A Presidential Debate on Science
AIBS and many other scientific organizations are pleased to see momentum growing for the Science Debate 2008 initiative, the goal of which is to bring about a U.S. presidential debate this year on science, technology, and the economy. I myself have signed up as a supporter, and I know other scientists who have, too. Above all, the initiative shows the scientific community's moxie and ability to organize.
This week's announcement of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's endorsement of Science Debate 2008 gives even more of a boost. And social networking sites such as The Intersection blog, the Uncommon Ground blog (I could go on--it's a long list of related blogs) and Science Debate 2008's own Facebook group are bringing many more people into the efforts.
All this said, it's still easy to find doubt within yourself that this initiative will ever succeed, even as you applaud its goals. Dan Greenberg's posting on the Brainstorm blog, A Debate on Science? Ho-Hum provides a cold half-empty glass of water in the face assessment of the challenges that lie ahead, as do, to provide only one other example, some of the readers' comments at The Intersection. Not until nationwide business interests are also truly on-board with the effort, the cautions say, will a presidential debate on science have a chance of moving forward and being taken seriously.
This is all true enough and the challenges should not be taken lightly, but let's return to the aforementioned moxie and ability to organize being demonstrated by the scientific community. It's galling to see science's and scientists' success in improving the human condition being taken for granted by too many policy makers--those in office and those running for election alike. These attitudes are treating science as a public good that can always be counted on to be there, producing material and economic prosperity, regardless of how poorly treated and neglected it might be.
You can't win if you're not in the game. So, a presidential debate on science, technology, and the economy? Heck yeah.