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.
Re:The problem (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:What good will that to for us? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Debate about where control should exist. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you need to travel into the rural areas more often.
I have relatives that fit every single one of these questions. I agree they are a minority, but they exist and the Republicans cater to their every whim.
Re:What about Ron Paul? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's two semi trucks driving down both lanes of the road not letting anyone pass. ;)
Re:Loaded questions? Sort of. (Score:2, Interesting)
I find I have to browse with a low mod setting these days in order to see both sides of a debate. If I wanted an echo chamber I could go to one of the many sites that openly support Democrats. I come to slashdot because I would rather read rational informed debate.
Do you think AC's post isn't a good argument? Plenty of people felt the need to respond to it with rational discussion. If the AC were a troll most people would ignore it or respond with anger. I myself wouldn't mod the AC insightful or informative, but he wasn't trolling anymore than post he responded to was.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because Science Debate is AWESOME. That's Why. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Science Debate is the greatest thing to happen to those of interested in science and politics. When they got Obama and McCain [sciencedebate.org] to answer science questions in the 2008 election, I immediately cancelled my membership to the Union of Concerned Scientists [ucsusa.org] 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 [ideonexus.com], McCain's here [ideonexus.com], and my calls for who won on each issue [ideonexus.com]. 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 [data.gov], Science.gov [science.gov], a Memorandum on Scientific Integrity [whitehouse.gov], proposed major increases in science funding [washingtonpost.com], and put the Office of Science and Technology Policy [whitehouse.gov] back in the Whitehouse.
These might seem like small accomplishments, but compared to the Dark Ages of the Bush Administration [wikipedia.org] they were a breath of fresh air. Unless Romney answers the science debate questions this election cycle, I won't even consider him.
Re:There is no attack on science or reason (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
You're really going to have to elaborate on that gem a little. Conservatives as advocates for the downtrodden and disenfranchised. If they were the real champions of progressive values, wouldn't they, ummm, not be conservatives anymore? Or is this yet another shining example of their prodigious talent for turning reality upside-down?