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