Forgot your password?
Politics Science

A Call For Science Policy Debate Among Presidential Candidates 375

Posted by Soulskill
from the because-it-would-be-hilarious dept.
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. 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Call For Science Policy Debate Among Presidential Candidates

Comments Filter:
  • Science?!? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @08:47AM (#41079745)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @09:17AM (#41079979)

    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.

"Pull the trigger and you're garbage." -- Lady Blue