Here's a nice argument from an op-ed in the Wichita Eagle that I think summarizes the issues well:
Presidential race needs science debateIndeed.
Science and technology are central to many of America's most pressing challenges and controversies: Climate change. Energy independence. Stem cell research. Nuclear proliferation. And on and on.
You wouldn't know that, though, by listening to the presidential debates so far.
If these questions do come up, they're often swiftly dispatched with a boilerplate answer or two.
Too often, science is pushed to the sidelines of presidential debates to make way for presumably weightier topics, such as whether Hillary Clinton is really likable or whether Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO.
In one forum, Mike Huckabee responded to a question about a proposed Mars mission by suggesting that Clinton should be the first passenger.
OK. But can we get serious for a moment?
The next president faces difficult, historic decisions in science and technology that will shape our country's future for decades to come.
That's why voters should support a bipartisan effort now gaining steam to hold a presidential science debate.
A grassroots group called Science Debate 2008 is pushing for a televised debate sometime after the Feb. 5 primaries to plumb the candidates' views on energy and the environment, technological and scientific innovation, and medicine.
Organizers say the purpose is simply to acknowledge the overriding importance of science and technology to our nation's prosperity and future.
That future is hardly assured.
A recent report from the National Academies of Science, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," reported that the "scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength."
Just a few examples:
• The United States is now a net importer of high-technology products.
• In 2003, American 15-year-olds ranked 24th out of 40 countries in an examination of students' ability to use mathematical skills to solve real-world problems.
• China and India are leaving the United States behind in producing new engineering doctorates.
For the most part, the candidates have offered few specifics about science policy or they've dodged the questions altogether.
Why? Because science isn't one of the issues the bases of either party are fired up about right now. And candidates aren't always eager to talk about these complex issues.
No one expects them to be experts on nuclear physics or the intricacies of evolutionary theory. But voters deserve to know whether a candidate has some scientific literacy, is comfortable discussing and evaluating technological issues, and employs good science and standards of evidence in decision-making.
Among the questions that could be asked at a debate:
Is it realistic for the United States to achieve energy independence? How do we get there?
What is the government's role in fostering innovation and the new generation of alternative energy technology?
How can our schools better prepare students to compete in science and mathematics?
Should creationism and intelligent design be taught in our schools?
How do you assess the evidence for climate change, and are specific measures needed to control greenhouse gases?
What is the future of NASA's manned space program?
How can we continue to attract the world's best and brightest scientists to study and live here?
Democrats charge that under President Bush, scientists' advice has been censored and politicized. Is that true? If so, what would you do to restore the integrity of science?
Americans deserve clear, specific answers to these and a host of other questions.
Admittedly, a science debate will be difficult to pull off amid the tight election-year schedule. Don't expect the candidates to jump at the opportunity. But a growing number of leading science organizations, university presidents, business leaders and politicians are endorsing the idea.
The timing is right for citizens to make a difference.
To get involved, check out the group's Web site at sciencedebate2008.com and sign the petition. At the very least, let the candidates and media know you want a more meaningful discussion of science policy.
We can't afford not to talk about science and innovation. America's future depends on it.
Randy Scholfield is an Eagle editorial writer. His column appears on Fridays. Reach him at 316-268-6545 or rscholfield@wichitaeagle.com.
