Whether the issue is global warming, embryonic stem-cell research, ballistic missile defense or the future of the world's oceans, the same bass line thumps in the background: Sound political decision-making relies, more than ever before, on accurate scientific information.
As advances in science and technology continually transform our world, policymaking will inevitably depend more and more on accurate scientific and technical information. Which means that in order to be a successful world leader today, a politician must have an effective means of accessing and applying the latest science.
This fact - combined with the undisputed importance of scientific research and innovation to national prosperity and competitiveness - explains the recent emergence of a group called ScienceDebate2008. Under its auspices, scientists, university presidents, industry leaders, elected representatives and others have endorsed a call for the current U.S. presidential candidates to participate in a debate, or a series of debates, dedicated to issues in science and technology. More specifically, the candidates should answer questions about the environment, medicine and health, and science and technology policy.
Among those who have endorsed this appeal so far are 11 Nobel laureates, former presidential science advisers John Gibbons and Neal Lane, Princeton University President Shirley Tilghman, retired Martin Marietta Chief Executive Norm Augustine, present and former presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and more than 50 others.
When you think about it, the need for a debate on science is incontrovertible. It would reveal which candidates are best equipped to tackle contentious science-based issues and it would help raise the level of scientific literacy across the board in this country.
A recent National Academy of Sciences' report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," suggests that the United States may soon falter in the global economy without a concerted effort to ensure continuing technological innovation and competitiveness.
Today, South Korea, Singapore and China are producing a far higher percentage of science and engineering graduates than the United States. Test results released recently by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reinforce the concern: U.S. students performed below the average of 30 countries in science and well below the average in math.
These dismaying facts present a fundamental challenge to our nation's future, one that our next president must have a plan for overcoming.
In fact, it's not going too far to say that science in its broadest sense - by which we mean "scientific thinking" - is crucial in every area of policymaking. Science requires a willingness to reject conclusions once they're shown to be in error and it demands that all the data be considered, not just that which agrees with a priori opinions. A president capable of assessing scientific issues by weighing competing positions and evaluating the evidence supporting them could be expected to carry the same mode of reasoning into other policy arenas where it's equally crucial.
Our next president needn't be a memorizer of facts, but he or she most definitely should understand how to critically analyze data and should embrace a broad empiricism in national and world affairs.
We've seen science form the basis of some of the thorniest public policy issues in recent history, from the fate of Terri Schiavo to the fate of evolution in schools and the fate of the Earth. A presidential debate on science would help voters determine who among the candidates is up to the task of dealing with whatever comes next.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Logan5 (anonymous) says…
The Bush administation and the religious right have long shown an aversion to scientific facts and data that lead to theories that oppose their idealistic views. Their support of outdated ideas like favoring abstinence training over sex education and condoms even in Africa and their refusal to accept well supported theories on global warming and evolution demonstrate this fact.
For these reasons they will never agree to a debate about science and they will continue to stand in the way of funding for scientific research and higher education. With these policies America's intellectual advantages will continue to dwindle and our brightest youth will some day be forced to attend university in India, South Korea or even China.
Al Gore has a new book out, "The Assault on Reason", that speaks to just this topic.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/artic...
bondmen (anonymous) says…
"The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
I answered, "The reason scientific theories change is because we don't know everything, isn't it? We don't have all the evidence."
"Yes, that's right," he said.
I replied, "But, we will never know everything."
"That's true," he answered.
I then stated, "We will always continue to find new evidence."
"Quite correct," he said. I replied, "That means we can't be sure about anything."
"Right," he said.
"That means we can't be sure about evolution."
"Oh, no! Evolution is a fact," he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.
Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not."
http://www.creationists.org/evolution...