Monday, April 14, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version

Science Debate 2008

by Kansas City Star

Reposted from:
http://kcearthnotes.kansascity.com/node/321

See more about the Science Debate 2008 at:
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com

Is it important? Well, if you want to stop America's seemingly inexorable decline, it might be absolutely critical.

What are the biggest policy issues in America--and the world--today? How do you apply scientific knowledge to public policy? Will the presidential candidates have a science debate in 2008?

We've heard the statements many times over the past few years: In less than five years something like 90% of all scientists and engineers will reside in Asia, American workers will not be able to compete with the best in a global economy, and the United States has begun to implode.

Is this all true? It could be. Is all of this inevitable? Inevitable it certainly is not, but increasingly likely unless we change drastically.

Science and rational thought have always held on by the skin of their teeth throughout human history. The supernational and the assortment of imaginary friends have always been pounding on the gates of reason. The gates however do not have to come crashing down.

A number of distinguished scientists have come together to demand a serious science debate among the presidential candidates beginning on April 18th in Philadelphia. To hear what some of these people are saying go to Scientists ( http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=23 ). To learn more about this initiative go to www.ScienceDebate.com .

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, April 14, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 28 of 28 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #160781 by Podaar on April 14, 2008 at 11:41 am

Thank you for posting this. I was out for drinks last Friday when one friend complained about another religious debate between the candidates being eminent. We all agreed we'd love to see a science debate.

I'll be passing along this link.

Other Comments by Podaar

2. Comment #160782 by HourglassMemory on April 14, 2008 at 11:41 am

I really really really do hope America gets to do this. And makes people watch it. It's a way to get tons of ignorant americans thinking about science at least once in their lives.

I hope it does, then, do it in the future, again and again.
In a way, I want to see how much importance people give to Science.
I woudln't be surprised though, if this turned out to be the least watched debate of all.

It is also an oportunity to try and make Science something that isn't just the stuff in schoolbooks and "facts kids don't need to know".
A lot of the science I know ... I really have no use for it....but I want to know it!

I think most people just don't get that little bug inside them that gets them really ticking to find things out and be grateful for Science's achievements and importance.
That and critical thinking.

But of course this debate wouldn't be a lecture to inspire....but just to see how much importance the candidates give to Science in general.

I think this debate is tremendously important.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

3. Comment #160786 by Pattern Seeker on April 14, 2008 at 11:45 am

I'm afraid if we had a real science debate the candidates would show their real ignorance on the issues. Remember, faith you can fake and bullshit your way through, science requires you to actually know something. The candidates, for the most part, have shown they know nothing.

See The Compassion Forum from last night:

This is Obama Pt. 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd-1Pild_Jg

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

4. Comment #160806 by sidfaiwu on April 14, 2008 at 12:14 pm

if you want to stop America's seemingly inexorable decline

Decline? I don't really see a long-term decline. If anything, the history of America is nothing but punctuated progress; economic, scientific, and social progress. It's all too easy to prey on people's natural insecurities about the future.

Despite the appeal to emotion at the beginning (which I find quite distasteful), I still like the idea of scientific debate.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

5. Comment #160817 by Greybishop on April 14, 2008 at 12:28 pm

While a candidate debate might be interesting, I agree with Pattern Seeker that for the most part it would only serve to expose a lot of ignorance.

More useful (although less likely to have many viewers) would be a debate between the people the candidates plan to appoint as science advisors.

I don't really care if the president understands all the science, but I sure as hell care that his/her scientific advisor understands it and has the ability to explain it properly.

Other Comments by Greybishop

6. Comment #160833 by scooternyc on April 14, 2008 at 12:55 pm

So, with this information, should we presume that those of opposition on this subject will be voting for McCain?

If this be your most important issue, then John is your answer:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080414/NATION/952356185/1001

Other Comments by scooternyc

7. Comment #160843 by Koreman on April 14, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Science is not interesting. You want to win hearts if you want to get elected. The only way to do so is having faith. Have faith in goddidit and have faith in the wise people in the wise country that make wise decisions, led by goddidit. Science is too complex and demands a lot of money. That part is understood by many.

Politics is superstition.

Other Comments by Koreman

8. Comment #160872 by aquilacane on April 14, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Hourglass Memory Wrote:
"I really really really do hope America gets to do this. And makes people watch it. It's a way to get tons of ignorant americans thinking about science at least once in their lives."

Unfortunately some of those ignorant people are the candidates themselves. They don't want a science debate because they don't know what to say.

You may as well have a debate on the benefits of Scaliptigonal Functionality inside the Rotoscopic Membrance and how those benefits can cause greater Rapinticlular Behaviour in the Oscilabnum Nodes of a Polansticious society. It's pure mumbo to these people. The most you can hope for is a prepped answer to a typical question.

Other Comments by aquilacane

9. Comment #161044 by Tack on April 14, 2008 at 5:26 pm

We've heard the statements many times over the past few years: In less than five years something like 90% of all scientists and engineers will reside in Asia, [...]

This sounds like it's among the 87.9% of all statistics that are made up. Is this claim actually based on anything? I'm curious where the number came from.

Other Comments by Tack

10. Comment #161046 by RobDinsmore on April 14, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Well I signed it. Lets see what will come of it.

They just debated jesus last night, perhaps they would like to discuss a real issue.

Other Comments by RobDinsmore

11. Comment #161096 by flobear on April 14, 2008 at 7:42 pm

I don't care if they remember much of high school biology or not. What matters is if they hire a good science adviser and listen to them. What matters is if they trust scientific evidence for what it is. What matters is if they accept scientific consensus and act upon it.

Other Comments by flobear

12. Comment #161125 by BeyondBelief on April 14, 2008 at 9:07 pm

I just watched "The Compassion Forum."

Senator Clinton, what's your favorite Bible Story?

Jesus H. Christ!! We need a science debate, and we also need individual candidates to stand up for the concept that law is based on fact and negotiation among humans, not on 2000 year old books and lightning bolts tossed by deities.

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

13. Comment #161143 by kintaro_crab on April 14, 2008 at 11:30 pm

I support the science debate.

We've heard the statements many times over the past few years: In less than five years something like 90% of all scientists and engineers will reside in Asia, American workers will not be able to compete with the best in a global economy, and the United States has begun to implode.

^_^Fixed Thankyou

But I don't agree with this statement made above^. I agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson when he said that Asia has a larger amount of science graduates but that doesn't make them good scientists. Not to mention, Asian countries don't allow for as much study abroad or foreign researchers as most western countries do. China, Japan, Korea, India, they still have relatively closed boarders to foreign scientists. For the most part foreign scientists still go to western countries not the opposite.

This may sound racist, but I have also personally witnessed the worst unethical behavior coming out of scientists from China and Korea. Blatant disregard for properly disposing of harmful reagents to 'save time'. Performing research for Dupont, cigarette companies, various others. A Chinese researcher at my own school is being charged for taking advantage of women from China, first giving them jobs then taking advantage of them under threat of deportation. And I probably don't have to even explain Han and Warda's Mitochondria Review.

BTW: Not that it should matter, but this view point is coming from an Asian.

Other Comments by kintaro_crab

14. Comment #161149 by sent2null on April 15, 2008 at 12:37 am

Kintaro_crab

To use blockquotes the correct syntax is:

< blockquote> stuff here < / blockquote>

(remove spaces before "b" and it should render as)

stuff here

The start and close tags must match (in your example you had a typo on the "qoute" start tag..which is the wrong tag to boot!)

Other Comments by sent2null

15. Comment #161253 by Ygern on April 15, 2008 at 4:29 am

I'll link to the site from some other forums I participate in & try to raise some awareness about the debate.

I am disappointed in how few people care about this issue, even on this site of all places. It seems that we prefer the cheap and easy wisecracks about politicians' religious nonsense.

BTW, the last link in the article is wrong - could admin fix it.

Other Comments by Ygern

16. Comment #161292 by bugaboo on April 15, 2008 at 6:02 am

"America's seemingly inexorable decline" ? Look at any issue of Nature, Science, PNAS etc etc What percentage of papers are presented from American labs/researchers? It must be approaching 90%. I suspect also that to gain points in any debate candidates will have to pay lip service to alternative therapies etc. Would any of the candidates risk dismissing ID in a science debate? I do like the idea of such a debate however

Other Comments by bugaboo

17. Comment #161337 by eirik on April 15, 2008 at 7:22 am

The supernational and the assortment of imaginary friends have always been pounding on the gates of reason.

I'm guessing that by supernational they really mean supernatural..? :)

Other Comments by eirik

18. Comment #161349 by j.mills on April 15, 2008 at 7:39 am

It would be nice to think that candidates would have credible and informed views on the importance of science, and some idea of what they would fund or prioritise, even if they don't know an enzyme from an enema. They should have a position on how it's taught and what it means for contrary religious beliefs.

But it's not obviously in their interests to clarify their positions...

Other Comments by j.mills

19. Comment #161362 by Ygern on April 15, 2008 at 8:00 am

I think there's a fear on many people's part (including the candidates) that they are not smart enough to talk about science or follow a discussion about science.

However, this isn't about getting candidates to pretend that they are budding physicists or can elaborate on string theory the most. It's about more basic issues like how science is taught in schools, and what their thoughts are on issues like global warming, research etc.

Any lay person can have an opinion on this.

Other Comments by Ygern

20. Comment #161400 by exquisitetruth on April 15, 2008 at 8:50 am

This is exactly what my podcast is all about.

exquisitetruth.com

Other Comments by exquisitetruth

21. Comment #161455 by RobDinsmore on April 15, 2008 at 10:04 am

"America's seemingly inexorable decline" ? Look at any issue of Nature, Science, PNAS etc etc What percentage of papers are presented from American labs/researchers? It must be approaching 90%. I suspect also that to gain points in any debate candidates will have to pay lip service to alternative therapies etc. Would any of the candidates risk dismissing ID in a science debate? I do like the idea of such a debate however

Even if it is 90%( 10/13 reports in last Science) as you say, you are picking elitist journals, which often publish based on the lab the research was done it and the author's connections. You would then have to look at the authors names and see where they end up in 5 or 10 years. Graduate students come form China, do their PhDs and perhaps a postdoc or 2 and then go back to China for their careers.

Also look at other journals. APL, Applied Physics letters, for example has a lot of papers from non US labs. The results in this journal are not as sexy as those in Nature or Science, but they show work done on advanced technology. Another piece of anecdotal evidence comes from my lab. A Korean postdoc who works in my lab says that he has to get a Science or Nature paper in order to compete for academic jobs at top Korean universities. So his intent is to get a good publication in an elite journal and then set up shop back in Korea. The paper would of course appear to come from UIUC.

Other Comments by RobDinsmore

22. Comment #161480 by bluebird on April 15, 2008 at 10:38 am

It's been postponed, the 3 candidates still haven't accepted the debate invitation:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33774

IMO someone such as Neil DGT or Bill Nye would be a good moderater.

Other Comments by bluebird

23. Comment #161871 by dragonfirematrix on April 15, 2008 at 7:59 pm

I hope I have not missed the point of this article… but I cannot help myself.

As a person who does vote, I am very tired of hearing the American presidential candidates talk about their faith. Their faith is not helping me with my health care expenses, my fuel bills, or my retirement savings. I am sixty. I expected the GOP to kiss up to the fantasies and superstitions of the religious right who are destroying America one day at a time, but I had hoped the Democratic Party would have more sense.

I am certain that if the American presidential candidates, particularly those of conservative leanings, attempted a discussion on real science, they would fail in that discussion as miserably as the Christians have failed the American dream today.

It totally baffles me that the Christians in America would tear down all that science provides us in favor of that in which they know subjugates humanity to the complete familial, mental, and physical poverty of another Dark Age. I guess the Christians want to join the Islamic in the destruction of the future.

If America does not want to take the lead in real education, real medicine, real science, etc., then, by all means, may the next progressively thinking nation step up to the plate. A cheering future is awaiting your contributions.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

24. Comment #161963 by thewhitepearl on April 15, 2008 at 9:37 pm

I fully support and am looking forward to this possiblility!

It's a step in the right direction. We need more awareness nad light shed on in America towards science and science education.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

25. Comment #162042 by bugaboo on April 16, 2008 at 3:46 am

Comment #161455 by RobDinsmore

your points are well taken.

Other Comments by bugaboo

26. Comment #162660 by Border Collie on April 17, 2008 at 7:33 am

GFL

Other Comments by Border Collie

27. Comment #162662 by AllanW on April 17, 2008 at 7:46 am

The points Rob makes in #161455 are apposite. The proportion of foreign post doc students that remain and work in American institutions is the key driver. My view (I need more data yet) is that this is falling.

Again a prediction that will/will not be fulfilled is that this concentration of science in the US will be overturned with a very small actual shift of research participants moving abroad; once the tide turns the flood will all be in one direction.

A crucial aspect of assessing when the tide turns is to map the movement of projects (and research funds) that pick up American funding but which actually get spent outside America.

I think that without concerted action soon this scenario becomes more likely (with current trends) and my prediction fulfilled in less than twenty years.

See below for the most recent of many poieces of information;

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1066

Other Comments by AllanW

28. Comment #162995 by HourglassMemory on April 17, 2008 at 7:25 pm

The debate will not be happening.

the official site shows recent links. One of them is from TIME.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/the_debate_that_didnt_happen.html

Here's the official site of the Science Debate 2008, presenting other recent articles on the matter:
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php

EDIT: I'm not sure if, in the main page, where it says "Invitation II" is a sort of new arrangement and proposal.

Here they mention that the debate will take place in May.
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=29

I'm confused, wasn't it supposed to happen tomorrow, Ap. 18 ?

Other Comments by HourglassMemory