John McCain has been relatively quiet on science, in spite of his belated answers to Science Debate 2008. Particularly worrisome is his apparent disconnect with the need to improve, nay overhaul (see the recent NAS publication "Rising Above the Gathering Storm"), K-12 science education. One of his few statements came in a primary debate on Univision, the major Spanish-language network:
Matters of science, technology, and related economic growth favor the democrat philosophy and Senator Obama, and he should attack McCain/Palin on this clear weakness. McCain/Palin are handicapped on science and technology progress by virtue of their religious beliefs.
Matters of science and technology are very critical in the 2008 election, probably more than in any election in history. Sure, small town people who value guns and religion don't understand science and technology, but they must know how critical it is to survival in the 21st centure. It is the religious right views held by republicans, particularly that of "creationism v. evolution (science), and life," and the roles that humans and the planet are thought to play in the big picture, that handicap the republicans in foreign policy and domestic progress on matters involving science and technology. The religious right time and again continues to discount science and the planet, and want us to place their beliefs front and center to determine broader policy. It is down right scarry, if not incompetence and a failure of one's duty to lead! Fairy tales are not policy!Discussions on energy and science are leading this 2008 election, with energy emerging as the No. 1 issue, and doubling as economic and adverse environmental impact. Health care is next as it relates to R&D, costs, and efficacy of care and treatment - again about science. Thirdly, it is our advances in technology today that drive much of our economy. I believe all three science sectors favor the Obama/Biden platform and should be excellent theatre debate! We must also demand more scientifically accurate discussion of science topics in debate and coverage. Such debate should favor Senator Obama over McCain due to his more recent schooling, whereas the GOP VP Palin's younger age and environmental interests could balance out any McCain objections. Note I only include the environmental sciences as it relates to energy, as many still challenge the reports, and it is best to avoid having a "debate within a debate." Clearly, the pinacle of all science debates is that of creationism v evolution. And based upon the GOP's vice-presidential pick of Governor Palin as a creationist, the GOP would likely try to kill discussion on this topic. But as voters, we cannot give McCain/Palin a free pass on a sciences debate. Obama should engage the GOP. The creationists view is a liability as to embracing 21st century economic development fueled by new products and discoveries in the field of science. Truly science's best marketing will come by way of featuring new products and discoveries. Television ads and programming could play a major role in the campaign, and later in promoting new science discoveries, as it did in the late 1950's, when then actor Ronald Reagan hosted "GE Theatre." As a voter and scientist, I am offended when a candidate is unable to grasp key science concepts and data when discussing a key science or technology issue. We should DEMAND more factual coverage of science topics when they impact a candidates understanding of such things as energy, health policy, military perogatives, economic growth, and so on.
I am posting a link to a web page by the organizers of Science Debate 2008. They originally scheduled several debate venues and times along with invitations to all the Presidential candidates to debate these key questions about their commitment to the role of science and technology in solving very big issues.
All the candidates either flatly declined or ignored the invitations, apparently because they felt the topics were too specialized or not general enough to be of interest. Whatever the reason, these questions that were to be considered are too important to ignore. Here they are: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=35
I recommend that everyone look over these questions and start to pester the candidates with them until we get an idea about their policy positions. These questions relate to the very quality of life in this country and how we can balance the resources we have to solving some big problems. The Obama campaign has these questions now, and needs to address them soon.
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=32
Why can't Obama even acknowledge the organizers of this debate? Especially since he's clearly got the nomination in hand -- these issues need to be addressed.
