As a scientist, I've really been hoping that the folks at ScienceDebate2008.com would talk the candidates into holding a discussion on the incredibly important topic of science, the role it plays in our economy and our society, and what should be done about/for science in the future.
However, it seems at this time both Democratic Primary Candidates have blown them off. From an e-mail I received today:
I thought you should know that after declining our invitation to debate science in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton yesterday agreed to attend "The Compassion Forum," a forum of "wide-ranging and probing discussions of policies related to moral issues." CNN will serve as the exclusive broadcaster of the "presidential-candidate forum on faith, values and other current issues" at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa., April 13 at 8 p.m. You can read more here.
Perhaps among the moral issues discussed should be whether they have a moral obligation to more fully engage on science issues, since the future viability of the planet may hang in the balance, for starters. Is there a larger moral imperative? How about the future economic health of the United States and the prosperity of its families? Science & engineering have driven half our economic growth since WWII, yet but 2010 if trends hold 90% of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia. Then there are the moral questions surrounding the health of our families with stem cell research, genomics, health insurance policy, and medical research. There's biodiversity loss and the health of the oceans and the morality of balancing destruction of species against human needs and expenses, there's population and development and clean energy research, there's food supply and GMO crops and educating children to compete in the new global economy and securing competitive jobs. Science issues are moral issues.
As a scientist, I watch carefully what candidates say about science.
Obama has recently made reassuring statements about the separation of science and religion (at least on the topic of evolution). And in one of his recent major policy speeches ("The World Beyond Iraq") he delivered an important point about science and the United States' future economic strategy:
Fourth, the catastrophic consequences of the global climate crisis are matched by the promise of collective action. Now is the time for America to lead, because if we take action, others will act as well. Through our own cap and trade system and investments in new sources of energy, we can end our dependence on foreign oil and gas, and free ourselves from the tyranny of oil-rich states from Saudi Arabia to Russia to Venezuela. We can create millions of new jobs here in America. And we can secure our planet for our children and grandchildren.
And fifth, America's sluggish economy risks ceding our economic prominence to a rising China. Competition has always been a catalyst for American innovation, and now should be no different. We must invest in the education of our children, renew our leadership in science, and advance trade that is not just free, but fair for our workers. We must ensure that America is the economic engine in the 21st century just as we were in the 20th.
Note: that speech marks the moment when my support for Obama went from enthusiastic, with reservations, to completely enthusiastic.
Hillary is likely to be a friend of the NIH, fundingwise. Her statements about science are often personalized and human disease focused. For instance she has recently made statements about specifically increasing funding for breast cancer research. She also makes some reassuring statements about global warming and energy independence.
While I personally think that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will be friends of science, I think Obama is looking at a longer view and a bigger picture than Hillary is. Although, to be fair, her Innovation Agenda is very detailed and specific. His is a little more vague but commits to similarly vast increases in funding for basic research. Both candidates are strong on this topic.
I would like to see them give science equal time with faith, though. Because having a "faith debate" and not a "science debate" sets faith up as more significant to us as a society. Faith, however, is not going to save us from global warming, or cure breast cancer, or lead to energy independence.
So, if it's in your heart, go to ScienceDebate2008.com and see what they're up to. Contact the campaigns and see if you can get the candidates to debate science.
What I'm really looking forward to, I'll confess, is seeing Obama and McCain debate science. I think Obama might have to agree to one hand tied behind his back on that one.