A Call For Science Policy Debate Among Presidential Candidates 375
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? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? One can't talk or think without the teleprompter and other will quote the Old Testament.
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...
While it might be an interesting change of pace to elect a scientist rather than a lawyer or executive, that seems unlikely. However, even the personally-dimmest are going to end up making choices about the sort of 'expertise' they choose to cultivate around themselves, and we'll likely see a few differences in that advisory group.
Loaded questions? Sort of. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Controlling your life in the name of [science] (Score:4, Insightful)
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].
I'd ask this question: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why Bother. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What good will that to for us? (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Re:A call for REASON (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'd ask this question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Office buildings kill far more birds than wind farms, you never hear anyone mentioning that. Solar can take up huge swaths of land, we have it empty. What are your plans for our deserts?
LFTR might do all of what you suggest, but no one knows that. First we need to build one in 2012 not 1970. Then we need to study it. I strongly support doing that, I do not support using bullshit against other forms of power.
For all we know there are major problems with LFTR that have not yet been found, lets be realistic about this. We should try it, but not pretend like it is some magic unicorn.
Re:Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Controlling your life in the name of [science] (Score:5, Insightful)
The attack by conservatives on science and reason has nothing to do with "control over your life". It's quite the opposite, in fact. Once you defeat the idea of rational governance, you're free to exercise power in a completely arbitrary way, in response to the needs of your corporate patrons or any whim at all. Total power is not constrained by the requirement of rational justification.
And before conservatives complain about government abridging their freedoms, they should reflect on the long list of groups (women, gays, non-christians, etc. etc.) that they deem undeserving of the same consideration.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though I agree with 1/2 of this, someone bringing up "teleprompter" deserves all communications flushed down the memory hole.
Re:Science?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
To be honest that's probably the kind of thinking you should be engaing in.
Good scientists make terrible leaders, as they either tend to believe themselves to be experts in everything despite only knowing much about the migration habits of snow geese, or being so balanced and equivocal (ie scientific) about every issue that they will never be able to make a decision.
Not loaded - pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Cabinet members not candidates (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Science?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad scientists (and lots of other bad people) also tend to believe they know everything and should be empowered to enforce their will on others. In fact, that's the #1 characteristic I look for in a politician. Then I vote against him.
Re:Evolution? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Loaded questions? Sort of. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Press for this debate and make it LOUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
The point isn't whether she's a good or bad leader, just that the Germans are folks who put Gauss on their money and elect a chemist, and the Americans are people who put dead presidents on their money and elect people like Bush.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
One can't talk or think without the teleprompter ...
Oh please, will you Fox News-watching nuts give it a fucking rest? Reagan used a teleprompter. Bush used a teleprompter. Clinton used a teleprompter. Bush II used a teleprompter. Did you not see Obama in his QA session with republicans in 2010? He answered every one of their questions point for point, not a teleprompter in sight. Watch [dailykos.com]. Could you imagine Dubya having a grasp of the issues and being able to think on his feet like that?