Would you have made the same decisions or done something different and why?

I doubt that the candidates have answers to these questions now. I know they haven't thought of most of these issues the same way they have thought about healthcare or war, but let's get their brains working!

But first we need to get them to join the discussion. Continue to talk about it as a public and encourage their individual campaigns and the media to care!

The New York Times and MSNBC recently ran stories about the invitation. It's a start. The movement is growing!



From Union of Concerned Scientists 2008 Calendar

My protein is not denaturated, it's structurally ambivalent

Tuesday Feb 5th is approaching and New York State will be holding primary elections. As a registered democrat, I have only a few more days to decide who will get my vote: Clinton, Obama, or....well everyone else seems to have dropped out.

The optimistic side of me regarding the elections has temporarily been quenched. The focus is not on the issues anymore. It seems that the candidates are more interested in discussing who is running a campaign based on mudslinging or slandering. Last night's democratic debate illustrated that the candidates don't want to truly debate issues but briefly allude to them instead. Instead of instilling hope with details and plans of action, they talked about making a change by being President starting from day 1- what does that mean anyway? If the "hot topic" issues are not properly discussed, how can other equally important issues ever enter the conversation? War, health care, abortion, capital punishment, illegal immigration, and the economy are important issues that of course affect my decision: but how do I choose between candidates that are nearly (not completely) equal regarding these issues and yet are not discussing, debating, or even routinely mentioning the issues that I consider just as important?

What has happened to science in the political debate?

http://www.nearingzero.net/

Embryonic stem cell research, genomics research, water shortages, global warming, re-emergence of disease, drug patents, the decrease in the number of US citizens entering (or completing) graduate science and math programs, funding to academic research and post-doctoral salaries: these are the issues that I am concerned with. Yes, these are non-partisan issues, but the discussion has to start somewhere. Why wait for the general election? Start the debates in the primaries. With the current administrations views on science (talking down to the public by diminishing the importance of new technologies or growing epidemics, dismal NIH funding, distorting information) and the lack of public understanding regarding these issues, it's more important than ever to start talking science.

House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, vowed to focus on research, and understood that we as a country need to focus on science and math education to foster scientific innovation and keep up with the growth that is occurring in countries like China and India. Of course the issues are not black and white- it’s not as easy as just putting more money into NIH (where does that money come from?). But the longer we wait to discuss these issues, the longer it will take to implement a change.

In the last 8 years, many US politicians have been largely against science and scientific advancement. Republican or democrat, the presidential candidates need to create pro-science atmosphere that allows for great discoveries. We need a leader that can take stand for the future and dream big. One who can convey the importance of scientific progress to Americans. They may not have been trained in the sciences, but they can understand what their scientific advisors are explaining to them and learn about the advantages and disadvantages of new and upcoming fields. They can see the future, the promise, and translate that excitement to the public. We didn’t get to the moon simply by researchers working hard in the background, but instead by a President who instilled hope, dreams and visions into the public which then went to support and inspire the research. Sure, there may be other political motives involved, but politics can help scientific progress and growth.

And of course we may not always agree with the President or scientific progress at hand. There are ethical questions to consider with genetically modified crops polluting the ecosystem, with cloning of animals for food, or with the isolation of embryonic stem cells, but let’s start talking about these subjects like we talk about the ethics of war or illegal immigrants. Right now, both Clinton and Obama support embryonic stem cell research, but what does this mean? What exactly do they support? The creation of new cell lines? Providing federal money to support research using lines created in the private sector? If so, how can they make the public and congress understand the pros and cons of the science? Just saying they support this type of research is not enough- it needs to be discussed. If we begin to hear these issues discussed in the presidential debates, then the conversation will happen amongst the general public. And perhaps this will lead to children taking more interest in science and math and to the public making more informed decisions about what they eat or how they get to work. And perhaps the politicians will begin to understand the impact their daily decisions have. Maybe they will stop just talking about the importance of reducing carbon emissions and global warming and start living their words (Right now the candidates travel frequently, sometimes daily, by private jets to various states on the campaign trail and yet talk about the importance of reducing carbon emissions. And on another point, perhaps they will one day stop cutting down trees to produce and overwhelming amount of flyers and posters that litter the streets during campaign season).

Once our political representatives start talking science the public will as well and this will impact our economy, our health, and our planet in the future. And thanks to a recent grassroots movement, Science Debate 2008, founded and supported by scientists and concerned citizens, a discussion is beginning. Please take a look at this site that is asking for a Presidential debate on science and technology and join the growing number of Nobel Laureates, universities, associations, and citizens that are asking for the next President to care about science and technology in America. All they want is a debate, a discussion. Is that too much to ask for?

Chris Mooney, author of "The Republican War on Science", reminds us why it is so important that our leader be educated and able to learn and adapt to growing science and technology. Take a look a his SEED magazine article, Dr. President, for a snapshot of the issues at hand.

Who am I going to vote for next Tuesday? I don't really know yet. My faith in the political system is not denatured, but I am currently structurally undefined. That does not mean that I will not find my energetically favorable conformation. It will happen. I will walk into that booth, turn the lever and vote for the man or woman who I believe can lead the country into a bright educated future because I know that future is possible. And perhaps sometime between the primary and the general election, the science debate will happen.

Tickle your neurons: Let's start talking science.