Slashdot Mirror
A Call For Science Policy Debate Among Presidential Candidates
Marissa Fessenden writes about a campaign to get Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to address important scientific issues in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. ScienceDebate.org and Scientific American have posed a set of questions to the candidates, as well as congressional leaders, and they're rallying support for those questions to be answered before the election. The responses will be published and graded for citizens to see. The questions include topics such as biosecurity, climate change, the safety of food and water supplies, vaccination, and environmentally sustainable energy. This comes at a time when the basic scientific literacy of elected officials is under heavy scrutiny.
Why? One can't talk or think without the teleprompter and other will quote the Old Testament.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Republicans will see the list of suggested topics ("biosecurity, climate change, the safety of food and water supplies, vaccination, and environmentally sustainable energy") as unfair and biased toward the Democrats' agenda. However, this says more about the Republican party's interest in science than it does about ScienceDebate.org's political bias.
Here is what I would love to see.
I big grid with specific topics for the rows.
Then have the following columns titles. Federal, State, County, City, Family, Individual.
For each topic the candidate has to put where they think that control should exist.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Group of people interested in [science] want a debate about extending government control over your life in the name of [science].
Replace [science] with religion, health, nutrition, education, morals, national security, the environment, commerce, or any other issue you want. It's all essentially the same. The answers should be the same too: "No, we'll make our own choices."
There's no need for any special debates for [science].
How about implementing safer forms of nuclear power?
Such a technology does exist: the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), a prototype of which was tested in the 1960's and early 1970's at Oak Ridge National Laboratory with very promising results for power generation but was discontinued because it couldn't generate uranium-235 and plutonium-239 needed for nuclear weapons production.
There are numerous advantages to LFTR nuclear power plants, as I've mentioned in other posts in the recent past. And it uses thorium-232, which is quite abundant in nature, so finding it is not an issue. (Indeed, China wants this technology because they can't figure out what to do with all that thorium ore dug out as part of China's extensive rare Earth mining program.)
Wind and solar power may be nice, but large installations of wind turbines could pose a major hazard to birds and most large-scale solar power array installations take up huge swaths of land. Meanwhile, a modern LFTR using Brayton turbines to generate power takes up a very small amount of land just to generate 500 to 1,000 MW, which means very cheap construction costs.
Ron Paul has ZERO chance of becoming President, ever.
Which is why it becomes important to determine(admittedly by way of various imperfect proxy measures) what their chosen science minions will do for them...
What's with all that sciency guff?
I want a candidate with character, morals, one who represents my beliefs on abortion and on the deficit and whether or not we should reduce spending or increase taxes. Because the other side is too stupid and ignorant to represent this country and steer it in the right direction! The other side has the wrong values and they are just going to drive this country into the toilet!!
We don't need no science debate! That's just for eggheads! Why the Chinese leadership is made up almost entirely of scientists and engineers and look at them!
-John and Jane Q. Public.
Do people actually believe this garbage or are these just bad jokes?
The majority of scientists I know lean right. Only the bad scientists who will say anything for more 'free' government funding lean left.
We are no longer electing a person we are electing an ideology.
1. Innovation and the Economy: Democrats, More money into funding NSF, and Public Universities. Republicans, let the private market innovate themselves, allow competition to improve be the driving factor.
2. Climate Change: Democrats, More money into less effective green energy in hopes that money will make it work better. Republicans Increase use in Nuclear and Natural Gas production and let the market decide what is best for them.
3. Research and the Future: Democrats,More money into funding NSF, and Public Universities. Republicans, let the private market innovate themselves, allow competition to improve be the driving factor.
4. Pandemics and Biosecurity: Democrats, Wait until something happens in the US then we will have an answer 15 minutes before the problem climaxes, From a federal funded scientist. Republicans, Wait until something happens in the US then we will have an answer 15 minutes before the problem climaxes, from a drug company scientist.
5. Education: Democrates, More money into schools, we will put some stupid metrics to show that it works. Republicans, vouchers for private schools, all competition of schools force them to improve.
6. Energy: Democrats, More money into less effective green energy in hopes that money will make it work better. Republicans Increase use in Nuclear and Natural Gas production and let the market decide what is best for them.
7. Food: Democrats, screw scientific results they are just from some corporate drone anyways, ban anything that sounds scary. Republicans let it all go out, and lets not try to measure it, until enough people are dying.
8. Fresh Water: Democrats, Find the most polluted areas spend a lot of money to clean it up (It cannot be used for drinking, or fishing. But there is a 50% reduction of pollution!!!), and show a nice big percentage number to show the improvement. Republicans, tell the population to buy water cleaning systems for their house.
9. The Internet: Democrats, Policies that will favor the internet companies that fund them More Open, but we tax it more. Republicans, Policies that will favor the internet companies that fund them, less open but no taxes.
10. Ocean Health: Democrats, heavy restrictions on all companies. Republicans, The Ocean is in in international waters... Not our concern.
11. Science in Public Policy: Both sides will give some BS answer and only cite science when it is for their benefit. Discredit the source when it isn't.
12. Space: Democrats, Wast of Time and Money. Republicans, a military strategy.
13. Critical Natural Resources: Democrats Put money in protecting or expanding and regulating the users. Republicans, Supply and Demmand will correct itself, once becomes to scarce price will rise high enough for alternative.
14. Vaccination and public health: Democrats, force it on everyone screw what their religion or belief is. Republicans let people decide for themselves, and allow the spread of misinformation too.
We are no longer getting candidates for leaders, we are getting ideology enforcers.
Democrats, Will spend want to spend more money to solve the problem, money will solve all problems.
Republicans, Will want private business to solve the problem, businesses can solve all problem.
What we need is a leader not an ideology. Who can look at these issues and say. If we change a process here we may be able to solve a problem without that much money. Or this area does have a good process but it needs some more money to reach critical mass. Analysis when there is policies are in conflict with each other and try to measure the trade offs.
But one of those guys would be those horrible moderates, or as we call them Flip Floppers. They do crazy things like listen to both sides, and use their own mind to come up with a solution. We don't want one of those people to rule our country. We want easy to digest sound bytes that follows a consistent ideology. Because a simple ideology will solve all our problems, the problem is always the other guy who will not allow us to implement our ideology.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This comes at a time when the basic scientific literacy of elected officials is under heavy scrutiny.
The problem is that the questions aren't about scientific "literacy". They're about policy (see article title). This is why the questions are the standard pap about global warming, research funding (into global warming, presumably), education ("more funding" is probably the answer they want to hear), energy (read: wind farms and other rentseeking green crap), water (mostly a state responsibility anyway), the usual fact-deprived bollocks about "ocean health", and "science in public policy", which means something like "how will you better persecute heretics who don't buy into the global warming fraud?".
And finally, "enforce vaccinations in the interest of public health" - ask Rick Perry how that one worked out.
The only one of those that I think couldn't be answered in a way in which you would seem to like is #2, because #2 requires you to accept the fact that the Earth's climate is changing (note that it doesn't require you to accept that man has caused the climate to change or that the change is unprecedented....and it even provides an out because it asks for a specific position on policies that I assume you completely oppose and then a general question on how to tackle challenges that cross national boundaries).
I think we all know what the liberal answers to these questions are, in general terms, so I'll go through the super conservative answers (there are a couple that I don't know the most conservative response to, but I will note them...and I'm sure there is one, I just don't know which response is the 'liberal' one and which is the 'conservative' one, so I don't know what to put) :
#1: Conservative answer is less government interference in scientific innovation
#2: Assuming you can accept that the climate is going through some changes, the 'conservative' answer is to oppose those policies (and preferably think up better policies to deal with any issues that may be caused by a warmer climate, should temps continue rising)
#3: The true completely conservative answer would be that the government should either not invest in research or the government should only invest in research that, for whatever reason, cannot be handled by the private sector...and much of that should be done by the states
#4: Conservative answer: As much as can be handled by the states should be, but we need to look at our policies for coming into the country (to protect against pandemics) and may need to do an overhaul of our defense preparations for biological attacks (depending on how they stand at the moment)
#5: The true conservative answer to this is that our public schools are failing and the federal government should stay out of education as much as possible. States should have the option to offer vouchers for private schools, as well.
#6: We should look at the natural resources available in the US and make as much use out of those as we can to become independent of other countries when ti comes to energy, in the meanwhile, let the energy companies continue researching any alternative energy source they feel will be profitable and it will be implemented as soon as it can be.
#7: The only real role of the government here is to make sure that what is sold as food is safe and edible. If it passes those tests, then there is no reason companies should be required to label what is in them, but they will if the market demands.
#8: The federal government shouldn't be involved, this is a state matter
#9: The federal government should stay out of the internet.
#10: If the pollution negatively impacts someone, then the company should be held responsible and pay a penalty. Most companies will avoid harsh pollution if it will affect their bottom line. I don't know what the most conservative response to the foreign policy question is, as what is 'conservative' in foreign policy is a little hazy these days.
#11: Make sure
The problem with most of the third party candidates is that they are too fringe, they are even further from moderation. I am actually a registered member of the Modern Whig Party (A moderate group).
But if you saw the New York Governors race a couple years ago. They had a big debate with all the candidates. The Green Party and the Rent is too damn high party made the Democrats look like the moderates in the debate. Then republican was a strong Tea Party Candidate, and the had a Libertarian party too.
If they agreed on a debate the Republican vs. Democrat, Cuomo would actually have a harder time, Because he could be placed as far left. But next to "Rent is too damn High" party. He looked like the only rational person in the room.
(I use to carpool and there was a house with a "Vote R" Sign., we use to joke, I wonder what the R is. Of course he want us to vote for "Rent is too Damn High")
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The majority of scientists you know are then idiots.
The republican party has fully embraced the far right christians. These are young earth crazies that are fine with destroying the earth as they believe the apocalypse is right around the corner. They have no interest in furthering knowledge beyond "God did it".
But isn't it the mark of a good leader to be able to delegate? Some of the proposed questions do not have simple answers and I would prefer a leader willing to take the time and effort to get his subordinates to research the question and provide him with good data before formulating policy answers. Or do you prefer politicians to randomly spout out the first thing that comes to mind as policy?
Absolutely. The first test will be how each candidate responds to the debate proposal itself. Will either or both accept and, if so, will it be with a ton of conditions and modifications to the question list?
Each of those topics is relevant to Republicans and they take an active interest in it. The disagreement is how each of these topics are addressed.
Pretty much the Left would argue for an absolutist policy based on the current popular science. So they would shut down all the coal fueled power plants, outlaw gasoline vehicles, have mandatory vaccinations, and who knows what oppressive crap they would come up with in the name of food and water safety.
Republicans would look at each issue and weigh the cost vs. benefits and do what makes sense while ensuring everyone's safety and prosperity.
After all, what's best for the planet is if we all lived in grass huts and ate nuts and berries (strictly rationed so as to not impact the bears trying to fatten up for the winter). And since the Left would have outlawed water treatment plants due to the chemicals and land use impact, we'd all be drinking from streams.
Nope, just reality.
If you want to believe the Earth is flat go for it. Just don't expect not to be mocked. Same thing for thinking the universe is 6000 years old.
Not all issues have two sides. Like with the shape of the earth there just can be no argument. Just reality and crazies.
I don't know any non-kooks who want to completely ban fossil fuels. Most want either to say "no burning fossil fuel without a permit" and issue permits equal to a desired level of emissions, or implement a carbon tax tuned to reduce emissions to that level.
As for vaccinations: yes, they should be mandatory. No religious whackjob exceptions or crystal-clutching hippie exceptions. Go read about the polio epidemic and you'll understand why. Possibly there can be one exception: a parent puts up a bond for the cost of getting their kid tested for the presence of polio/measles/whatever every couple of months, and if the kid tests positive at any time then parent goes to jail for assault against both the kid and whoever the kid may have infected.
Again, nobody on the Left wants to outlaw water treatment plants, either, given that they're rather fond of building the things in the first place.
A loyalty oath is something imposed from above; a sanity check is something imposed by the electorate. Nobody is proposing barring people who give whackjob answers from running for president; we're just hoping that voters won't vote for them. This is how elections are supposed to work.
I did not suggest people Mock them, I stated they should expect to be mocked.
No one is suggesting they are not people, only not fit to be elected.
People who cling to myths in the face of evidence are exhibiting magical thinking.
Honestly Republicans just sound lazy.
Q1: Question?
Rep: Meh. Let the Markets figure it out.
Its like they can't be bothered to come up with anything, just let the "market" fix everything for everyone.
Climate change is a stupid question to bring up, regardless on where you fall on the issue. America has already lowered carbon emissions a great deal, if you're that worried about it talk to the rest of the world.
"environmentally sustainable energy" is equal silly, since the answer is simply "nuclear power" and letting the market bring forth efficient solar options at its own pace (wind is not now, nor ever has been a good alternative energy source).
As to "safety of food and water supplies, vaccination" - what are they really going to say? "No I don't think food should be safe" or "no vaccines"? Only fringe groups think that way. Hell, if anything Republicans would be more prone to allowing food irradiation, so who is on the nutty side of THAT debate?
So why, when we have an opportunity to bring up science issues that matters are we wasting time with points that yes, are nothing more than Democrat talking points without real impact?
If they aren't going to ask real questions they should just be ignored until they do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The people who actually need to be scrutinized are the cabinet members. Since the candidate probably know less about science than I do, a debate between them would just be sad and ideological. Instead, there should be some public debate regarding potential cabinet members and at least some democratic accountability for them.
when nobody I want to elect will get a chance to participate?
I was with them until the "graded" part. Upon what criteria would they be graded? There's more to a policy than statistics, or experimentally verifiable facts. A policy's impact on human rights and individual liberty need to be taken into account.
The attack by conservatives on science and reason
Bullshit. There are some crazy Republicans - but also equally crazy Democrats, against food irradiation, or nuclear power.
There's nothing conservative about an attack on science.
they should reflect on the long list of groups (women, gays, non-christians, etc. etc.) that they deem undeserving of the same consideration.
It's funny you should mention that since it is conservative groups that ended segregation, and supported suffragettes. Through history Democrats have long been the party to resist real progress, and very little has changed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... basic scientific literacy of elected officials
I'm seriously trying to get my head around that one. Is this supposed to be a joke?
Yea, simply put if there were no D or R, he would still be unelectable.
So long as he goes around saying it should be up to the states to decide if blacks and women can vote, and should let them decide if GOD is the ruler of a state; then that'll mean most of the US would be opposed to him.
I am actually a registered member of
Could somebody please explain this voter registration system to a non-US citizen? What's the purpose? Who benefits from it?
In my country, I'm free to choose whoever I like in the voting booth on election day. I don't have to show any previous affiliation with any party. Nobody knows who I voted for last time, nobody knows who I'll vote for next time (including me).
You want the taste of dried leaves boiled in water?
It's two semi trucks driving down both lanes of the road not letting anyone pass. ;)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Nonsense. Europeans do just fine with their pluralistic political bodies. The idea that only a two-party system is viable is just narrow American thinking.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
As much as I would love to see such a debate, it simply not going to happen. In order to participate in a debate, or any other campaign function, the candidate has to see a significant upside that outweighs the potential pitfalls. In other words, the campaign needs to have a sense that they can win votes and avoid losing votes. Let us examine that calculus for the two leading contenders:
Obama:
Pros - Gets to look like an informed policy maker. Gets to highlight his record (real or perceived) as president: green energy, funding for innovation, R&D corporate tax credits, higher mileage standards, network neutrality, access to education. Gets to try to make Romney look like an ignorant fool touting flat-earth nonsense that panders to an ignorant base.
Cons - The people who are going to vote for him anyway already know this. The people who are undecided probably won't be swayed by his performance. His record thus far hasn't really satisfied environmentalists. Could come off as an egg-headed wonk rather than a substantive leader. Solyndra! Killing jobs in coal country! Higher energy costs! Loss of manufacturing!
Romney:
Pros - Gets to pound Obama on his record (real or perceived). Gets to pound Obama about job-killing regulations from the EPA, FCC, FDA, etc. Drill, baby, drill! Innovators are harmed, not helped, by government.
Cons - Doesn't have a coherent platform of his own to promote, other than the magic mystery of the markets and ending (unspecified) regulations. Will either have to 1) pander unscientific nonsense that accords with his base, 2) speak intelligently on science and technology and alienate his base, or 3) speak in platitudes (innovation good! climate change? I dunno. Government bad!) that won't win over anyone. The people who are going to vote for him anyway won't be any more committed to him any route he chooses. He might end up losing votes. He isn't likely to get many undecideds from his performance.
In short, there really aren't a whole lot of votes to be won from such a debate. There are votes to be lost. Nobody wants to appear uninformed on camera. Despite its indisputable importance, science and technology policy just doesn't deliver votes.
Nice strawman, considering I said none of that.
Enforcing morality is not the role of government. A real conservative would know that. It is the governments role to recognize medical treatments are private and done for the patient not the whole town. You know small government all that jazz.
I care about human life a great deal, I also think encouraging a disdain for life would be bad. I cannot however support the government deciding what medical procedures people can purchase so long as they are not fraudulent.
A simple fact is abortion has reduced crime and the numbers of unwanted children. It is not the way I would want that to happen, but I live in reality and as such must accept that.
I wasn't aware that the reason America was founded was to solve problems using private industry.
In fact I am pretty sure it wasn't.
For your education should you decide to look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Basically says it was all about taxes, particulary without representation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
Has a bunch of stuff in there, but basically calls the king of england a big dickhole. Demands rights.
Note: All these things are in referance to a forign power interfearing with their lives, not a domestic goverenment, which they are in fact they are actually demanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Mostly this addresses the grievences of the above. Mostly addressing justice, the fact they want their own goverement, to run their own affairs, not the king of england, has some stuff about having a standing army, own religion, etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
Its all very long and complicated, but it basically outlines the various pieces of governemnt, the justice system, executive, some rights, blah blah blah...
Nowhere in any of those things above do I see anything remotly about rights given to private industry to solve problems for the public. In fact, it is very much the oppsite of that, in that they are DEMANDING their own government to do these things themselves, not the british king.
So I don't know if you have some sort of historical insight that I fail to see, but it is far more likely you just ascribe to some ideological dogma, and you see everything through that lens. Somehow I can see you saying all of the above is on wiki, so the dems must be messing with it. Please enlighten me if you think there are some more "formative" examples in US history that say that the USA was formed so that private companies using markets could solve social problems.
Anyway I don't even care, I'm impartial, not even from the US. However this sort of lazy ideological thinking isn't restricted to the US, but many sure love it for some reason. Even after all the recent troubles, greenspan was wrong, a hack. The ideal that markets solve everything is simplistic. Even if it were true, there is enough interfereance (by those within the markets to change them to their advantage) to make it not. Its like playing a board game, where some players can change the rules, and then act all surprised at the end when they own everything.
Don't even, "well in an ideal world" either, as we plainly don't live in one, and if that were the case Communism would actually work out well, which it plainly did not.
You clearly can't think your current health care model works for example? How are the insurance companies and markets working there for you?
Don't get me wrong markets can be powerful modivators, however they do not solve all problems, and they need to be regulated (you know by rules) to prevent companies (players) from "cheating". Otherwise it goes out of wack and you get ruin.
Why not ask more basic questions dealing with things like evolution or even how conception works whether you are "legitimately" raped or not.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4134773/ns/us_news-environment/t/plate-glass-blamed-billion-bird-deaths-year/#.UDT4eBrxj9Q
We do not have to have plate glass sided skyscrapers. We could use a difference material, or mark the glass in some way.
I am actually not suggesting we do, merely pointing out that bird deaths due to wind farms are over blown when we don't care about these bird deaths. Nor does anyone seem to care about the song bird deaths caused by free roaming house cats.
In fact, they've even argued against the idea of compromise.
For economic conservatives, we have good reason to resist further "compromise". We want to cut spending, Democrats want to increase spending. A fair compromise would mean keeping current spending levels (adjusting for inflation). Instead every budget compromise has been to increase spending, but just not as much as the Democrats wanted.
Or worse, we get a situation where Republicans say they want to cut taxes and decrease spending while Democrats say they want to raise taxes and increase spending. So the parties compromise by cutting taxes and increasing spending!
The other reason many conservatives distrust "compromise" is that the promises aren't kept. One of the more famous was the 1980s plan to amnesty illegal aliens while increasing enforcement to make sure the problem didn't happen again. We go the amnesty but not the enforcement. Another example from the 1980s was the budget compromises where taxes went up in exchange for future spending cuts - but the cuts never arrived.
Conservatives are tired of being told that a kick in the head is a compromise because it was only one foot instead of two.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I want to know, in a nutshell, will your administration be more likely to make decisions, and form policies, based on scientific realities, or on industry funded pseudoscience? Press for this debate loudly. All too often, scientists in general, are too polite, too subdued, whereas brash know-it-all MBAs & Lawyers can't restrain themselves & their abilities to whip up a crowd for obfuscated, short-sighted, often selfish (greedy) counterproductive reasons. It is pathetic, the progress science-deniers/ detractors have made in the public consciousness in areas that truly matter: habitat destruction, green house gases, marine pollution, stratospheric ozone depletion, aka collectively screwing around with the global nitrogen cycle.
I think Science Debate is the greatest thing to happen to those of interested in science and politics. When they got Obama and McCain to answer science questions in the 2008 election, I immediately cancelled my membership to the Union of Concerned Scientists and started donating to this grassroots organization.
I have one issue that I vote on, and that's science. It's the only issue I understand well enough to evaluate the candidates on. If they know their science or have advisors that understand science, then I will trust them with most everything else. I summarized Obama's 2008 responses here, McCain's here, and my calls for who won on each issue. Obama's responses won on most issues, but McCain did not do poorly. Since Obama has taken office, he has impressed me with his support of science with Data.gov, Science.gov, a Memorandum on Scientific Integrity, proposed major increases in science funding, and put the Office of Science and Technology Policy back in the Whitehouse.
These might seem like small accomplishments, but compared to the Dark Ages of the Bush Administration they were a breath of fresh air. Unless Romney answers the science debate questions this election cycle, I won't even consider him.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
I don't think it's really about when LIFE begins -- sure, they'll say that, but that's not the question. Shit, a single cell is ALIVE. My skin cells are alive, but you don't consider it murder if I get a mole removed. The question is not when it becomes ALIVE, but when it becomes a HUMAN BEING...and more specifically, when it becomes conscious. Which is hard to decide, since as far as I know we still don't really know what consciousness _is_. Of course, if the person is a bit more radical, they start talking about when it stops being a parasite....
The idea is that they're not like a "permit" to have a gun or whatever, but are permits that are for sale for a certain price, and that can be bought and sold on the market without going through the government.
I don't like that idea as much as the carbon tax, though, simply because it's simpler. (Most carbon tax proposals include tax cuts elsewhere to stay revenue-neutral.)